Stephn Walt on Eygpt: A Realist Perspective

Walt gives a realist argument about why the U.S. should allow Mubarak to go and why to the U.S. should hope to see democracy gain a foothold. By doing so, Walt shows that "realist" thinkers do not concern themselves only with matters of military and economic power, but that the legitimacy and popularity of a regime count for a great deal also. Thus, this gives some insight into not only a crucial foreign policy decision, but also it displays a more sophisticated realism.

Ross Douthat on Egypt

Douthat raises all of the right questions and lists all of the possible trade-offs if the U.S. backs Mubarak or if it sees him go. He notes in the end--and this is the real significance--what happens in the streets of Egypt will control the outcome. The U.S. is more of a bystander than a participant. There are limits to power.

On Egypt

I'm now watching Fareed Zakaria's Global GPS about Egypt. In general, this is the best public affairs program on TV, and today is no exception. The discussion about developments from participants in Egypt and by U.S. diplomats and academics. The discussion is intelligent and articulate. Speakers are sharp enough to note that we should worry more about the Russian revolution precedent than the Iranian revolution precedent. A really insightful take. And no one else gets current power holders on to speak like Zakaria--David Cameron interview coming up!

BTW, the site changes from time-to-time. A great place to see the show without commercials. The site usually changes on Monday to reflect the show from the day before.

More on the Financial Crisis

This article by NYT financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson reinforces what I saw last night & reinforces my belief that we haven't done nearly enough to address these problems. However, this article by Frank Partnoy (whom I think was interviewed in the film) suggests that we might find some accounting yet for the numerous misdeeds that occurred.

Movie Review: Inside Job

Iowa Guru & I went to see this Oscar-nominated documentary film tonight. It tells the story of the 2008 financial crash from its from its roots in the 1980's to its current repercussions (or lack thereof). The film takes a complex subject and makes it comprehensible to a wide audience. I didn't learn anything especially new, as I've read a fair amount on the topic already. However, it's well done, and it carefully documents its conclusions. Some sub-themes, for instance, like the academic conflicts-of-interest, were especially well explored.

Don't go for any reassurance that the world has been set aright. Essentially, we established a perverse incentive system, moral hazard, totally insufficient regulations, and a culture of greed, and then we expected smoke and mirrors to make us rich. In the past I've commented on how traditional, "free market" economics has demonstrated its shortcomings during this crisis. Here, we hear and see the actual economists, like Alan Greenspan, who sold this bill of goods. It wasn't just an error in knowledge and modeling, we have some serious ethical corruption as well.

I will not sleep better tonight for having seen this movie. One of the really puzzling aspects of Obama's response to this was his appointment to so many insiders to positions in the Administration who had some hand in setting up and maintaining this corrupt system. C & I believe that he felt he could not afford to appoint rookies or outsiders when the system was on the brink of collapse. Perhaps this is a wise decision, but it comes at the cost of maintaining the status quo, for the most part. The filmmakers don't see much fundamentally changed by the financial reform bill. Better than nothing, but not enough. I suspect very much that the filmmaker is right. BTW, the film was written and directed by Charles Ferguson. I hope that they win the Academy Award for Best Documentary! See this film!

What To Do in Egypt?

Yesterday, in response to 1HP's questioning of Obama Administration policy about Egypt (to have been delivered by her White House contact), I raised these questions:
1. If the U.S. believes that Islamic radicals—anti-democratic & theocratic—would replace Mubarak, should we then determine that it would be better to wait for other reform?
2. If the U.S. believes that Mubarak is a better strategic partner than any likely replacement (and who knows who might emerge in power if wide spread disruption occurs), should we practice realism over an ideology of democracy?
3. Given Egypt’s current state of development, can we expect some worthwhile (i.e., more than plebiscite) democracy take root in Egypt? To what extent is the U.S. foolish to encourage democracy in places where the social & economic conditions make its success unlikely? See, for instance. F. Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad.
4. To what extent should we see Mubarak as like the Shah of Iran? Will continued U.S. support only flame resentment against the U.S. for propping up an unpopular dictator? Or is Mubarak different, less odious?

Then I read this article by Leslie Gelb, foreign policy big wig. Well, at least by him I was asking the right questions. But I'm not sure either of us have "the right" answers. Politics always seems a matter of trade-offs.

Nick Morgan on Public Speaking Tips

This is a fine piece, a sound-bite size tip on giving great presentations. Just enough to whet the appetite. If you have to present (and who doesn't?), then its worth < 3 minutes to consider these simple points.

Robert Wright on the U.S. as Global Cop

Robert Wright makes a good point here, one that others have made before him and that we continue to ignore at our peril. We pay a huge cost for being (we think) the "sole superpower" and de facto global cop. We pay for it financially and in our standing in the world. We do need more collective efforts, which we used in the Cold War (think NATO). We were always the biggest contributor, but never the only one. Maybe, to some extent, we've always been suckers. However, it's time to stop. We have to get beyond the paranoia of shared sovereignty. We need to work our real collective action strategies.

Well, one can hope.

David Brooks on the Asian Tiger Mom

Brooks makes a great point here in the bruha about Amy Chua and her hardcore Chinese mother portrait. Simply put, learning to deal with other people effectively is the most challenging and rewarding skill of all. Indeed, many think that the human brain expanded markedly in order to deal with group dynamics, coupled with speech that allowed for social coordination. I've argued that those with the best communication skills and the attendant ability to "read" other people will take a person to the top of about any group. Group dynamics are a real challenge in any group: at work, in the family, on a team. You name it, and group dynamics are the challenge. Why do young people benefit from athletics, plays, music, and the like? Of course exercise, or musical performance and so on are good in themselves, but learning to work together as a group is the key point. As someone who's a member of and observed athletic teams, I can tell you group cohesion is the sine quo non of success. Ask Coach K or John Wooden if you have doubts. I'm sure other performance coaches will tell you the same thing. So, I think Brooks is right--don't be so easy on your kids, Chua! Make them mix it up!

P.S. I did see one of her daughters defended her in print. I also see that dad, too, is a Yale law professor. I think we have some Pygmalion effect here, too.

Positive Communication: The King's Speech

Since I've been writing a lot about speech lately, and unfortunately, much of it concerning the surfeit of hate speech, it was nice to see The King's Speech last night with C. Simply put, one man's speech, crucial to a nation, becomes unleashed through dedication, experimentation, and the teacher's open heart that is willing, indeed almost demands, an open heart from his famous pupil. Colin Firth gives another excellent performance in what must be a very challenging role. Playing a stutter for someone like him who normally delivers lines as smooth and silky as his good looks must have been quite difficult. His performance, and that of the remainder of the cast, were quite fine. While George VI's speech at the outbreak of the war must have been quite moving, we also know that Churchill's speech (and he too had a speech impediment--listen to him lisp his "s's") helped win the war. Yes, speech can serve a powerful good. Speech, for good or ill, is quite powerful. In this film we celebrate how it comes to empower a man and a nation.

Twofer: Presentation Zen on Dr. Brene Brown

Garr Reynolds @ Presentation Zen and in his books has some very important things to say about communication. In this particular entry, you get a double treat because he embeds a TED Talk by Dr. Brene Brown, professor of social work. I'd not heard of her before, but she made an excellent presentation. Interestingly, she reminds me of themes that famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence preaches in his teaching: vulnerability and communicating from the heart. Not very lawyerly by most peoples beliefs, but in fact, as Spence's success demonstrates, it's how one connects with others. Anyway, both Reynolds and Dr. Brown are well worth the time and effort.

Wills on Lincoln's Great Speeches & Obama's Arizona Speech

I'm having a hard time getting away from this topic, but some commentators have given us some profound insights. Now Garry Wills weighs in. Wills, who has leveled some harsh criticism of Obama, here compares him to Lincoln and Shakespeare in using words as healing balm for others and for the nation. High praise indeed! Like Lincoln, Obama chose to use the occasion to provide words of healing and not condemnation. Like Shakespeare's Henry V, Obama uses words to praise heroism and shared endeavor's from which future generations can draw succor.

Nick Morgan on Obama's Speech

Morgan makes a point that everyone should grasp: there is a huge difference between free speech and license. In other words, government regulation of speech should occur only under very limited circumstances, but within society, we should eschew speech that is hateful, false, and malicious. Morgan writes:

We can all do our bit. Don’t read, promulgate, or write pieces that promote unmitigated hate. Avoid the obscene rants and the lunatic fringe. Have a working assumption that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re immoral or insane. And take the time to listen -- as honestly and respectfully as you want to be listened to in turn -- to all the other voices that make up our unruly, difficult democracy.

To which I say "amen!". Also, he includes a very poignant portion of Obama's Tuscan speech.

Reinhold Niebuhr on Hope, Love, and Forgiveness

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. ... Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.

Quoted by David Brooks in the previous post.

David Brooks on Civility & the Paradox of Sinfulness & Ignorance

It seems that every time Paul Krugman offers a trenchent opinion on a political or cultural topic, along comes David Brooks to challenge or amend it. So it is on the issue of civility.

The important point Brooks makes in this column arises from the paradox of sinfulness and ignorance. Simply put, Brooks argues that if we acknowledge our sinfulness and our limitations--our often tragic shortcomings and limitations--we will, collectively, move life forward little by little. But only by recognizing our limitations can we hope to act with the necessary humility, caution, and deference that will allow us to live with our respective limits and not destroy ourselves. Brooks argues, however, that contemporary culture too readily celebrates our "achievements" and narcissism. Using sports as an example, he compares the public humility of Joe DiMaggio with contemporary athletes who seem to miss no opportunist to exalt their achievements. Of course, if this were limited to athletics, we'd have an annoyance rather than something to fear, but he argues that this attitude pervades our larger culture.

What Brooks argues, I believe, draws on some of the best wisdom of both Classical and Christian culture. For instance, the professed ignorance of Socrates and the sense of moral failure explicit in St. Augustine. Brooks cites one of his favorite Christians, Reinhold Neibuhr for his concluding thought on the topic.

(See the next post. I want those who may not wade through my patter of have the best shot @ appreciating the quote.)

Krugman on Obama's Speech & Prospects for a Rhetorical Truce

I mostly agree with Krugman on this one. Yes, we do have some divides. We always have had such divides as a nation (think Jefferson & Hamilton), but they should be mostly political, on the margins. As someone brought up Republican, and having come to know it well before leaving the fold, I can say that limited government and lower taxes can be good things. It depends on what government functions you're limiting, what alternatives exist to fulfill public goods, and what you loose by lowering taxes, or conversely, what you get for your money. Active, engaged political discourse on these issues should be the lifeblood of a democracy. However, when paranoia creeps in, as it does on both left and right--although I think much more often and virulently on the right--then we have a poisoned public sphere. Thus, I think Krugman a little too pessimistic about possible reconciliation. Even on a heated topic like abortion, thoughtful discourse should agree that abortion isn't the best form of birth control, that women wanting to keep their children should have good options available to them, and if you think abortion absolutely wrong, you should act to help those in need as well as work to share your moral vision in a moral (i.e., non-violent) way. I think many do that. It's clear, however, that some few who opposed abortion as killing seem willing to kill to stop it. John Brown syndrome we might call it. But this is not true for most, and it should be so for all forms of dissent.

Robert Wright on Political Discourse

Robert Wright is a person whose opinion I find trustworthy and thoughtful, and he doesn't disappoint in this instance. Was the shooter crazy? Of course. Was he likely influenced by political rhetoric that depicts differing political views as alien? Yes, probably. We simply cannot swim in a sea of political vituperative and not become infected.

Mark Sisson with an inspirational photo

I had to post this link just for the photo. I can't do that (planche in gymnastics parlance, I believe). I can do some arm balances in yoga class, but not this. Well, something to aspire to besides all white hair. I hope I'm closer to the planche than the all white mane.

David Brooks on the Arizona Shootings

When something as horrible as the rampage in Arizona occurs it does force us to consider some issues very carefully, and David Brooks, as usual, takes a careful look at the events in Arizona. Most importantly, he suggests based on reasonable evidence that the shooter suffers from schizophrenia. Of those who do suffer from this disease, a small sub-group are violent. We, as a society, have to learn how to deal with such individuals. Brooks goes on to contest the narrative that this individual acted because of inflamed political rhetoric. Yes and no. No, in the sense that he may not have been even capable of rational (in any sense of the word) political thinking, but yes in the sense that I wrote about yesterday. I just don't believe words of hatred and invective don't have an effect, especially on the weak-minded (for lack of a better term).

We saw this problem raised in Michael Mooore's "Bowling for Columbine". Moore ranged over a wide territory in attempting the assess what occurred in those horrible shootings. Is it the gun culture? Is it the perpetual war machine that we support? Is it some ideology? In the end, Moore convinced me of nothing. He raised a lot of interesting questions and displayed a lot of interesting associations, but his work can only raise questions, it doesn't provide answers (his intention notwithstanding). We need deep, serious thought and study about how to address individuals like those at Columbine and this shooter. Strongly alienated, disaffected males (yes, males, let's not go PC on any of this). I, for one, think that access to firearms is way too easy.But restrictions on access to firearm isn't a complete answer. We've had two rampage murder-suicides here in Johnson County since I've practiced here, so these challenges are not limited to Arizona or to gun-happy cultures. No, we need to think deeply and hard about all of this. There are no easy answers.

More Thoughts on the Arizona Shootings

These thoughts by Timothy Egan and these from Jonathan Chait @ TNR add to the current discussion about the effect of incendiary or outright hate speech. The piece from TNR raises a good point: to say that discourse should become more civil and less incendiary is different from trying to "limit free speech". There's a difference, a crucial difference, between norms (voluntary, governed by social convention) and laws (enforced by the coercive power of the state). I don't want to limit free speech, which is to say I don't think that the government should normally control what people can say. However, by the use of social norms, I suggest that we can and should limit such speech. How? Don't listen to it (e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, who get paid according to their ratings). I wouldn't let someone use my blog space to spew hatred or invective. Remember, "free speech" is a matter of legal rights that limit government action and not a compulsory requirement for individuals or private entities.

I truly believe that spirited public discourse can be fruitful in a democracy. However, invective, calling into question the legitimacy of an adversary, grade-school level name-calling--all of that is unnecessary and stupid. (How's that for invective!)

Finally, we are influenced by words. Some--especially the mentally limited or deranged--more than others. We like to think that "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me". But you know that's not true. Please write in if you've never been cut by words. Please write if you have reacted viscerally to some report that has later proven false or incomplete. Let's face it, humans, we're all suckers for words. We need to have our crap-detectors on 24/7, but it's not easy. Think of the incredible karma for words, how they are all mustard seeds. Some blow away in the wind, some grow a bit and die, but some, in the right conditions, come to fruition, for good or ill. Please! Sow carefully.

Douthat's Counter-Point to Krugman

Because I want to be fair, and because Douthat makes some interesting points, I want to link to his article in counter-point to Krugman's. I still think that that deranged minds aren't so deranged that they act randomly. Irrationally? Yes, but not randomly. The Oswald and Bremer cases are thoughtful counter-points, but I still think that the political atmosphere affects such occurences, more than just a little. Thoughts?

Krugman on the Arizona Shootings

I wish that I didn't think Krugman right about this. I wish we could say that we're experienced an isolated, deranged soul committing a random act of violence. Yes, a deranged soul, but no, it was not a random act of violence. The shooting was aimed at a political figure. Although it came from a deranged individual, the targets were not entirely random--he choose a political target. Someone like this individual, and others before him, act out in a way that they think will resonate in the wider culture.

I also have to say that Krugman is correct when he eschews any pretense that both Left and Right stand equal in invective. The "left", which means, I think, those who adhere to the values of the Enlightenment (and which can certainly include Republicans and conservatives) value reason, democracy, and resist the use of violence. A few--but a very vocal few--on the Right promote fear and violence. Even during the Bush Administration, when from the point of view of many on the Left, our nation's institutions were deeply harmed and our values degraded, we saw no widespread turn to talk of violence and resistance. No, generally in America, violence and fear come from the Right. We see it again. Leaders in the Republican Party need to speak out loudly and clearly against it. Failing to do so may constitute good politics (I hope not), but it clearly constitutes a moral failure.

John LeCarre: Our Kind of Traitor

Yours truly has been a John LeCarre fan for a long time. I have encountered his work both in his novels and in film and television productions of them. He started writing about espionage (and more importantly, those involved in it) during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, he's dealt with corruption of a more private nature for the most part, or one could say in the spirit of current parlance, within the context of a public-private partnership. In some ways, his more recent work makes one almost pine for the good ol' Commies. Now, the nemesis is often found in the nefarious world of corporate crime or "the Americans" running rough-shod into some scheme justified by the "War on Terror" (a term that should be burned at the stake). LeCarre isn't the type of writer you want to read if you want to always look on the bright side of life (to borrow a turn of phrase from his fellow Brits @ Monty Python's Flying Circus).

As to this particular book, I found it one of the most engaging by LeCarre that I've read. I enjoyed its immediate predecessor--A Most Wanted Man--as well, but in this novel, the array of characters really drew me in. The central characters are a young British couple who encounter a family led by a Russian mobster. However, the mobster quickly displays many endearing qualities, plus he has a desire to avenge a death by fellow mobsters. He goes looking for "fair play English". The story unfolds from this chance vacation encounter in Antiqua, then to London, and then on to Switzerland. During the novel, we come to know a number of different characters, and LeCarre paints each one with details that give us a sense of the individuality of each of them. Indeed, as the novel progresses, I come to hope for a happy ending for all of them. But, of course, this is LeCarre, and one just doesn't think that things will work out that way. Of course, to learn how it turns out you need to read the book!

P.S. I didn't link to Amazon's site for the book as I normally do. I listened to this book, I did not read it. The audio presentation was quite good, with the narrator providing excellent characterization to the dialogues. Highly recommended.

Enjoy.

Stephen Walt: Diplomacy at Work & the Value of Deterrence

I found this piece worthwhile, having some interest in diplomacy and international relations, among other things. I hold a particular interest in the workings of deterrence, which, by the way, is not of little consequence in law and life. In this particular speech, the conversation between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. ambassador before the outbreak of the Gulf War suggests that Saddam wasn't fully apprised of the U.S. opposition to an Iraqi invasion and the consequences it would bring to him. One hopes that the decision to go to war wouldn't rest on a single conversation, but sometimes great endeavors, including great mistakes, can flow from tiny causes. Perhaps tiny triggers might provide a better description. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand didn't "cause" the Great War, but it was a trigger, certainly. A match doesn't do much without a powder keg, but in the presence of such a keg, a big match isn't necessary.

Also of note in the piece comes Walt's distinction between the "spiral model" of conflict and that of deterrence theory. An interesting distinction to consider. I'm not sure which one is right (or either), or which of them in might prove most useful in different situations. However, given that life is a lot like IR, it's something worth thinking about.

Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat & What We Can Do About It

This may be the most important book you will read in 2011.
Repeat: this may be the most important book that you read in 2011.

This book is a science book, it is not a diet book.
Repeat: this is a science book, not a diet book. (Well, except in the sense that it's a slimmed down version of his superb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. (I couldn't resist the play on words.)

Taubes takes his groundbreaking work from Good Calories, Bad Calories and reduces it to a more manageable length with the intention of reaching a wider audience. As he notes, and as we all should know, we are currently in the midst of a runaway epidemic of diseases all associated with metabolic syndrome: type 2 diabetes, heart disease & hypertension, and cancer, to name a few of the major diseases that plague us.

So what does Taubes say? I'll attempt to summarize it here:

1. Saying that we get fat because we take in more calories than we expend is like saying that an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he (or she) drinks too much. Dah! The real question: why do we eat (drink) too much?

2. Counting and cutting calories doesn't work. It's too hard, too imprecise (for the purpose it's intended), and it's too irrelevant.

3. More exercise "works up an appetite", and as one of the national news weeklies said in a cover article in the last year or two, it doesn't really seem to help with weight-loss. (It's good for other reasons, but long-term, boring cardio workouts aren't worth much at all and may even prove harmful.)

4. A sedentary life does not (in itself) make a person fat.

5. Some people hold more fat than others do, which is simply to say we have different body types. Some people suffer from rare disorders that cause unusual fat formations on the body. (See photos on the book.)

6. Some people eat enormous amounts of food and don't get fat. It's as if they are robots or are hypnotized to eat lots. E.g., teen-age boys. Can anyone think of any examples?

7. Teenagers, infants, expectant moms: all eat more because their hormones "order" them to.

8. Only two hormones "order" us to fatten up: one doesn't really matter much, and the other is insulin.

9. Insulin orders the body to store fat. The more insulin we produce, the fatter we become.

10. The body produces insulin to process carbohydrates.

11. The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we produce.

12. The more insulin, the more fat, the more fat, the more messed-up our hormone balance becomes and the more insulin resistance we develop (which means the more insulin the body must produce to process any given amount of carbohydrates). You can discern the negative feedback loop that the body enters into here.

13. We can safely replace carbohydrates (not all, mind you) with protein and fat.

14. Fat phobia, at least for some fats, is misguided and bad science. Ditto fear of protein (although, with about anything in Mother Nature, everything has its limits).

Okay, there is my 14-point summary of Taubes's book. I assure you, this summary does not do it justice. Taubes builds his case very meticulously. In addition, his work really brings out the human (and therefore, history) of science. Alas, for all our hopes and dreams, science is a human enterprise, full of all kinds of biases, errors, and contingencies. The loss of German-language medical knowledge and research because of the Second World War comes through clearly in Taubes's books. GC, BC, the longer and more complete book, of course, covers all of this extremely well, the newer book, of necessity, less so, but it still notes some of these twists of fate.

Make no mistake: what Taubes argues is not widely accepted, as he well documents. But ask yourself, how well are we doing in addressing this epidemic of fat and attendant metabolic disease? You and I know the answer: very poorly. Based on the work of Taubes, along with that of De Vany, I really have altered my thinking and, yes, my diet (in some measure, not perfectly) because of this new knowledge. Therefore, if you want a very well written, well argued book to consider, you couldn't find a better book to consider than this one.

More on this topic to come!

Art De Vany on Evolutionary Principles of Health and Fitness

If you haven't read The New Evolution Diet, you should. Note, however, that the word "diet" is in the title in order to categorize the book, and it really doesn't give the work Dr. De Vany has done proper credit. In fact, on his website and in this talk (about 30' long) I've linked, you learn the fascinating science and mathematical modeling behind his work. If you want to listen to a brief, albeit slightly technical consideration of this work, this link will serve as a good starter. His conclusions seem somewhat radical: limited exercise time (no jogging or marathons) , no grains, lots of rest time, and intermittent fasting,which avoids both regular meals (3-6 a day) and the opposite extreme of caloric restriction (CR) over a lifetime. I noted in browsing through a magazine that C bought, it rated New Evolution Diet a "D" book among diet books rated. This shows you how long it takes for popular conceptions, even among journalists who should be on the cutting edge, to catch up with innovative thinking. Anyway, ignore the magazine, and consider this an "A" book for how to live a healthy life.

Ariana Huffington on Sleep From the TED Talks for Women in DC

I agree with her. I, for one, find nothing makes my day better (including, but not limited to, more "productive"), than a good night of sleep (about 8 hours). Take heed and govern yourselves accordingly! (Too bad Berna couldn't score a ticket for this!)

P.S. "Conditioning Research" is a very good health and fitness website from Scotland.

Stephen Walt on the Top Ten Events of the Past Decade (Political Affairs Edition)

Stephen Walt dodges on predictions (wise him) and reflects on events of the past decade. Worth considering. Ponder this? What if Al Gore, who won the popular vote, had been inaugurated president? Where would the U.S. be now? In Iraq? Doubtful. In Afghanistan? Maybe. I doubt we would have avoided 9/11 or at least some similar calamity. And we do our very best to ignore global weirding. What if Gore had been president, would we awaken sooner from our lethargy?

David Brooks on All Things Shining

Because of Brooks's discussion, I'm going to have to read this book. Brooks, who has a very perceptive eye for current culture (his politics are a bit to the right for my tastes, but nonetheless thoughtful). While Maureen Dowd usually has the snarky (and therefore humorous) take on the zeitgeist, Brooks ponders without proving ponderous. In this brief book review (which is what this column is), he raises some really good points. What is the role of the ecstatic in our culture? What role do sports, religion, or culture (music, theater) play in this? How do we distinguish collective feelings of "whooshing" (see his article for a definition) from the bad?For instance,how is a Nazi rally from the 1963 civil rights rally on the Washington mall? The easy answer is content, obviously, but how do we parse more subtle differences? Anyway, a thought-provoking column about what sounds like a thought-provoking book.

The book, by the way, is All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age, by Herbert Dreyfus and Sean Kelly.

A Better Way to Teach History? Niall Fergusson & Tariq Ali

As someone who loved reading and learning history for as long as I can remember (and I don't know what planted this seed), I'm always distressed and puzzled when people say that they don't enjoy learning history. On the other hand, memorizing dates is nonsense. I'm about as good at dates as anyone (save perhaps some professional historians), and I never studied dates.I've learned narratives, and dates were simply place markers. Anyway, this site is about a five-minute long discussion about teaching history in British schools. Fergusson, and his "left" counterpart, Tariq Ali, agree that history teaching is suffering in GB. Their main point: history needs some overarching narrative (or narratives). Not triumphalism or some such nonsense, but at least a set of questions to guide a narrative of inquiry. History isn't just discreet events, its always part of a past and what was a future, it's a flow. Anyway, anyone who's interested in history and how it's taught, this provides a good brief frame.

And is the interviewer THE Colin Firth?

Must You Be of a Certain Age to Enjoy Paul Krugman?

I enjoy reading Krugman for his wit and insight, but now, in addition to earlier Monty Python posts, he's added another blast from my past.

Best Books 2010

Here are my favorite reads and listens for 2010. I will save the favorite in both fiction and non-fiction to the end. Some of these I’ve not posted before (been a bit inattentive of late), but many I’ve posted on before, so I’ll link those to my earlier notes. Besides the last two, I’ll go from the beginning of the year forward. I will include only published books or recorded books . I know the list is long, but I don’t read dogs (or I don’t finish them, although I don’t finish a lot of books that are quite good, but I get distracted to a different topic.) Anyway, enjoy:

If I can get this figured out, I'll re-post with the links that I have with the original reviews. Sorry, but having technical difficulties.

Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)

Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)

Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jean Carlier and Arnold Davidson.

John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Catastrophes.

Geoff Colvin, Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. (Second entry.)

Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State.

Thomas Cahill, The Mysterious Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World. (2nd entry.)

Peter Clarke, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist

Robert Skidelksy, Keynes: The return of the master

Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2nd entry).

Daniel Pink, Drive.

David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything that You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong.

Jack Matlock, Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality.

Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

Dave R. Loy, A Buddhist History of the West: Studies in Lack

Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon

Johan Lukacs, George Kennan: A Study in Character (2nd & 4th entries)

David R. Loy, Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution (2nd entry)

John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past

Ian Rankin, The Naming of the Dead

Clotaire Rapaille, The Culture Code

John Lukas & George Kennan, Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs

Richard Evans In Defense of History

Garry Wills, Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider

David Loy, The World is Made of Stories

Ganga White, Yoga Beyond Belief

John LeCarre, A Most Wanted Man (2nd entry)

Tim Ferriss, The Four-Hour Body

Art DeVany, The New Evolution Diet

Fiction work of the year: Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game.

Non-fiction work of the year: Max Hastings, Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1945 (2nd entry)

And here is hoping for lots of good books for all in 2011!

Art De Vany: The New Evolution Diet

Reading Nassim Taleb's Fooled by Randomness in the spring of 2007, I came across the name of Art De Vany, the author of Hollywood Economics. Taleb mentioned it in his book because it addressed the issue of the difficulty of predicting winning movies. De Vany, an academic economist, talks about power laws, stochastic events, complexity, etc. in that academic work. Taleb noted in passing that De Vany also applied these principles to fitness. I checked it out on the web and discovered De Vany's web site, which I've read off and on since that time. Now, he has out his book. It was worth the wait.

De Vany argues that we will benefit greatly from aspects of the environment that human beings evolved in during the paleolithic age. Put most simply, a diet of meat, nuts, vegetables, and not much else. No grain or dairy, not to mention sugar. And as for exercise: brief bursts of intense exercise with lots of rest in between. Now mind you, De Vany isn't a cave man--he writes a blog and is a retired academic! Indeed, his back story provides an interesting lead up to his recommendations. He was a minor league baseball player before becoming an academic economist. His son and then his wife developed type 1 diabetes (so-called juvenile diabetes), which led him to learn all that he could about the physiology of insulin and how it affects the body. He applied his know-how as an economist to consider the body, and he drew on evolutionary studies to get a sense of how the body evolved. This places him in the lead of the growing area of Paleolithic fitness,diet, and health thinking (with others such as Mark Sisson, Rob Wolff, Erwan Le Corre, etc.)

This is an excellent and thought-provoking book. The guy knows whereof he speaks (as an academic he can read the professional literature, but since it's not his professional field, he doesn't have to kow-tow to anyone.)

BTW, Nassim Taleb, who has since adopted a De Vany-like fitness regimen, authored an Afterward for the book.

To your health!

Orson Scott Card: Ender's Game

Since I'm catching up and doing my end of the year reading pick, I'll say it here: this was my favorite fiction work this year. I thought I learned somewhere that a movie production was coming out, and something prodded me to want to read it. It turns out, no movie. However, I certainly have no regrets in listening to this great SF work (winner of both the Hugo & Nebula awards). Comparisons? It reminded me in some ways of The Lord of the Flies, although the setting is much different. However, it is about children (although some females have roles in this book), and how difficult and sometimes mean-spirirted the world of children can be.

This rightly should be considered an SF classic, and if you're at all of an SF reader, I can recommend it highly. BTW, the audio edition that I listened to was excellent, and an talk by the author amended to the end. The author stated that he preferred the audio production as a way to experience the book. Amen.

Tim Ferris: The 4 Hour Body

This book, one of three in a series that I'll review, comes from writer Tim Ferris, who, in his early 30's, has set himself up as a bit of a publishing phenomena. This title riffs off of his earlier success with The Four Hour Week, and beyond that connection, the title means little. The book, however, is interesting because Ferris has used himself as a human guinea pig. That is, he has tested what he recommends when it comes to hacking the human body for various types of performance or appearance advantages. He does it, so he claims and recommends, all legally. He does mention a lot of supplements, and I don't want to mess with supplements and expensive drugs, even if legal; however, for some it may prove worthwhile. I do like his n=1 experimental style that he pulls from the Seth Roberts, among others (and from whom he includes a brief essay). Ferris invites his readers to pick and choose among his recommendations and experiments, he recommends that you test his recommendations, an attitude of good old-fashioned American pragmatism that I admire. He also give nods to the likes of Pavel Tsatsouline, Art De Vany, Nassim Taleb, and Dr. Doug McGuff, among others, all persons that I think have some very important ideas about health and fitness.

In all, a fun read that you can dip into and find useful and provocative information that might prove useful on the health and fitness path.