Drew Weston Cheers Obama & the Dems

Since I've posted a couple of Weston articles critical of Obama, I think that I should post this piece of praise. I concur with Weston's viowpoint: Obama and the Dems did the right thing, and they should gain an electoral advantage by having done so. A true win-win. Also, Weston is right: some, no many, Republicans seem willing to do anything to defeat Obama, including working to keep the economy in the tank during the election. Too cynical? I wish it were so!

Krugman: Keynes Was Correct!

A succinct and persuasive summary of why policy-makers should be following Keynes's advice and not shunning it. I agree. Remember: Keynes in a crisis; Hayek over the long-term. (Hayek the theorist of limited human knowledge, not the monetary theorist.)

BTW, I've got Wapshot's Keynes Hayek to start reading. So many books, so little time!

Antidote to Stephen Bloom's Bleak Vision

David Brooks, certainly a big-city guy, captures some of the virtues a small town. This could have happened in Iowa, or many other places for that matter. We make trade-offs with every decision, including where we live. Having grown up in a small town, I understand, to some degree, I think, the limitations and virtues. And, contra Bloom, there are virtues and virtuous people in our small towns. Also, Brooks points to an important distinction: communitarian vs. free-market conservatism. Russell Kirk & Robert Nisbet are good examples of the communitarian perspective to contrast with Friedman as a free-market proponent. The communitarians have some important points, but this view point can prove quite confining as well. Cf. Wendell Berry.

On Cloning

From May 5, 2010. Again, I don't know what prompted this, but here it is, even if it's a repeat!

Politicians should make the final decisions about whether to legalize cloning. Politicians, when acting as elected representatives of the electorate, have the broadest mandate and the most comprehensive access to information upon which to base a decision.

When deciding whether to legalize cloning, anyone making the decision must consider a number of factors. Cloning represents a brave new world with tremendous potential for good and ill. Politicians, through debate involved in the electoral process, will have the best sense of what the public will accept as legitimate.

We cannot expect religious leaders to make a final decision because too much diversity exists between religious viewpoints, not to mention secular viewpoints. On topics in which morality plays a paramount role, such as abortion rights, we find that no coherent religious point of view exists. We cannot even define a religious point of view because we have a difficult time defining what constitutes a religious stance. Does Scientology count? Do all forms of Christianity count, from Unitarians to Pentecostals? Should all varieties of Jewish practice receive consideration? When we consider that the U.S. consists of religious practices and beliefs from around the world in addition to our Christian and Jewish heritage, from shamanism to Hindu to Muslim to Buddhist, how could we define the class of decision-makers? Without at least a nominally coherent set of decision makers, we cannot expect a coherent decision to issue forth on such a sensitive topic.

The possibility of using doctors—just medical doctors, or do we consider professional scientists in this class as well?—holds some promise, but this class fails in comparison to politicians also. Doctors can provide a scientific perspective on the issue that that we can’t expect lay people, such as politicians and religious leaders, to provide. Setting aside the moral and religious concerns raised by cloning, the scientific concerns of a biologically unique undertaking must raise serious scientific questions. As cloning represents a form of biological reproduction not found among humans or other more highly evolved species in nature, scientific knowledge becomes crucial in helping us assess the potential costs, risks, uncertainties, and benefits of cloning. For all of their knowledge, however, doctors cannot provide us with answers to questions of how we want to shape and form our society. Doctors, like religious leaders and persons from all walks of life, can participate in political decisions and act as political leaders in helping society make these decisions. When doctors enter the public realm, they do so as politicians, not as physicians.

The unique value of politicians in this circumstance arises from their role in democratic society. Politicians must act as generalists. Politicians must know and understand the values and morals of the electorate (notwithstanding the flaws of their personal morality). Politicians must seek scientific understanding of the consequences

"Stars" in Politics

Cleaning out to start the New Year, I found this essay that I wrote. I don't recall having posted it before, and when I read through it quickly, it still seems basically sound to me. Anyway, I post it for what it's worth.


The U.S. has grown into a polity marked by equality and universal sufferage. Freedom of expression, growing out of the First Amendment to the Constitution, also serves as a benchmark of U.S. politics. Any limitation on the participation of any group—whether of those with whom we agree with or those with whom we disagree—should not be our policy or goal.
The effect of entertainers on contemporary electoral politics is not new. While MTV’s “Rock the Vote” draws the attention of young people in recent elections, it’s basic tenant, that participation in the electoral process is not only socially acceptable, but a genuine good, is not unique. The use of “stars”, names from Hollywood and the entertainment world, has been ongoing at least since the Second World War, when well known actors participated in films supporting enlistment in the armed forces. Ronald Reagan, who served as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and who later served as host of GE Theatre, moved into politics. Reagan joined George Murphy, an actor later elected senator from California, as an example of entertainers who made the transition from fame as entertainers into elected officials. This trend has continued not only in California—witness Arnold Swartzenegger—but also in other parts of the country and involving politicians of a completely different political persuasion. For example, consider comedian-turned-actor Al Franken, recently elected senator from Minnesota. Given that breadth of the political spectrum represented by these few samples, one cannot argue that any particular political party or political perspective gains more from the use of entertainers as candidates or surrogates for candidates. The development of candidates and points of view seems to have little bearing in the eyes of the voting public. A candidate may gave gained name recognition from a career in sports (e.g., Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Tom Osborne) or entertainment, but this only provides an initial gateway past the barrier of name recognition.
The issue of concern in this topic must go the role and responsibility of the media. The media, once exclusively the realm of print, but now led by television and internet sources, must play the key role in discerning whether the fame of a entertainer merits the thoughtful consideration of a voter. Some voters, no doubt, would follow the lead of a famous person just because of the person’s perception of the entertainer’s stage persona, but this kind of limited critical thinking is as old as democracy, and it won’t go away by attempting to ban or downplay the roles of the famous in our electoral system. Instead, we need opinion leaders in all forms of media to foster critical assessments of all those who stand for public office. Much of the media have always enjoyed a strange, symbiotic relationship with the famous, including politicians, at once glorifying them and vilifying them; using them and being used by them. To the extent that members of all facets of the media resist the trap of this strange duet, the more useful the media’s role in democratic societies.
As politics in a democratic society should involve a widespread and varied consideration of all manner of perspective in our complex society, to consider limiting or pre-judging any group is a mistake. Instead, society, led by leaders in the media willing to take up the cause of the public good, should weigh and consider perspectives from all manner of sources. The famous will always flourish in democratic societies, whether military leaders, reformers, entertainers, or sports figures. The question, the challenge, for all becomes our collective ability to discern the merely famous from those who hold the ability to provide leadership and judgment in political office.

Interval Training from Conditioning Research

Roscommon to Imogene recently gave a shout-out to "infographics". I don't know if this is what he meant, but I like this form of information conveyance, and I think that the protocols are well supported. Gotta go sprint!

Habermas on Religion in the Public Square

Jurgen Habermas is probably the most important philosopher and social theorist in post-WWII Europe. Since the 1960's he has been writing on crucial issues of social and political life in Western Europe (and then all of Europe) from a social democratic perspective. In recent years, after having written or said little in the past on the topic of religion before around 2000,since then he's given a good deal of attention to the issue of religion in the public square. This piece, which addresses this issue, provides a good reflection on the issues as he raises them. What role should religious perspectives play in a modern democratic society? Habermas, who conversed with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on these topics, recognizes the role that the Christian tradition played in establishing many of the norms that have come to govern Western societies (and by extension, influence the East as well). A thoughtful and though-provoking piece on continuing issues of great importance.

BTW, I'd don't know that he's improved, but I tackled some Habermas many years ago, and the reading was not light, so say the least. He is, after all, a German academic!

Time Warrior by Steve Chandler

I enjoyed this book, except I’d rename it The Honey-Badger Guide to Doing Things. “Doing things”; that is, doing whatever you deem that you should do RIGHT NOW is the key to the book. Focus, creativity, avoiding rumination, action: in 101 short, almost bite-sized chapters, the author Steve Chandler reminds us of what we can and should do. “Just do it” would be another potential title, but not as an ad slogan, but as a way of life. When you think of it, there’s not a lot new here, but it’s a good reminder of things we “know” but don’t do, and this book is all about the do, the focus.

2011 Best History Books from BrainPickings

I'm new to this site, but I'm impressed with the choices and the quality of the reviews. An eclectic and interesting list.

Jonah Lehrer on the Perils of Causation

Causation: Wow! What a fun & interesting topic--NOT!

Wait a minute! What is or is not "causation" is a profoundly interesting philosophical and practical question. As a lawyer, in most trials, civil and criminal, causation is a crucial issue. And in the world of medicine that I'm involved in both professionally (injuries and their causes constitute major legal issues) and as a layman (what causes this or that pain, which implies a course of treatment), I think an understanding of causation is very important. In addition, causation, as Lehrer argues in this piece, becomes more and more tricky as we seek to refine it. Indeed, one of my major gripes is that we seem to be constantly looking for "the cause" of "cancer" or "war" or you name it. But in fact, there is no "cause", there are many causes of complex phenomena and we have a heck of a time measuring the data. We try to isolate "the cause" and it's very, very difficult, and it's quite often deceiving.

This piece especially caught my eye because I have a wary attitude toward modern medications. Let me quickly say that I take medications and give thanks for the help modern medicines provide millions in alleviating pain and improving health. That said, however, I think that we look for some magic pill to cure all of our ills. For my view, every medicine is a poison in the wrong dose or circumstance, so we have to be very cautious.

I'm also intrigued about back pain, again for both personal and professional reasons. Professionally, persons injures in auto collisions or during work almost always hear the defense, "oh, look, your x-rays show you have degenerated discs, so you had pain anyway", although the client says "no" or "nothing like this". In other words, the views of degenerative or traumatic change don't tell the whole story. I'm also interested because I've suffered back pain (and now nagging pain in my hip). Surgery, drugs? Not for me. I'm trying physical work and some NSAID. I'm now trying somatics (Thomas Hanna, Martha Peterson, etc.) (which seems to be helping), Egoscue, and Yin Yoga, which also help. And what role stress? See John Sarno's work or Tim Parks's book Teach Us to Sit Still. Our body-minds are so complex that we must be cautious, gentle, and conservative from my point of view. Causation is so subtle and complex (see complexity theory) that we are best to use gentle, conservative treatments, I believe.

Anyway, read this article, and give thanks to that other (than Adam Smith) great figure of the British Enlightenment: David Hume.

Longevity

Conditioning Research is an excellent health and fitness blog. The post today shows a chart (I like a splashy chart) about longevity, including known factors that contribute to long life, as well as some speculative information. The "live to 1,000" stuff I'm not buying, but leading a long, healthy, and productive life does seem possible. The only immediate dissent I must register concerns the calorie reduction information. Not that it's wrong, but that a better alternative probably exists: intermittent fasting. Sustained caloric reduction is immensely grim by all accounts and may actually rob a person of energy. Instead, intermittent fasting (going for hours or days without eating from time to time) seems to work as well as caloric restriction (rabbit food 24/7). But I don't know that IF has been as thoroughly tested as caloric restriction.

The Ultimate Stephen Bloom Disses Iowa Rebuttal?

I don't want to create an echo chamber, but hats off to Roscommon to Imogene for pointing out the linked piece in the DMR which shows that, among other things, Iowa has some pretty capable journalists, unlike, say, Stephen Bloom. Good for some laughs. Needed.

More on Hungary: Fascinating & Frightening

Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton provides a follow-up in Paul Krugman's blog post to her (and my) earlier post about Hungary and the assent of the radical righ party.Historians among you will know that the minority Nazi party "hijacked" the German government quite legally in 1933, and then took the State down the road to totalitarianism. I'm not Chicken Little, and Hungary 2011 is not Germany 1933; however, right-wing and left-wing extremists, both anti-democratic and disdainful of human rights, pose a threat to the European project. All the problems with the Euro notwithstanding, Europe since 1945 has been a success. (The book to consult: Tony Judt's Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945.) The post-Warsaw block has seen some serious problems, but nothing (bar Russia's regressions) quite like this, I don't think. Something to watch carefully.

Inequality

I've encountered some interesting considerations about inequality in my wandering readings. In sum, it's a growing problem. Of course, some inequality is inherent in humans, as in other primates. But what I'm referring to is a pervasive inequality that becomes dysfunctional, not to mention unjust.

A good staring point is this Five Books interview with Darin Acemoglu. I think that this shows, like most social phenomena, there is no one answer to the emergence of a phenomenon. See also this presentation by him.

Jack Goldstone, another important social scientist, weighs in with this blog post.

Finally, welcoming back the truth-teller of Iowa (even if he no longer works here), Donald Kaul. Kaul is correct: don't say fault for the precarious situation is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, because it isn't. We'll be damned lucky if we don't repeat the 1930's that way we've set things up like the 1920's.

Creepy Stuff from Hungary

This guest blog by a fellow Princeton faculty member Kim Lane Scheppele about the constitutional changes in Hungary is enough to send shivers up one's spine. Alas, it seems Hungary didn't realize that we are supposed to have arrived at the End of History! (Fukuyama, what do you say?). This really surprises me,because before the end of the Cold War, Hungary was (relatively) open, tolerant, and prosperous. What is guiding this return to radical, right authoritarianism?

More on Stephen Bloom's Atlantic Article About Iowa

This video conversation filmed here in Iowa City provides an interesting consideration of the issues raised by Bloom.

This article in the Press-Citizen adds another UI faculty member (non-native) who makes some pointed criticisms of the Bloom piece.

"Embellishments"--an interesting term to discuss some of Bloom's piece. The best news? Those discussing this realize we do have problems, pretty much like the rest of the nation--or world!

Great Reading Recommendations

Farnum Street came up with this list of lists. Quite a good set of recommendations. Sorry, fiction readers, but very little of that on here, but a lot of very worthwhile recommendations. It's like wandering through a great toy store: so many great possibilities, so little time & money!

Dr. Terry Wahls on Diet @ Iowa City TEDx

Thanks to a post from Art De Vany, I watched this talk by Iowa City physician Dr. Terry Wahls. Good stuff. Her personal story is quite astonishing. Sure it's N=1, but that one could prove the key.

Also, De Vany points to this talk by Dr. Loren Cordain, another big name in the Paleo diet & health.

Some Good Guys & Some Real Disappointments on Protecting Our Security

From Truthdig (an excellent site), I learn that my Senator Tom Harkin and neighboring congressman Bruce Braley voted against the Defense Authorization Act that allows the government to hold citizens without trial. My compliments to them (and I've sent them emails saying so) for their courage & wisdom in so voting.

I'm deeply disappointed that my Representative Dave Loebsack (D) voted in favor of the act. I wrote him so, too. My disappointment, not quite so sharp, that Senator Grassley voted in favor of this. Actually, I used to have a grudging admiration for Grassley, who showed some independence, but now he simply goes with the crowd, even though he's safe for another 5 years. Sad, but true.

Truthdig links to sites that can tell you how your representatives voted, and I suggest you let them hear from you.

P.S. My earlier post expressed my disappointment with Obama.

Shame on Obama

Reading about the recent passage of the defense authorization bill, I was unclear what provisions were included and which excluded. Alas, I learn through this editorial from the NYT that arrest without trial has been left in. I feel a sense of shame in all of this. I expect as much from Bush, but not Obama. A bitter pill to swallow. Perhaps it's a good thing that the Republican offerings are of such low and frightening quality.

Stephen Bloom's Iowa Firestorm

The article that I've linked to by UI journalism professor Stephen Bloom has created quite a firestorm here locally, and around the rest of the state, I believe. I read the article (a preliminary requirement to commenting, in my opinion). I found parts spot-on, other parts exaggerated and stereotyped. Frankly, some person are getting their shorts all in a bunch over this, and I can't get that fired-up about it. I did, however, read some thoughtful responses in our local Iowa City Press-Citizen today. The most thoughtful response came from a UI student that hails from a small town in western Iowa (my native land). I don't know that I could improve upon his take. Another interesting response comes from retired UI political science professor and dean, Gerhard Loewenberg, who points out some factual errors. Finally, even the editorial write-up made some good points.

In sum, we're not perfect, we do have some daunting problems (small town and rural life decline), and we have some bright spots. Unique in our own ways, quite typical in others.

Maureen Dowd on Newt

Two thoughts:
1. And this guy wants to us to vote for him to become President?

2. Asimov's Foundation series: Paul Krugman, Ian Morris (I think), and Peter Turchin (I think), along with Newt Gingrich, all claim to have been affected and led into the professional study of history or the social sciences (Krugman) by reading about Asimov's hero, Hari Seldon. I missed all this, although I was an avid reader of Asimov the science teacher (if history was my first love, medicine & biology was my second as a nerdy boy). Interesting.

John Lukacs on Knowledge & History: "Putting Man Before Descartes"

Besides the catchy title, and with the knowledge that one cannot read too much John Lukacs, I'm posting excerpts from this article from The American Scholar published in 2008 that I found a while ago. His view of knowledge is to some extent unusual and certainly worth considering. In fact, I think that he has a superb perspective on the matter. How we "know" (epistemology) is a crucial issue in everyday life, not to mention any discipline of study. Very worthwhile and thought provoking--but then what else would you expect from Lukacs? And for your delectation, a few choice quotes from the article:

I was still very young when I saw that historians, or indeed scholars and scientists and human beings of all kinds, are not objective. Many who wished to impress the world thought that they were objective. And there are still many historians and even more scientists of that kind, men with gray ice on their faces.

But isn’t objectivity an ideal? No: because the purpose of human knowledge—indeed, of human life itself—is not accuracy, and not even certainty; it is understanding.

History involves the knowledge of human beings of other human beings. This knowledge differs from other kinds, since human beings are the most complex organisms in the entire universe.

The ideal of objectivity is the antiseptic separation of the knower from the known. Understanding involves an approach to bring the two closer. But there is, there can be, no essential separation of the knower from the known.

We are human beings with inevitable limitations. We think in words, especially when it comes to history, which has no language of its own, no scientific terminology: we speak and write and teach history in words. Besides, words and language have their own histories.

Every human being sees the world in his own way. That is inevitable but not determined. We choose not only what and how we think but what and how we see. According to subjectivism I can think and see in only one (my) way; he in another (his) way. This is wrong, because thinking and seeing are creative acts coming from the inside, not the outside. Which is why we are responsible both for how and what we do or say as well as for how and what we think and see (or, for what we want to think and for what we want to see).

Knowledge, which is neither objective nor subjective, is always personal. Not individual: personal. The concept of the individual has been one of the essential misconceptions of political liberalism. Every human being is unique, but he does not exist alone. He is dependent on others (a human baby for much longer than the offspring of other animals); his existence is inseparable from his relations with other human beings.

But there is more to that. Our knowledge is not only personal; it is also participant. There is—yet there cannot be—a separation of the knower from the known. We must see further than this. It is not enough to recognize the impossibility (perhaps even the absurdity) of the ideal of their antiseptic, objective separation. What concerns—or should concern—us is something more than the inseparability; it is the involvement of the knower with the known. That this is so when it comes to the reading, researching, writing, and thinking of history should be rather obvious. Detachment from one’s passions and memories is often commendable. But detachment, too, is something different from separation; it involves the ability (issuing from one’s willingness) to achieve a stance of a longer or higher perspective. The choice for such a stance does not necessarily mean a reduction of one’s personal interest, of participation—perhaps even the contrary.

mechanical causality is insufficient to understand the functioning of our minds and consequently of our lives—and even the sense and the meaning of our memories. Every human action, every human thought is something more than a reaction. (That is how and why history never repeats itself.) The human mind intrudes into and complicates the very structure of events.

This relationship, this intrusion of mind into matter, is not constant. Perhaps the evolution of human consciousness may be the only evolution there is. In this age of democracy, this intrusion of mind into matter tends to increase. That is a startling paradox, a development at the same time when the applications of mechanical causality govern the lives of mankind more than ever before.

History is larger than science, since science is part of history and not the other way around. First came nature, then came man, and then the science of nature. No scientists, no science.

Our consciousness, our central situation in space, cannot be separated from our consciousness of time.

The arguments of creationism against evolutionism entirely miss this essential matter. The language of those creationists and anti-Darwinists who proclaim the existence of an Intelligent Design is ludicrous: it reduces God to a role model of a rocket scientist or of a brilliant computer programmer. The matter is the unavoidable contradiction not between Evolution and Creation but between evolution and history. History, because in the entire universe we are the only historical beings. Our lives are not automatic; we are responsible for what we do, say, and think. The coming of Darwinism was historical; it appeared at a time of unquestioned progress. But its essence was, and remains, antihistorical. It elongated the presence of mankind to an ever-increasing extent, by now stretching the first appearance of man on this earth to more than a million years—implying that consequently there may be something like another million years to come for us. Ought we not to question this kind of progressive optimism, especially at a time when men are capable of altering nature here and there and of destroying much of the world, including many of themselves?

Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

An interesting & thoughtful interview that touches on "Civilzation", "the Rest", China, its strengths and vulnerabilities, Turkey, and much else. The kind of interview that brings out the best in Ferguson.

David Brooks on Cass Sunstein

Cass Sunstein is one of the foremost legal scholars of our day. He was a colleague of President Obama @ the University of Chicago Law School before Obama went into politics and Sunstein migrated to Harvard. Sunstein took the job of regulatory chief under Obama, as Sunstein, among his many projects, has written on risk analysis and regulation. (He's really a prolific scholar.) When he took the job, he caught hell from both the Left ("He uses a form of cost-benefit analysis!") and the Right ("He"ll issue regulations!"). How difficult it is to get outside the small boxes that others want to use to contain us. Such small thinking! Maybe he's correct on some matters, wrong on others, but it would help to think about these matters, which he does. Fortunately, Sunstein made it through the Senate and is now (but for the attention of a Brooks column), probably ignored, as no one has much incentive to grandstand about the day-to-day workings of regulators (but which is quite important in the administrative state).

Krugman on Creepy Europe

Krugman doesn't say "creepy", but I do. We've grown to expect Russia to always languish on the edge (if not over the edge) of despotism, but in this post Krugman notes that economic dislocation, like war, doesn't bode well for democracy. The situation in Hungary seems nasty, and they were among the better off of the former Soviet satellite states. In the U.S., too, we see radicalism resurgent in both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. Neither group is very coherent or persuasive, but both are fueled by a deep dissatisfaction. We don't need any Father Coughlins or Huey Longs here, nor radical regimes in Europe, so we'd be wise to get things back on track quickly.

Beinart on Obama's Narrative

"It's all about the narrative" might be a bit of an overstatement, but not much of one. As in trials, the contestant with the best narrative wins. Obama, for all his rhetorical gifts, isn't a trial lawyer, and he has not defined the narrative as he should--and must--if he is to win reelection. Reagan did it as a master. Clinton, who was so effective on the stump, could do it. Bot explicitly and by his delivery, these men defined their campaigns. This is Obama's great challenge.

Ferguson on Britain's Dissent Fiscal Union

I think that NF is probably right on this one. Besides being downright scarey, this EU/Euro thing is a really complex question of political economy. Indeed, the phrase "political economy" (from whence economics began) is not an anachronism, it's more relevant than ever!

Frum & Brooks on Newt

For a while I seemed to post constantly on Rick Perry. Well, he's history, but now we have the zombie Newt. This post by Frum, citing Brooks in comparison (and in essential agreement), covers a part of what's creepy about going Newt-ular. My goodness, is this a Republican ploy to sell everyone on Romney?

Sylvia Nasar, The Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius

I read this book a few weeks ago and I'm just now getting around to reviewing it. My tardiness in reviewing doesn't reflect on the quality of the book. It's a bit difficult to classify. It's more the story of economists than of economics or of economic thought. Her subjects include Dickens (somewhat of a surprise there), Marx and Engels (no surprise, but Marx was a bum), Beatrice Webb (unusual pick), and then more familiar subjects: Schumpeter (quite the dandy), Keynes, Hayek, and so on down to Sen. If you're new to economics or economists, it's a good introduction, or if you have some familiarity, then it's a good way to learn more about some familiar names. The particulars of each life adds diversity and detail to each one's economic thinking & perspectives. Yes, a good book, but not a great one.

A Draft Letter to the President & My Congressional Respresentatives

Readers,

Below is a letter that I've drafted & intend to send unless I change my mind, and I invite you to tell me to change my mind if you think it justified. I will mail it on Monday. I'm I nuts? Overblown? I hope so, but I doubt it. Read & consider, and advise:

Stephen N. Greenleaf
345 Magowan Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Email: greenleaf.stephen@gmail.com

December 8, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20202

Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1501

Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Rep. Dave Loebsak
1221 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. President, Senators, and Congressman:

I watched the opening segment of The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-december-7-2011-ralph-fiennes) on December 7 of this year. I am always cautious when I watch a "fake news show". I try to be very careful to distinguish the actual from the imagined. However, I believe this segment was real—almost surreal—and I am appalled by what I learned. I am referring to the defense appropriations bill (S. 1867), which provides for indefinite detainment of US citizens. Host Jon Stewart attempted to address this topic with his usual humor. However, his dismay was apparent, and I want to let you know that I share his dismay.

War and the threat of war acts as a corrosive acid that eats to the very heart of democracy and liberty. This issue goes to the essence of our jurisprudence and our constitutional system of government. To allow the indefinite detainment of suspects without trial or hearing would undo the trend of hundreds of years of Anglo-American law that has sought to limit the arbitrary powers of the state and to protect the rights of the individual. I agree with Mr. Stewart that this proposal contradicts the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which intends to protect the individual from unwarranted intrusions by the state.

I am a realist, not a Pollyanna. I understand the threats posed by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamist organizations. I also understand the threat posed by homegrown terrorists, such as a Timothy McVeigh. In fact, over the course of our nation's history, we have faced all manner of threats to the security of our people and our government. Nevertheless, we have managed—sometimes despite ourselves—to preserve our liberties. Administrations of great American presidents, such those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have been sullied by their actions that unduly and wrongly curtailed the rights of individuals. The Obama administration, along with this Congress, appears to be ready to take the same unwarranted and frightening steps.

In addition to threats posed by terrorists or foreign powers is threat that we face from the arbitrary use of government power against individuals. Over the course of hundreds of years, our legal system has carved out limitations on the sovereign that have become fundamental to our system of laws and government. By this measure you would further erode fundamental protections that our system provides to its citizens.

The erosion of constitutional protections of the individual against the arbitrary decisions of those in power has increased over the last ten years. I have too often remained silent. However, I can no longer remain silent in the face of this of assault on our liberties. I understand that Congress responds to public opinion and rarely leads it. I understand the presidency almost inevitably seeks to expand its powers. However, there are some occasions when new profiles in courage are required, and now is such a time. Please do not send me some pabulum in response to this letter. Please address directly whether you agree with this fundamental alteration in our legal system and its protections for the individual. Please justify why (if you do) believe that American citizens should be held without trial. Please tell me how you reconcile this provision with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Please do not attempt to tell me that the need for Pentagon appropriations requires your support for this action since a failure to fund the Pentagon is not a realistic possibility.

Please know that I will continue to speak out against this assault. I urge each of you to take immediate steps to prevent the adoption of this provision. I urge you to uphold your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, an oath that each of you and I have sworn to do.

Thank you very much for your attention this. I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely yours,


Stephen N. Greenleaf

Ken Rogoff on Capitalism

This article by Ken Rogoff in a very short space addresses some of the pressing problems with contemporary capitalism. His first point, and one that bears remembering, is that we have no better alternative. To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst form of government except when compared to all of the others. Does Europe (certainly not!) or China (still young) have a better model of capitalism? No, not really; different, not without significant problems. Rogoff notes, in a very brief and succinct article, five areas where contemporary capitalism has problems: health care, finance, inequality, under valuation of common goods (air, water); under valuation of the future, and consumerism (we sell a lot of food ("good"), and we get fat. Very thoughtful. I think capitalism, with about every system, has a real agency problem, but I don't know the best cure.

Holy Shades of Paul Krugman, Batman!

Niall Ferguson sounds a lot like Paul Krugman in this piece: we need to expand the monetary supply and spur demand. Ferguson, of course, cites a couple of important works of history, but otherwise, I think that he's saying here what Krugman has been saying for some time. Yes, we do need to tame budget deficits, but in the immediate future, we need to take steps to get out from under this severe economic contraction. Interesting.

A Great Speech on Climate Change--If Only Someone Would Give it

From my pretty much favorite "conservative" (okay, maybe David Brooks, but it's close)*. Anyway, a speech that any Republican, even any Democrat, should give about global climate change. Seth Roberts should read this.

*Some may worry that I read people like Frum & Brooks, that my latent, inner Republican may emerge from the dark. I think not, but, like a sinner saved by grace, I nevertheless keep that taint of original sin. The faithful, I'm sure, will keep me from wandering into the way of perdition. However, a wee bit of sin doesn't hurt too much, does it?

Skeptical Anticipation: Tinker Tailor Movie Coming

This interview with lead actor Gary Oldman, who plays George Smiley, is very interesting. I will say, the Brits do take there acting very seriously. In addition, consult this Atlantic article about the incarnations of Le Carre characters. Anyone who knows me, or who has had to sit through some spare time with me, will know of my passion for the two BBC productions starring Alec Guinness as Smiley (along with a superb supporting cast). However, I do like Oldman's take on doing a role that Guinness so made his own: classical roles, such as Hamlet, require actors to step into a prior great's shoes all the time. Who's your favorite Hamlet? Gielgud, Olivier, Burton, Jacobi, Branagh? Just to name a few. And while LeCarre isn't Shakespeare, these characters are rich. So, yes, I'll go, although Iowa Guru threatens a boycott. It can be tough, my beloved James Mason played Smiley in Sidney Lumet's A Deadly Affair, an alteration of the first Smiley book, A Call for the Dead, but it really didn't work all that well. No, it's a tough role to fill.

Here's the link to the movie site. Save me a seat.

Garry Wills, Rome & Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Garry Wills has struck again, this time with his book Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. In this slender volume Wills explores how Shakespeare, via Plutarch, grasped the essence of Rome at the time of the transition from republic to empire. Specifically, Wills explores the rhetoric of the leading characters. Of course, Antony's funeral oration is the best known of the set pieces in this play. (My continued apologies to Mrs. Vaughn for having complained about having to memorize this in sophomore English class). However, Antony's funeral oration is not the only example of rhetoric in the play. Before Antony speaks, Brutus addressed the crowd. Wills contrasts the rhetoric of Brutus, which centers upon "mine honor", against the more nuanced speech given by Antony. Antony responds to his audience, whereas Brutus expects his audience to respond to him.

Wills's love of Shakespeare is not new. His previous book on Macbeth demonstrates the care with which has explicates these texts. In addition, he has recently published a book on Shakespeare and Verdi, the great Italian opera composer who composed operas on some of Shakespeare's plays. I haven't read that book yet, but I have a hard time imagining that it could be better than this book. Wills is trained as a classicist and the opportunity to merge his love of theater (and Shakespeare in particular), along with his classical learning, provides us a real treat in humanistic learning.

I always enjoyed Julius Caesar (my complaints and sophomore English notwithstanding), and I think that it is an easily accessible play. In addition, there are a couple of good film productions of it that are well worth seeing, including one with Marlon Brando as Anthony. If you have an opportunity to see these productions or to read this play, Wills's book out would be an excellent introduction and perspective on the play.

Niall Ferguson on the Western Canon & Sequay to the Next Post

From Ferguson's Civilization: The West & the Rest:

What makes a civilization real to its inhabitants, in the end, is not just splendid edifices at its center, nor even the smooth functioning of the institutions they house. At its core, a civilization is the texts that are taught in schools, learned by its students and recollected in times of tribulation. The civilization of China was once built on the teachings of Confucius. The civilization of Islam -- of the cult of submission -- is still built on the Koran. But what are the foundational texts of Western civilization, that can bolster our belief in the almost boundless power of the free individual human being?

I would suggest the King James Bible, Isaac Newton's Principia, John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, Edmund Burke's Recollections of the Revolution in France and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species -- to which should be added to William Shakespeare's's plays selected speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. If I had to select a single volume as Koran, it would be Shakespeare's complete works.

Id. 324.

As you will learn from my next post, the admiration of Shakespeare as the author at the heart of the Western tradition--at least since the Renaissance--is not unusual.

What other books, since the advent of modernity, might Ferguson have cited?

David Brooks: The Social Animal

David Brooks is a socialist.

Okay, he’s not a socialist in the sense that you and I might think of as socialist. In fact, David Brooks has never made such a statement about himself that I know of. However in his book, The Social Animal, he describes his alter ego as a socialist. However, his alter ego is the strangest and perhaps most unique socialist that you've ever heard of. The kind of socialist that Brooks is speaking about is not of the Marxist-Leninist variety, nor of the Maoist variety, or of any other off-the-shelf varieties. Instead, his alter ego is what most of us would think of it as a well, an Aristotelian, or a Burkean, or, in more contemporary terms, a communitarian. In other words, Brooks thinks that most folks who describe themselves as socialists today are in fact statists.

The above gives you a sense politically of where Brooks is coming from, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read his columns in the New York Times regularly. The Brooks alter ego in The Social Animal is someone who admires the politics of Hamilton, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. He believes that the state should be useful and is necessary, but is should not be dominant. He stands between free-market libertarians and the statists (i.e., whom everyone else thinks of it as socialists).

I listened to The Social Animal with a great deal of enjoyment. Brooks brings valuable perspectives to this book. First, Brooks is a keen observer of contemporary social mores. He can be satirical, but always with a light and humorous touch. Secondly, he’s deeply taken with the neuro-psychological revolution that is ongoing. Only a small portion of the book is really dedicated to Brooks pithy observations about the society around us, and more of it is centered on what we have learned about humans as social animals. Of course, this perspective is as old as men and women have been thinking about society. Names like Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Burke, and Toqueville pop to mind. Brooks brings contemporary scientific (especially brain) research and contemporary social science research to the table. Brooks does this by using the conceit borrowed from Rousseau’s Emile, wherein the education (not just schooling) of individuals serves as a vehicle to expostulate about his perspectives on learning and behavior. (I think it's safe to say Brooks would be very critical of Rousseau's political thinking.)

I enjoyed this book very much. It was fun to listen to. Brooks did well to choose the stories of individuals to draw us into a narrative that provides doses of contemporary scientific thinking that become relevant and easily palatable. Of course, I have to also have to say that I'm easily sold on this book because I agree with most of his perspectives. If anyone has read this blog before, they know that I often have cited my agreements with Brooks. While I don't consider myself as politically conservative as he considers himself, I think the differences are those of shades and not of absolutes. I, too, admire the tradition of Hamilton, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. However, I do believe that the contribution of FDR is one is crucial for modern America. Indeed, the second Roosevelt's political program and economic program is vital to our well-being and extremely relevant today. Obama probably could not find a better role model than Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Theodore lived in an earlier, less industrialized age. We need the likes of FDR and Keynes more than ever.

In the end, a highly enjoyable and recommend a book