Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2022

"How to Defeat Putin & Save the Planet" by Thomas Friedman w/ Introductory Commentary

 This is a MUST-READ piece from Tom Friedman. In short, he agrees with me and I with him. To wit, we need to move quickly away from fossil fuels to score a double-win. First, we can stop funding both sides of so many wars. We do so by our “addiction” (his word--appropriate) to fossil fuel. We finance petrostates like Putin's Russia, Saudi Arabia, the late Saddam Hussein, the thugs in Venezuela, and the Iranian regime. Need I go on? Our addiction to fossil fuels warps our entire foreign policy.

And the other half of the win? Climate change. This past month, temperatures in Antarctica have been 70F degrees above normal. In the Arctic, 50F above normal. I hope you don't own any oceanside property.
But some good news: renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. By going electric--soon, fast--we can reduce the cost of energy that we use. We can also use less energy (let's be frank: we Americans are energy hogs) and we can develop more efficient systems.
Finally, the Biden Administration, like administrations before them, can stop going hat-in-hand to petrostates begging for more or less oil production, depending on the circumstances. The fossil fuel giants can see the end of their cash cow in sight & begin making plans for their demise. They have the money, and they've had the time to plan for the wind-down of their polluting ways. But we, the American people, have to accept that we must undertake this transition and that the price of fossil fuels will (and should) increase.
Now's the time. We can reduce a twin pair of evils by acting decisively now.

Friday, February 25, 2022

David Brooks on the Weakness of the Democracies

 

Opinion | The Dark Century


This piece by David Brooks goes into the “must-read” category. I'm not sure that he nails it thoroughly, but it's an NYT editorial page piece, not a full-blown essay or book. I agree that he's on the right track or at least one of the right tracks. Here's the prime takeaway:
The events of the past few weeks have been fortifying. Joe Biden and the other world leaders have done an impressive job of rallying their collective resolve and pushing to keep Putin within his borders. But the problems of democracy and the liberal order can’t be solved from the top down. Today, across left and right, millions of Americans see U.S. efforts abroad as little more than imperialism, “endless wars” and domination. They don’t believe in the postwar project and refuse to provide popular support for it.
The real problem is in the seedbeds of democracy, the institutions that are supposed to mold a citizenry and make us qualified to practice democracy. To restore those seedbeds, we first have to relearn the wisdom of the founders: We are not as virtuous as we think we are. Americans are no better than anyone else. Democracy is not natural; it is an artificial accomplishment that takes enormous work.
Then we need to fortify the institutions that are supposed to teach the democratic skills: how to weigh evidence and commit to truth; how to correct for your own partisan blinders and learn to doubt your own opinions; how to respect people you disagree with; how to avoid catastrophism, conspiracy and apocalyptic thinking; how to avoid supporting demagogues; how to craft complex compromises.
Democrats are not born; they are made. If the 21st century is to get brighter as it goes along, we have to get a lot better at making them. We don’t only have to worry about the people tearing down democracy. We have to worry about who is building it up.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Sources for Thinking About Climate Change and Diet re Foer's We Are the Weather

 

My spur to deeper inquiry & perhaps some knowledge



This brief bibliography and videography is an addendum to my review of this book. The review was critical (and included praise as well). I stated several contentions that I didn't cite. This brief piece provides some sources of my thinking and my general outlook toward the challenge of climate change, diet, and our political economy. Needless to say, this could be a much, much longer document. But I think it covers sources for particular contentions that I made and informs any reader about my general attitude on these issues. 

  1. 1     Climate Change Generally

    1. Two thinkers who've most influenced how I think about climate change

      1. 1. William Patrick Ophuls. His books (linked to my reviews)

        1. Ecology & the Politics of Scarcity Revisited by William Ophuls & A. Stephen Boyan, Jr.

        2. Requiem for Modern Politics: The Tragedy of the Enlightenment & the Challenge of the Next Millennium by William Ophuls

        3. Back to the Future: A Review of Plato’s Revenge: Politics in the Age of Ecology by Patrick (William) Ophuls

        4. Decline & Fall in the 21st Century: A Review of Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail by William Ophuls

        5. Apologies to the Grandchildren: Reflections on Our Ecological Predicament, Its Deeper Causes, and Its Political Consequences by William (Patrick) Ophuls

      2. Thomas Homer-Dixon, The following three books by Homer-Dixon create a trilogy of books dealing with climate change and related issues. 

        1. The Ingenuity Gap: Can We Solve the Problems of the Future? by Thomas Homer-Dixon

        2. The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization by Thomas Homer-Dixon (to my chagrin, I realize that I haven’t written a review of this fine work. Something to fix). 

        3. Commanding Hope: The Power We Have to Renew a World in Peril by Thomas Homer-Dixon

    2. My best resource about the current situation & prospects regarding climate change: Uninhabitable Earth; Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells (2019)

  2. On Diet in General

    1. Gary Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007)) and Why We Get Fat & What We Can Do About It (2011) & all his books published since then. 

    2. Nina Teicholz, Big Fat Lie (2014) and this 2021 Youtube video, “The Science & Politics of Red Meat 2021” 

  3. On Agriculture, Plant & Livestock

    1. Sacred Cow, documentary film available on Amazon & iTunes. (There is a companion book as well, but I haven’t read it yet.) 

    2. Kiss the Ground documentary film available on Netflix. 

    3. Eating Less Meat Won’t Save the Planet. Here’s Why and   Are Cows really Bad for the Planet? Why did we start blaming them?  From the “What I’ve Learned” video essayist Joseph Everett. (Although somewhat redundant, it’s worth your time to watch both. As usual with Everett, thoroughly researched and well-presented.) 

  4. Sustainable/Regenerative Agriculture

    1. Changing Paradigms: Regenerative Agriculture: a Solution to our Global Crisis? | Full Documentary. About Australian farmer Charlie Massy about his experience in traditional and regenerative farming. 

    2. How regenerative farming can help heal the planet and human health. Charles Massy TEDx talk. 

    3. Running out of Time | Documentary on Holistic Management. Zimbabwe farmer Allan Savory on holistic management of his farm. 

    4. Cows, Carbon & Climate. Virginia farmer Joel Salatin’s TEDx talk. 

  5. Mainstream Press Articles: Recent & Relevant

    1. Meat Is Murder. But You Know That Already by Mark Bittman in the NYT is a well-considered review of We Are the Weather that anticipated many of my concerns about Foer’s shortcomings. I still nevertheless disagree with Bittman on some points. He still peddles the “meat is bad for you” line, but he understands the need for pricing accurately (all costs of production of any foods), the problems of industrial plant agriculture, Big Food, & junk food. N.B. I almost didn’t read this review because I found the title insipid, and I feared that the article would prove likewise. I’m happy that this didn’t prove so.  
    2. The Washington Post ran three op-ed pieces in one day (15 May), well after I posted my review, but still relevant. They are: 

      1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/beef-isnt-bhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ditching-meat-isnt-the-answer-for-climate-change-better-farming-is/2021/05/14/86001c36-b426-11eb-ab43-bebddc5a0f65_story.htmleing-banned-but-its-always-a-staple-of-the-culture-war-diet/2021/05/14/6c58919e-b423-11eb-ab43-bebddc5a0f65_story.html

      2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-meat-industry-is-doing-exactly-what-big-oil-does-to-fight-climate-action/2021/05/14/831e14be-b3fe-11eb-ab43-bebddc5a0f65_story.html

      3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ditching-meat-isnt-the-answer-for-climate-change-better-farming-is/2021/05/14/86001c36-b426-11eb-ab43-bebddc5a0f65_story.html

  6. A rebuttal site with a downloadable pdf attachment from “What I’ve Learned” guy Joseph Everett in response to criticisms of his two video essays listed above. This guy does his homework. 

  7. As you can imagine, this list could go on forever, and should. We’re still learning and will all have to constantly calibrate our positions as new (dependable) information becomes available. Thanks to Jonathan Safran Foer for starting my internal conversation and the spur to look into the issues his book raised. 

            

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Reflection on Thomas B. Edsall, "White male conservatives," "purity," "loyalty," etc.

Thomas B. Edsall
As usual, Thomas B. Edsall of the NYT has written another fascinating column based upon contemporary social science research (which should always, IMHO, be taken only in carefully measured & monitored doses). But with that caveat in mind, let's start with his conclusion spiced with my comments following

Ditto [the name of a social scientist] puts the matter succinctly: “In 21st century American politics, truth is tribal.”

SNG: No, "truth" isn't tribal; "opinion" & "belief" are tribal. Truth is often elusive, hidden, shifty, and so it can point us towards conclusions that it doesn't support. Thus, we need to keep our BS detectors on high alert ALWAYS.

In other words, the pandemic has become another example of Trump’s mastery over his most loyal subjects, his ability to manipulate them into violating their own instincts. It is this power over a substantial bloc of the electorate that has put him in the White House — and continues to make him so dangerous.

 SNG: It's really amazing, isn't it, that loyalty toward the demagogue can trump {sic} even attitudes such as concern for health, family, and purity. Purity is a distinctive "conservative" value, according to the research and conclusions of Jonathan Haidt). So can we then surmise that loyalty--even to a false idol--trumps {sic} concerns for purity?

Because many on the political right see the lockdowns as impinging “on their liberty, the free market’s workings, and their financial well-being,” he continued, “many conservatives want the lockdowns ended as quickly as possible.”

[SNG: Of course, some of our freedom of movement has been impinged upon & our financial well-being compromised, but whom does this adversely affect? All of us!

In addition, Wilcox noted, “some (especially male) conservatives see the lockdowns and mask wearing as expressions of cowardice that they reject as unmanly.”

SNG: Did they not get the memo? A mask provides minimal protection to the wearer, but it helps cut potential transmission from the wearer. It's not about how tough you are (or young), but how much you are willing to respect the well-being of the more vulnerable: the elderly the sick, the doctors and nurses and delivery guys, etc.

They [a team of social scientists] found, for example, that 71.6 percent of white males conservatives who claim to understand global warming very well agreed that “recent temperature increases are not primarily due to human activities.” Among all conservative white men, the percentage in agreement fell to 58.5. Among everyone else, the percentage dropped to 31.5.

 SNG: Wow, the more profound the denial of scientific consensus, the greater the confidence in the opinion held. And what's with "conservative white males"? It can't be all of them--I'm a while male, conservative (in temperament) and older, to boot. Why is ethnicity & gender so distinctive here?

If you are a conservative, a key tenet of your ideology is that unregulated markets naturally produce good; they are the most efficient way that humans have ever seen for distributing goods, services, wealth, etc. Any attempts to regulate, intervene upon, steer, etc. an economic market will make it necessarily less efficient. A government driven by some sense of altruism — ‘dogooderism’ by ‘bleeding hearts’ — will only muck up the functioning of an efficient market.
 SNG: Amazing! That some business-types brought up on the Mt. Pellerin ideology of Friedman (Milton) & Hayek and the Chicago School, etc., I can understand the attachment; the well-to-do are less hurt & less yield to the collective well-being of all. But for so many Trump supporters, who live in areas in steep decline by neo-liberal policies, these attitudes are completely at odds with their well-being. Both Democrats and Republicans contributed to all of this, but while Democrats sipped from the poisoned cup of market ideology, the Republicans chugged it. Maybe Mr. Marx was on to something with "false consciousness"!

NYTIMES.COM
The partisan divide over how to respond to the coronavirus pandemic has deepened over the past few weeks.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

NYT & Professor Bowman Debunk Trump's Defense Brief

No lawyer sitting in the Senate should buy this baloney argument on Trump’s behalf. But if you don’t have the facts, argue the law—even if it’s a crap argument.
From the article:
“Mr. Bowman — whose scholarship on impeachment law is cited in a footnote in the Trump legal team brief — called the arguments in that brief “a well-crafted piece of sophistry that cherry-picks sources and ignores inconvenient history and precedent.” For example, he noted, it makes no mention of how the Hastings case involved allegations of abuses of power that were not indictable crimes.”

Thursday, June 14, 2018

180614 Readings & Comments



1. I suspect that the number of mocking parodies of the Trump movie trailer tailor-made for Kim Jun Un. But if you haven't watched it, do. Here's a considered take on it.





David Brooks

2. Dave Brooks captures the essence of what Trump & other authoritarians (listed) are up to and their effect. Take away quote (and I like wolves on the whole more than those humans who channel their ferocious instincts): 


Those who lost faith in this order began to elect wolves in order to destroy it. The wolves — whether Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Tayyip Erdogan or any of the others — don’t so much have shared ideology as a shared mentality.
It begins with 1, some monumental sense of historic betrayal. This leads to 2, a general outlook that says the world is a nasty place, and 3, a scarcity mind-set that says politics is a zero-sum game in which groups must viciously scramble to survive. This causes 4, a pervasive sense of distrust and suspicion, and 5, the rupture of any relationship built on friendship or affection, and finally 6, the loss of any sense that there is such a thing as the common good.
Wolves perceive the world as a war of all against all and seek to create the world in which wolves thrive, which is a world without agreed-upon rules, without restraining institutions, norms and etiquette.
. . . . 
[T]he core divide in our politics is no longer the conventional left-right divide. The core issue in our politics is over how we establish relationship. You can either organize relationship at a high level — based on friendship, shared values, loyalty and affection — or you can organize relationship at a low level, based on mutual selfish interest and a brutal, ends-justify-the-means mentality.



Frank Bruni

3. Sound advice from Frank Bruni: don't vent your anger or try to get even. Get ahead. Take only constructive steps. Don't make your opponent's MO yours. Rise above, don't fall down to that level. Bring together, don't further the divide. 







Friday, January 5, 2018

India & the U.S.: Shared Experiences at the Founding

One of the many enjoyable aspects of our two years living in India was the opportunity it provided me to learn more about Indian history. Like all history, Indian history is endlessly fascinating and puzzling, both obscured and revealed by time, and it's the subject of endless debate and more than occasional attempts of kidnapping. History is the neverending story (unless we really muck things up).

Of special interest to me was the movement for Indian independence. I first read a biography of Gandhi in high school after seeing the end of a film about him (no, not the Ben Kinsley-Richard Attenborough bio-pic--I way older than that). Moving to Jaipur that first year allowed me to learn more about Gandhi, Nehru, and the less well-known but quite important Dr. Ambedkar. All three of these leaders were lawyers, and all were educated and trained in Great Britain. Nehru received his education at Harrow, Cambridge, and the Inner Temple; Gandhi trained as a barrister in London; and Ambedkar received Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University in New York (I hear it's a good school) and the London School of Economics, and he trained as a barrister at Gray's Inn. In short, all received extensive educations abroad.

Does this make them somehow less Indian? I think not. In fact, if anything it makes them more Indian, for India is an amazing agglomeration of religions, cultures, languages, and traditions that developed through centuries of intercourse with the wider world, both influencing and being influenced through its long history. As an American, I'm keenly aware of the model that Gandhi's non-violent resistance movement provided to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, which was marked by non-violent resistance. Both men drew on a variety of influences: Gandhi on his native Hindu tradition as well as a deep knowledge of Islam and Christianity, the common law tradition, Ruskin, and Tolstoy; King on his native Christian tradition, Gandhi's movement, Thoreau, and the American Constitution.

Indeed, I can't help but note similarities between the founders of democratic, independent India and the founders of the American republic. Both groups were amazingly cosmopolitan in their learning and outlook. While the Americans received less of their education in Britain than their Indian counterparts (travel then was much more arduous), they were unquestionably educated in the British tradition and held significant cultural ties to Britain. Indeed, during the early period of unrest, their desire was for their rights as Englishmen. Both groups turned the highest ideals of the British back upon themselves. Of course, neither group was without fault. Certainly, the legacies of slavery in the U.S. and caste in India create problems yet today. The Indian founders (especially Ambedkar) attempted to deal with issues of caste more forthrightly than the American leaders did with slavery, but the residuals of these evils still create a distorting force field within their respective polities that each nation must continue to work to overcome.

Finally, in addition to their cosmopolitan outlooks and education, the founders of both nations were patriots. Their learning and cosmopolitan outlooks made them aspire to the highest standards for their respective nations. Their love of country--the defining aspect of patriotism--was without parallel. Compare this to the tawdry nationalism--the antithesis of patriotism--that plagues both nations today. Article author Aatish Taseer aptly quotes Nehru: " “Nationalism . . . is essentially an anti-feeling, and it feeds and fattens on hatred against other national groups, and especially against the foreign rulers of a subject country.” Neither nation is now in the grips of a foreign power, at least not a foreign state, but each of our nations is plagued by those who would deny their many varied citizens their rightful share in their highest ideals that these nations have embodied. Whatever the faults and shortcomings of our respective founders, each set has provided us, Indians and Americans, with models of probity, decency, freedom, and justice that we ignore at the risk of our lasting loss.
Bravo @AatishTaseer for a long overdue reassessment of #Nehru, a figure educated by Theosophists & someone who could be viewed as India's Obama: a complex intellectual who fit in nowhere, and a man we desperately need today. His portrait hangs in our home.

I used to think India’s first prime minister was embarrassingly westernized. Now I see that he was one of our great thinkers.
NYTIMES.COM