I’m not really a chain-letter type of guy, but since Carla asked so nicely, I suppose I’ll take part in that Book Meme thing that’s been going around. I hope she’s not too disappointed with my answers.
You are stuck inside “Fahrenheit 451.” Which book would you be?
For very pragmatic reasons I think I’ll have to choose Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse. There is a lyrical quality to the prose that should make it easier to memorize (though all those weird Indian names might pose a problem,) and… it’s mercifully short. While Steppenwolf may be the Hesse classic more appropriate to our times, if I’m going to have one book stuck inside my head for the rest of my life, I don’t want anything that’s going to drive me nuts, and the couple times I’ve read Siddhartha, I found the experience rather peaceful.
Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
Every woman I have ever had a crush on was fictional, in the sense that we always imbue the objects of our desire with our own romanticized ideal of “true love.” Is that not the nature of infatuation?
What is the last book you bought?
Um… I’m more of a library person. I just reserved a copy of Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America… does that count? Other than that, I think, maybe, my last personal purchase may have been a paperback of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
What are you currently reading?
I’m guessing “these words as I type them” wouldn’t be an original answer, huh?
I’m finally reading Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities as part of my futile, life-long quest to eventually read all of the books I didn’t read in school when I was supposed to. To that end, I also occasionally pick up a copy of Hannah Arendt’s Totalitarianism, but I keep forgetting which parts I’ve read and which parts I haven’t, so I’ll never finish.
Other recent books have been Gary Hart’s The Fourth Power, and Darwin’s Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. Oh… and as a joint venture, my daughter and I are currently enjoying Lemony Snicket’s The Miserable Mill.
Other than that, it’s the usual array of way-too-many online blogs, newspapers and magazines.
Five books you would take to a deserted island.
Assuming this is a long term, Castaway-like situation, I’m going to cheat and take along some anthologies: The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll, Plato’s Socratic Dialogues (not illustrated,) The Complete Prose of Woody Allen… and to really pass the time, Will & Ariel Durant’s eleven-volume The Story of Civilization.
Finally, while great literature may feed the soul, it doesn’t fill the belly, so I’m going to throw in a copy of the U.S. Army’s Illustrated Guide to Edible Wild Plants.
Tag, your it…
As I understand it, now I have to pass the curse of the Book Meme on to three fellow bloggers. Hmmm… well how could I not be curious in seeing how The General might answer? And using the term “fellow” loosely, wouldn’t it also be fascinating to see what our friends Stefan and Marsha are reading?
I think this would be Stefan’s “What is the last book you bought?”
A book by King County Elections, it was suppose to detail how to run a “model election,” but despite great reviews from criticts it is by far the most poorly written book ever. I would say it is exactly the opposite of what it was heralded as, the authors continuosly contradicts themselves and gives invalid references. In my opinion the authors shouldn’t quit thier day job… oh wait make that they should!
I think you liberals should read
1: Ludwig Von Mises, The Psychological Roots of Antiliberalism
2: Ann Coulter, How to Talk to a Liberal
3: Newt Gingrich, Winning the Future
4: Peggy Noonan, When Character was King
5: Peggy Noonan, The case against Hillary
that would be a good start on reality for you.
#1 must read and is out this month
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michale Savage
Lemony Snicket!
Cynical IS Count Olaf!
The irony of Michael Savage talking about mental disorders is practically too much to bear.
Thanks for the replies, Goldy. I love Siddharta, myself.
Savage will get the largest audience, replaying the show where he has a heart attack on air. It’ll be his crowning achievement.
Well, Goldy, if you stick with subjects like this I think the world will be a better place for it. Finally—some substance.
You’re one to talk…
Here’s a book for you, Chard.
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris
“A must read for all rational people.” —Alan Dershowitz
See an excerpt from The End of Faith’s first chapter:
Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate—or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us—culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Just in case you think this is all about religion, it’s really not – faith without reason doesn’t necessarily have to be about God. Harris has plenty to say about extremist secularism of the likes of Chomsky, so that ought to peak your interest somewhat.
Maybe if enough people actually give some thought about what is happening to our world because of irrational fanaticism we can save our species from an early extinction brought on by our own collective ignorance. But then again, it’s hard to change the mind of a true believer.
Well,I guess the libs get to win for pretentious reading (I got over my pretentious reading in college) – I read because I enjoy it not because I care to impress others – but quite frankly, I say as long as you ARE reading, you are miles ahead of anyone not reading – BRAVO! BRAVO!
I am the King County Library System’s BIGGEST fan.
At this moment have 39 books, 5 books on tape and 2 issues of Publishers Weekly checked out.
I’m currently reading ‘The True and Outstanding Adventures of The Hunt Sisters’.
I just finished ‘What Comes After Crazy’.
My favorite Book of all time is (Yes, I know it’s predictable – deal with it) ‘Atlas Shrugged’. I’ve read it every October for the past 17 years. I’ve read all Ayn Rands fiction.
My favorite fiction ‘hero’ (besides Dagny Taggart) would have to be Jack Reacher.
My two favorite authors are Richard Russo and Pat Conroy.
I’ve read every book by Larry McMurtry and he’s the only author who, when his books are made into movies, I will willingly watch the movie. I love reading Fannie Flagg, but refuse to watch the movies based on her books.
I am notoriously bad at criticizing movie “based” on books – I hate the way authors allow themselves and their work to be prostituted for Hollywood.
I liked Clancy’s Jack Ryan character till he made it to the movies then Clancy started writing the character to Harrison Ford and he became way too one dimensional.
I despise English authors.
I like short stories and inexplicably one of my favorite short story authors is… an English author -(if I remember correctly recently out of jail or perhaps still there) -Jeffrey Archer
One of my greatest pleasures has been sharing books on tape with my son during all our many hours/years of driving-to-school time. My two favorite young adult books that we enjoyed were ‘The Thief Lord’ and ‘Peace Like a River’. Right now we are listening to ‘Angela’s Ashes’ (which I read ages ago) because they are studying it in his literature class.
I am never without whatever book I happen to be reading. I read everyday without fail. I carry a dictionary in my car because I am fascinated with words and for that moment when someone says “what does ___ mean?”.
See liberal pals?… I actually AM a human being.
I have spent much of the last few years reading about the early years of our country.
Biographies of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. Learn how the founding Fathers did believe that dissent (liberal voices in the time of a conservative president) had value.
To understand how an independent Judicary came to be, read “What Kind of Nation” by James Simon to learn how the courts stood up against Jefferson.
If your list is solely the last few years bashing liberals, quite frankly, I’ll ignore you.
And for some old time perspectives. I loved John Dos Pasos USA trilogy.
And now, to bed.
You know K, I have to agree with you. I tried, God knows I tried reading a few of the lib bashing books but they were all “same music different words” kind of things. HO HUM.
ACK! You’ll think they revoke my Conservative Card??
I’ll read Coulters columns and she’ll make me laugh out loud, but I could not get through a single chapter of any of her books.
I did like William Bennet’s ‘The Death of Outrage’.
Goldy, I have no daughters but one book I would recommend to anyone that has them is ‘A Return to Modesty’ by Wendy Shalit.
Also, your daughter may be a tad bit too young yet, but head over to KCLS and check out ‘Lady Cottington’s Pressed Fairy Book’ – it’s hysterical.
Lib pets,
I must commend you on sharing the glimps into a sliver of your being. Of course your human afterall, arent all of us in the end? Arguments and disagrements aside, respect rules.
And with that, good evening.
Book I’d be in Fahrenheit 451
That would be Cormac McCarthy’s Suttree. It’s a gorgeous, dark piece of literature, and I suspect few other people would pick it, making it a helpful selection. It would be hard to memorize, and I like biting off way more than I can chew.
Crush on a fictional character? The closest I’d come would be Molly Millions who showed up in a number of William Gibson’s short stories and novels. In general my spirit/libido doesn’t function that way. I focus on the real.
Last book I bought: A very prosaic title on kitchen design. I have house restoration on the brain right now, and look forward to the day when I can just live in my place and not think of it as a giant restoration work in process.
Currently reading:
Toni Morrison’s Beloved (Having trouble getting into it).
David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace (aka, The Middle East and How it Got That Way).
Annie Prolux’s That Old Ace In The Hole. Fast, easy, and trashy. At the current reading rate, it’s the one I started last and will finish first. You can’t read deep meaningful stuff all the time.
Five books I’d take to a deserted island.
All the Big Important Books I’ve started and haven’t finished yet, including:
Gravity’s Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
Ulysees, James Joyce
Midnight’s Children, Salman Rushdie
The Holy Bible, various authors
Jin Ping Mei, Anonymous
Although I’ll admit to re-reading books I really got into, I consider it a bad habit, like smoking or snapping gum. A few of the titles on this list are:
Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand. Read it if only to later refute it.
The Illuminatus Trilogy Robert Anton Wilson. Everything is relative.
Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson. A nice meditation on information.
Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche. Again, read it, live it, believe it, refute it.
The Bell Curve, Murray and Herrnstein. Everyone should read this book. Understand how very smart people choose facts selectively to take you for a ride.
Very few traditional leftie books are on my list. I read Karl Marx back in high school and college and drifted away from it when I grew up and stopped being an idiot ideologue. Michael Moore, Al Franken, et al generally don’t do anything for me. It’s more interesting to read people who make you question your core beliefs than to re-read stuff that affirms it.
Have fun!
j.
Dave @9
[…]either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago—while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate[…]
Don’t look for me to refute Budda or Mohammed, but from a Christian standpoint, how is it expected that beliefs based on writings from two millenia past is to evolve? Yet it did, with the splits from the Catholic church in the 16th century and continuing to the present. Indeed, the changes within the Catholic church from Vatican II last century are proof that Christian religion, while not changing radically, does change. Perhaps that is more worrisome than status quo to some…
jsa @14
The Bell Curve, Murray and Herrnstein. Everyone should read this book. Understand how very smart people choose facts selectively to take you for a ride.
I agree with you on this. If you read this book with an uncritical eye, you will probably ride off the cliff. The selective facts were not in dispute, it was the conclusions many (correctly, IMO) found unpalatable.
all@all – good recommendations.
how is it expected that beliefs based on writings from two millenia past is to evolve?
They’re not expected to, that’s actually the problem.
Perhaps that is more worrisome than status quo to some…
Yes, the fundamentalists are the ones who have difficulty dealing with such progress. The thing is that religion as a whole – and particularly Islam – is not changing with the speed of everything else around it. All of human knowledge is advancing at paces that could not possibly have been expected even 50 or 100 years ago, let alone 2,000. At the time of the great Library of Alexandria a person could, if they wanted to, read every scroll that constituted the collective body of human knowledge. Now it is an impossible task even if one were to spend a lifetime trying. But despite this fundamental change in human progress the irrational extremists (like the ass troll) are stuck on what was the best knowledge of Bronze Age men. It seems the only thing that has changed for them is their access to more powerful weaponry with which to kill each other.
See liberal pals?… I actually AM a human being.
Prick me, do I not bleed? I guess the trolling is a cry for help. =)
Dave @16
They’re not expected to, that’s actually the problem.
Hmm, I am a little puzzled over this. If they change, yet are not expected to, that becomes a problem? Or is lack of change the problem?
Man, a book thread that contains only books I haven’t read (at least for a lot of years ;0)…thank you!
I read whatever is in front of me…milk cartons, actual print newspapers, the dear daughter’s assigned reading (The Invisible Man at the moment), trash mysteries, magazines, blogs, etc…
Been galavanting around the country visiting colleges of late so have focused on airline magazines, safety placards and college catalogs…will welcome going to my favorite haunt of the local library to check out some of y’all’s favorites…
Again, thanks…
Wow, I have a full plate of replies here!
First of all, I didn’t expect to find the righty trolls here, because they don’t read books. It appears that Black and White, Sorry No Grey Matter, daydreams about books not published yet which probably never will be; maybe he’s a frustrated writer wannabe. Chardonnay (who secretly loves me) enjoys looking at the dust jacket pictures. (Sorry to tell you this, chards, but your love for me is unrequited. You’re not my type.) FingerUpAss he didn’t list any books, so apparently he hasn’t advanced yet to picture books or coloring books. Pet Poop predictably is a big fan of fairytale books (presumably the ones with big pictures in them). (N.B., for the reading-challenged, big pictures are easier to read than little pictures.)
The next item concerns “The General,” whom I’ve never heard of until now. I clicked on the link and checked out his web site — called Jesus’ General — to see if this is for real. The answer is, no, it’s not for real, because Jesus didn’t have any generals as this idiot would know if he’d ever cracked a Bible. So we can assume the Bible is NOT on The General’s reading list.
Finally, I’d like to respond to Goldy’s comment,
“I’m finally reading Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities as part of my futile, life-long quest to eventually read all of the books I didn’t read in school when I was supposed to.”
All I want to say here is, Goldy, you don’t have to do this. Miss Grundy is dead and can’t do anything to you anymore.
Hmm, I am a little puzzled over this. If they change, yet are not expected to, that becomes a problem? Or is lack of change the problem?
It’s the lack of change that is the problem, very much so. This tends to lead to a backlash against the scientific community because faith does not allow for its message to be proven incorrect in any way. Moderate religious people can tolerate new and/or contradictory information and still maintain their faith, but they give a free pass to religious extremism out of a lack of desire to correct the irrationality of their fundamentalist counterparts.
Well,I guess the libs get to win for pretentious reading
The demon’s grip is still strong.
I actually AM a human being.
And as we all know, it always lies.
Rank smugness and raging narcissism compells you!
Well let’s see shall we…
Me @ 10 and 11 extending a branch, attempting to show that, at least in love of the written word, there is common ground.
Pricks @ 17, 20 and 22 offeriNG further proof that, literate or not, some liberals truly are ASSHOLES.
sybil @ 20
YOU WISH!
I keep telling you I prefer R’s. I thought you were a lefty but with all these name changes I’m not sure you even know what, who or where you are, PVS. Your wife needs to admit you. I suggest a hospice.
Sorry ProudAss, your pathetic attempts at “common ground” or an “olive branch” do not excuse you from your shameful behavior of the past week and your generally offensive manner that flies right out of the gate in your comments handle.
Your tactics are not in the least a credit to conservatism and least of all to yourself.
You are a rank elitist. Your withering contempt for people with a public school education is laughable when you fumble over Hamlet. Your implicit call for forced contraception in your comments handle contradicts your core beliefs and then you embarass yourself when you change it and hope no-one notices.
If you indeed had the courage of your convictions I’d think you would do a lot less mindless spewing here and more action out there. You’ve recently shown a desire to display your rear-end to Gregoire so by all means go and make a spectacle of yourself in public or support some other nutjob aspiring politician/activist to do the dirty work for you.
I imagine in the role of a joiner that others in your camp would probably turn you out just as some here wish you’d just make like a tree and leave.
Two posts about your favorite leisure time reading that begins right off the bat with an insult? That’s making nice? Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
Isn’t it just amazing that the only “shameful behavior” here always belongs to conservatives.
A few words come to mind:
hypocritical
hypercritical
double standard
two-faced
lip service
censorious
insidious
caviling
duplicitous
holier-than-thou
sanctimonious
insincere
peevish
PHONY, PRETENTIOUS POMPOUS, PSUEDO-INTELLECTUAL children playing around with too-big, adult ideas.
Methinks the ASS doth PROJECT TOO MUCH!
No wonder I can’t find any books in the library. You’ve got them all. Ain’t that just like the Republicans? They not only hog all the money, they hog all the library books too! Oink! Oink!
* LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle TIC is a 50% owned tenancy-in-common operated as an offshore subsidiary of Alan d/b/a Dubyasux NLSP.
Comment by LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle @ 23
I’m glad you realize we DO have things in common. We’re all Americans here, so let’s work together for the common good instead of bitching over a few bucks of taxes or minor cultural differences. The more you look around you, the more you’ll see just how much we have in common.
* LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle TIC is a 50% owned tenancy-in-common operated as an offshore subsidiary of Alan d/b/a Dubyasux NLSP.
chards @ 24
My name isn’t Sybil, it’s Chardonnay, but you can call me Sybil if it makes you happy, although making you happy is really the responsibility of your significant other — if you ever find one. In the meantime, don’t expect me to make you happy, because I don’t love you and that’s not my job.
* Chardonnay TIC is a 50% owned tenancy-in-common operated as an offshore subsidiary of Alan d/b/a Dubyasux NLSP.
LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle @ 26
“Isn’t it just amazing that the only ‘shameful behavior’ here always belongs to conservatives.
I’m glad you agree. That’s the way I feel, too. See — we DO have a lot in common besides just our love of reading books!
* LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle a 50% owned tenancy-in-common operated as an offshore subsidiary of Alan d/b/a Dubyasux NLSP.
Me @ 10 and 11 extending a branch, attempting to show that, at least in love of the written word, there is common ground.
Sure, and if Osama bin Laden sends GW Bush a Christmas card made from a picture of burning WTC towers we may as well call off the war on terror! Feigned expressions of so-called “common ground” are the ultimate tactic of a PHONY, PRETENTIOUS POMPOUS, PSUEDO-INTELLECTUAL.
Nobody feels sorry for you, ass troll. If you want a bout with heavyweights then don’t cry like a pussy every time you end up with a black eye.
I’d thought I’d pull this forward
#
French, Italian and Mexican blood runs through my veins dear. I rarely give it a second thought.
Comment by John— 4/15/05 @ 7:42 pm
So you’re a snobby phony (French), short macho (Italian), illiterate itinerant great at yard work – [by the way you were late last week to spread that mulch we ordered] (Mexican), eh?
And by the way – whoop de friggin do.
I’m Italian and Austrian – born of pure Italians and Austrians, only 2nd generation American.
Comment by LIBERAL Pets have been spayed, neutered, defanged & caged – ask defeated Daschle— 4/17/05 @ 1:
It appears our dear ASS troll has special enmity for Mexican laborers. The same people who help keep our food prices among the lowest in the world, build out our subdivisions for cheap and countless other tasks mostly to send the bulk of their earnings home for their families and relatives who have little to nothing compared to what we all have – all implicitly sanctioned by all-to-eager American business owners.
Yes ASS not only are you an insufferable elitist sycophant, you are an unconsionable bigot as well.
How do you live with yourself?
No enmity – I hire them and pay them good wages for a good days work as opposed to YOU who probably pitch stray nickels at them on your way to grab your fluffy latte.
ps darlin’: dictionary.com
Spelling can be your friend.
sybil/don/alan/dubyasux @ 30
are you taking hormones?
Comment by AssWillAlwaysBeAnASS— 4/17/05 @ 9:02 pm
I’m glad you can admit it John – isn’t that they 1st step to recovery?
How do you live with yourself? -Comment by AssWillAlwaysBeAnASS— 4/17/05 @ 9:02 pm
Actually, I live very well, thanks.
Great spouse, even better kids who are healthy, smart and downright terrific people, fantastic life with very few bumps and looking forward to an even better future.
an ass is one who calls himself an ass and does not relize that his ass is an ass. not only is the ass not aware he is an ass he makes an even bigger ass of himself by calling others an ass. all the while the ass is proud of his ass. his name, ass, is his asset. Ass, why are you so proud to be an ass?
Ok if being of Mexican descent means one is illiterate and good at yard work then I suppose:
Being Italian means one is good at promising to run the trains on time and being Austrian means being good at sewing swastika arm bands.
All the more better if you have PURE BLOOD..
Love your reasoning dearie. Now how do you live with yourself again?
Asked and answered.
This thread is about books. Here’s a book recommendation for our resident spewmeistress ProudASS; Mary Doria Russell’s Thread of Grace. An excerpt regarding BLOOD:
The very blood in his veins was a danger to him. There were birth defects and feeblemindedness in his incestuous family. His uncle-father was a bastard, and Klara’s son worried all his life that unsavory gossip about his ancestry would become public. He was frightened of sexual intercourse and never had children, afraid his tainted blood would be revealed in them. He was terrified of cancer, which took his mother’s life, and horrified that he had suckled at diseased breasts.
How could anyone live with so much fear?
His solution was to simplify. He sought and seized one all-encompassing explanation for the existence of sin and disease, for all his failures and disappointments. There was no weakness in his parents, his blood, his mind. He was faultless; others were filth. He could not change his china blue eyes, but he could change the world they saw. He would identify the secret source of every evil, and root it out, annihilating at a stroke all that threatened him. He would free Europe of pollution and defilement–only health and confidence and purity and order would remain!
Are such grim and comic facts significant, or merely interesting? Here’s another: the doctor who could not cure Klara Hitler’s cancer was Jewish.
White White @2
It’s just loony to suggest Ann Coulter would be a start on reality. The woman thinks suffrage should be reversed and that Canadians fought in Vietnam with Americans, to say nothing of the lies she repeats.
White Wine, you and your friends should read:
Stealing Jesus, by Bruce Bawer
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken
Eyewitness to Power, by David Gergen
Blinded by the Right, by David Brock
Letters from a Birmingham Jail, by Martin Luther King, Jr.
olyscoop, why would anyone read a book by Al Franken? they guy can’t even do a TV interview without losing his temper. Be honest, did you glide through each chapter of his book? Is he a literary genius? Maybe his temper lost him his TV jobs. These bad tempers seem to be a common issue among the left.
What about Richard Dreyfus? Now there is another pot-head loon. The guy can’t stay focused long enough to even do a radio interview. I think there is ONE common link with these loons and the entire left, a mental deficiency. Not to worry tho, in WA you can still vote even in a PVS.
AssIsAsAssDoes @ 41
There are many theories — and we’ll never know for sure — what propelled young Adolf toward his horrific path. A fascinating little novel, “The Eyewitness” by Ernst Weiss, suggests its fictional character, identified only as AH, was jilted by a Jewish girlfriend. Weiss was a friend of Dr. Edmund Forster, a psychiatrist who treated German Army Cpl. Adolf Hitler after a World War 1 gas attack, and had access to personal information about Forster’s infamous patient. Forster was arrested almost immediately after Hitler took power and died in Gestapo custody a few days later. So — is it possible that a Jewish girl’s rejection of a suitor led to (or at least contributed to) the deaths of 6 million Jews? My take on it is that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was a product of deeply rooted cultural influences, and if hurt feelings from a failed romance would have, at most, perhaps served to reinforce a budding prejudice that would have bloomed anyway. But it’s a fascinating story.
chards @ 43
I’ve read Franken’s book and heard him on radio, and find him funny and entertaining. Franken is a comedian by trade, and is at his best when jabbing. A deep thinker, he is not. For you to take him sooo seriously, and see no humor in his polemics, is well akin to taking Jay Leno seriously and not laughing at his jokes. You need another drink, chards. Loosen up, you’re way too tight for your own good.
Alan/don/dubya/Cybil @ 44
Al Franken used to be funny when he was actually reading from a comedy script. But as most actors left on their own they look like idiots. Al however has a temper, a typical liberal trait. I see how you would be a fan. So much in common. When not pasting the law you found online you struggle to communicate without exposing your temper, let alone all your personalities. Was being an actor a dream of yours don/alan/dubya/cybil?
now why could I drink when I see the effects it has on you?
RDC,
But for. An interesting refutation with plenty of truth attached. The problem as I see it is not that at one time the environmental movement became King of the Hill. It was great, wonderful, and opened up the eyes of people who had previously been focused on the everyday struggle for today’s survival. No, it is that the King of the Hill decayed. The same intractable thinking, while not advancing to the next step. “What, oh transplanted dolt from the horribly hot and polluted state of Texas, could that be?”
Quite simply, it is the fault of (drum roll, please…) Government! More specifically, our elected leaders. To get really nasty, our elected leaders who run for re-election and take campaign contributions from the Agenda-class (yes, I am engaging in class warfare here).
You may have noticed that I stayed away from the scientists on the last post. I think that is the preferred method for advancing science, as opposed to creating agenda driven research. You may recall our back and forth over stem cells. It got me thinking, and this is the result: Environmental research is not (or no longer is) performed for the benefit of society; it is for the benefit of the researchers who are funded by the Agenda class. More specifically, it is for the benefit of the Agenda class. In other words, the scientists are bought and paid for by whomever is funding them, and those who fund them get the best “science” money can buy. Evidence of this is found no further than one Marlboro away.
I think there should be a different way to fund this research. Call it a blind trust or whatever. How to fund it comes into question, as do the realms of defined research (or should those realms be defined?). Above all, keep the active research as far from politics as possible or we will end up with more of the same or worse.
Those are my laughable pie-in-the-sky thoughts on the subject. Yes, it was Rudolph (too much news to properly digest); The religious comparison was more a dig at Rich, though the wacko part seems to fit; I’m shocked, SHOCKED! to find NIMBY’s against a sewage treatment plant: I do not particularly care what Cynical or Chardonnay may think about anything; and damn! I wish there was a preview feature.
You will have to excuse my fickle self, the new mistress requires a bath, and who am I to keep her waiting? ;)
No, it is that the King of the Hill decayed. The same intractable thinking, while not advancing to the next step..yes, but someone has to stay behind to mind the store.
The Shellenberger and Nordhaus essay I mentioned,”The Death of Environmentalism” echoes your thinking. It’s very long, but not hard to read, and I recommend it very highly. I’m sure you can find it on the internet.
My wife is upset about who was selected as Pope. I’m out and about all of tomorrow. I may get to some foreign policy thoughts tonight, or if not, I’ll try tomorrow night.
BTW the scientists working for Marlboro were perhaps the best scientists company money could by, but they were far from being the best scientists. The best “scientists” as it turned out, were the lawyers who put the case against the tobaco companies together. But I take your point…no research is entirely out of reach of the influence of dollars, but I think you overstate the case. The problem you allude to is probably the major problem with our form of democracy, and one which may ultimately do us in, the problem of various special interests de facto buying of legislation or regulation.
Taking a break, myself. Enjoy…
First, the caveat…I’ve had a long day, and am tired. Also, I am a liberal who hates America, so anything I say should be held against me. I have been thinking about your question of what the foreign policy of the US should be in the post anti-communism era. Rather than trying to put all of those thoughts into one post, I think I’ll put down a few ideas and perhaps we can develop a discussion using them as a starting point.
The more I thought about this subject, the more an old joke seemed to apply…if you want to get there (an enlightened foreign policy in this case), you can’t start from here. Regretably, this old joke may turn out to be true. But for the sake of discussion, let’s ignore our electoral system, our increasingly corrupt congress, and our past and current mistakes.
First, foreign policy and domestic policy should be complementary. They should always be considered together. This is likely apparent in the case of, say, trade negotiations like NAFTA, but may not be apparent in other areas. Second, policy initiatives should be for the purpose of either solving a problem or preventing a problem from occurring. Third, the measure of an initiative should be a national one..something that benefits 5,000 people in Florida but harms 250,000,000 people elsewhere in the country should be avoided. All this is preamble to saying that I think to look at foreign policy, first domestic policy has to be looked at. Essentially, this is just starting from a base and moving outward.
So, the first thing to ask, in broad terms, is what problems need solving or what problems do we need to prevent. In many cases the two are intertwined. In fact, everything is intertwined, but it should be helpful to pretend things are separate. The problems I would start with are (1) economic security. I think America is in decline relative to much of the world. This needs to be reversed. (2) energy security…Jimmy Carter was our last leader to pay attention. We are running out of time. (3) physical security…disarming the bad guys, and (4)intellectual security, perhaps better summed up as a war on ignorance. I know this is not well-worded, but what I’m suggesting is that our foreign policy must be one that adds to or does no harm to our economic, energy, physical, and intellectural security, measured by looking at the nation as a whole. That this is not currently the case one need look no further than Cuba.
I’ll come back to this tomorrow; my brain is shutting down.
My last post shows that one should not attempt a complex subject when dog-tired. More on that later. For now, David Brooks is at his best in today’s column, with a very thought-provoking argument on Roe v. Wade. Because he almost always is, he is likely wrong here as well, but the column made a few of the electrons in my brain cells leap to another energy level.
Elsewhere, nothing new under the sun. Alan Greenspan is again displaying his duplicitous self without apparently realizing how naked he is.
I wanted to get to your thoughts on foreign policy, but Brooks preempted my thoughts.
I have heard a number of pundits from both sides make the argument that R vs W was a bad decision just based on the opinion and without regard to the outcome it created. Naturally, the Pro-abortion-on-demand types think it is the ultimate and must be preserved as their top priority, while on the Pro-life side, we have nutcases bombing clinics and threatening anyone connected with making a living on this procedure.
These two warring factions have been at it for three decades. It will not go away quietly by being reversed. The reversal (I am not sure it will happen no matter which individuals are appointed to the SCOTUS) has been theorized as leading to State legislation, a de-facto ban in some States, and on-demand abortion in others. That could actually be more chaotic than the present situation, and thus has been an argument for the status quo.
I agree with Brooks. The truncated debate from 1973 needs to run its course. When is life really life? At what point does the “thing” in the woman’s womb become human? While science has classified the stages of development, it has not convinced me that a woman who made a choice to have sex can then decide to eschew the consequence(s) by terminating what is a life, or is at a bare minimum a potential life.
All of which leads me to think of the subject in just that term: When? As soon as I find out, I’ll let you know. Until that question is answered definitively as fetilization, viability, or birth, I remain in the pro-life camp. That seems the logical libertarian view IMO, as opposed to the modern SCOTUS libertarian allowance of the mother’s choice, and ONLY the mother’s choice.
Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-wrestling. I’m pro-death myself. Without it, where would we be? But I’m finding that as the clock ticks, I’m not as rigid in my pro-death sentiments as I once was.
All of which is to say, there is no answer, or rather, there are a very large number of answers, no one of which is any better than any other. Ultimately, it is the majority vote on the SC that matters. My opinion is now and always has been that legal life begins at birth. All other options lead to absurdities, IMO. Science can’t answer the question to everyone’s satisfaction. Religion can’t. Scholars can’t. Politicians can’t. Only each individual can answer it, but the answer applies only to that person. In the end, which may be a long time coming, it will boil down to a Pepsi vs Coke advertising campaign. Potential life is a different matter. Easy to define…or is it? Now that we have the ability to take some DNA and say the right magic words and create a life, couldn’t one argue that all DNA that could be used for this purpose is potential life?
What bothers me most about the abortion debate is that nasty trick nature played on the female of our species; making her rather than him responsible for essentially everything. He doesn’t get pregnant. He can decide to have sex..[and]..then decide to eschew the consequences, or rather, he doesn’t have to decide, nature did him that big favor already. The law may condemn him for being a rat if he doesn’t hang around after his seed implants itself, but it doesn’t condemn him nearly as much, not even close to being nearly as much, as it does her if it denies her the opportunity to end a life-altering and perhaps life shattering pregnancy.
BTW, the term should be pro-human life. God made the world in such a way that life lives on life, so it would be the rankest hypocrisy to claim to be pro-life while wolfing down a steak, or even a salad, for that matter.
Maybe tomorrow I’ll get back to foreign policy.
Good post.
On Brooks main (or was it secondary?) point, I see no need for relagating the filibuster on this matter to the dustbin of history. Indeed, history should be looked at seriously from the R side, that they realize that they will one day be in the minority again. The slippery slope of this Armageddon move is that they may lose this tool in perpetuity, though they may not care about that based on their present track record.
For what it’s worth, in today’s world, as a pollster I’d put you with the independents who lean conservative, rather than with the Rs. Maybe the party will come back to its roots, but I’m not confident. H.L. Mencken said that no one ever went broke underestimating people’s intelligence; maybe this applies to political success as well.
I’m going to try to come back here today with some more on foreign policy. However, I’m gone Saturday and Sunday. Just in case, if this thread runs out, I’ll be doing some estate planning on Monday.
Well, as I was saying about an enlightened foreign policy, you can’t get there from here. I am very pessimistic about the future. Even while Reagan was in office I managed to stay hopeful. But not now. I don’t know if the Ds would do any better, but they are not in control. Those in control suffer from myopic vision in the extreme. As best as I can tell, our foreign policy consists mostly in keeping our fingers crossed about Iraq, keeping the blinders firmly affixed in Afghanistan, borrowing money from China, bad-mouthing Castro and Chavez, having an occasional spat with Putin, mooning Europe, and betting the farm that the anthive that is the world’s surface sits atop many gigantic subterranean lakes of crude oil. And, oh yes, keeping the American public fearful of being attacked by non-Christians. Maybe there is a consistent theme here, an underlying set of principles or objectives. I’ll acknowledge that because I can’t find it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Economic security, physical security, energy security, intellectual security, and domestic policy being the foundation for foreign policy…these are my themes. I’ll start trying to weave these themes into the discussion, and start by saying that I see four realities that can not be ignored. The first two are the most important, and addressing those may take care of the second two. The first is globalization and the interconnectedness of the world. We can not go back; we can not be isolationists. The sweater is already knit; it can’t be raveled without the consent of the rest of the world. The second is that demand for resources, especially energy and perhaps water, will continue to increase faster than supply from traditional sources can, with the corollary that there is a very likely possibility that our use of fossil fuels will bring on environmental problems of great magnitude is their use isn’t curtailed. The third is that America is in decline relative to much of the world, if not in actual decline, in research, education, standard of living, and economic well-being for the average family. The fourth reality is that there are individuals, groups of individuals, and perhaps (but only perhaps; I’m not convinced there are any)one or two states that are actively working to do America great damage.
So, this is my framework. Our domestic and foreign policies should try to achieve the four securities by addressing the four realities. The framework may not be perfect, but if you agree it makes sense as far as it goes, we can start anywhere. My suggestion is to start with the reality of globalization, and what we should do domestically to address this.
Another excellent post. I am an independent who leans conservative…Just letting that roll around for a minute. I always told my dad he was a bit too busy with his voting. I always considered myself different than he politically, but I realize now that I have inherited his thought process. I guess Goldy was correct in his assessment that political thought runs in the family here. That Goldy guy is very astute, at times…
Some opinions from my center right aisle seat: Globalization is as you said, firmly weaved within the fabric of our nation. China’s dominance of our global trade (a misnomer?), even sitting at second next to Canada, is something any rational individual needs to be concerned with.
On fossil fuel, I believe the market will likely have more power to dictate which direction we need to go in order to maintain our quality of life than administration policy, but the market does need a push. It is becoming very apparent to many of the people I work with that we are paying too much for gas and electricity (I suppose this would be the place to insert Halliburton references). I do not harbor illusions that the supply of fuel is infinite, but my decades-long reading of National Geographic magazine reminds me of how often the prediction of oil exhaustion has been wrong, beginning with the magazine’s founding decade.
Your corollary may be true, but I have more than a few doubts about the future effects of fossil fuel use. I think the science is likely on the right track, but the formulaic equations are phenomenally incomplete. Anytime I hear about the latest computer-generated climate model showing X number changes in degrees Celsius anticipated in X number of years I ask if the model took into account the butterfly flapping it’s wings in China and the correct amount of volcanic activity. What I do not dispute is that it does have an effect. What that effect is, and whether it is greater than the urban warming phenomena, is not predictable at this point. These guys defend their science well. I hope at some point they can actually produce predictive science, and while I am not holding my breath, I have them on speed dial just in case.
Water is more worrisome for a number of reasons, but primarily, it is what is needed for sustaining life.
in research, education, standard of living, and economic well-being for the average family That you lumped all of these together and said “relative” makes it particularly easy for me to agree.
one or two states that are actively working to do America great damage. Standard joke: France and who else?
I need to read up on globalization. Have a good weekend.
beginning with the magazine’s founding decade.
Not to imply I was around then, but as a youngster in my grandmother’s house, I did alot of reading. She had quite the collection in the den.
Still wishing for a preview function…
National Geographic has great photos, but the text is about right for the age you were at your grandmother’s house. Still, I’ve thumbed through many. They seem to gather in dentists’ offices and like locales.
Sometime back I mentioned that we are all doomed. This is due to climate change on a truly disastrous scale. The good news is that final bad weather day is a ways off. There is no doubt…zero, ninguno, that our climate is changing. I can see it in the glaciers when I hike or climb in the Cascades. It may just by a cyclic regional phenomenon. Data I’ve seen suggests otherwise, but the potential for tremendous harm to humankind is so great that it is, well, should be, criminal for the Administration to pooh-pooh the whole notion, which is essentially what it has done since coming into office. The market isn’t working when it comes to energy. But we will get to that in due course.
As I have been thinking more about the 4 securities and the 4 realities previously noted, the interconnectedness of all of them is inescapably obvious. This may make it difficult to focus on one thing at a time.
Back on Monday. Enjoy the weekend with your new hussymobile.