"To discover to the world something which deeply concerns it, and of which it was previously ignorant; to prove to it that it had been mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow creatures..." John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Words of Wisdom for the 2009 Economy
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Concept for the new year: NUDGE
It's a new approach to public policy that takes into account the odd realities of human behavior and the new behavioral research to help people, as well as government agencies, companies and charities, make better decisions.
It's a new look at what they call Choice Architecture. Here's how they describe it:
Choice architecture is the context in which you make your choice. Suppose you go into a cafeteria. What do you see first, the salad bar or the burger and fries stand? Where's the chocolate cake? Where's the fruit? These features influence what you will choose to eat, so the person who decides how to display the food is the choice architect of the cafeteria. All of our choices are similarly influenced by choice architects. The architecture includes rules deciding what happens if you do nothing; what's said and what isn't said; what you see and what you don't. Doctors, employers, credit card companies, banks, and even parents are choice architects.My Conversation with Richard Thaler:
How America lost its way - Book of the Year
Monday, December 29, 2008
Middle East Options
The violence we are watching is just yet another installment in the blur of tit-for-tat violence from both sides of this chronic foreign affairs ulcer.
The US -- and the incoming Obama administration -- must move an agenda forward in Israel-Palestine negotiations that works at levels higher than the perpetrators of this violence. It's time to get this conflict out of the weeds, and time to stop allowing any actors in this drama to hijack the foreign policy machinery of governments trying to push forward a Palestinian state.
Monday, December 22, 2008
What it takes to be great
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Andrew Sullivan on Rick Warren and the Inaugural
Andrew Sullivan has the most cogent argument and analysis as to why we should all support Obama's choice of Rich Warren to deliver the Inaugural invocation. He argues, and I agree that we have to rethink how we do politics in this country
Taking Yes For An AnswerDish readers will know my own conflicted feelings about the selection of Rick Warren for the Inaugural Invocation. But feelings must at some point cede to reason. And I sense an understandable but, the more I think about it, misjudged response on the part of my fellow gays and lesbians. In our hurt, we may be pushing away from a real opportunity to engage and win hearts and minds. Here's Glenn Greenwald:
Reasonable arguments can certainly be advanced in defense of the virtues of Obama's post-partisan theory of politics. But it's simply unreasonable to depict any of it as new. It's exactly what Democrats have been clinging to, desperately and mostly with futility, for two decades at least.
I disagree. I think Obama is different. I think the earnestness and sincerity of his campaign, and its generational force, have given us a chance for something new, and I fear that in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away far too prematurely. There is no question that gays and lesbians have made enormous strides in explaining who we are in the last couple of decades. There is equally no question that Obama has substantively committed his administration to more gay inclusion and gay equality than any president in history. We absolutely do need to be vigilant on this. But we should also understand Obama's attempt to bridge some gaps in America that the Clintons, with their boomer baggage and Dick Morris cynicism, couldn't and didn't. This is what matters. Do gays and lesbians want to be a part of this - or sit fuming on the sidelines at symbolic slights?
I know the arguments against this, and if Obama delivers nothing on gay equality, the critics will have every reason to complain loudly, as they should. But I'm not going there yet. And the truth is: if we cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of our equality, we may secure a narrow and bitter victory in some states (just as the Christianists won a narrow and bitter victory in California in November). But we will not win the bigger argument and our victories will lack the moral legitimacy they deserve.
The greatest distortion of our politics in this respect is the notion that gays are in some way opposed to faith and in some way that our cause is a function solely of the left. Neither is true.
Gay people contribute disproportionately to the religious and spiritual life of this country and we seek no attack on free religion freely expressed and celebrated. I find the idea of silencing my opponents abhorrent. Many gays voted for McCain. I believe in family, which is why I have tried my whole life to integrate my sexual orientation with my own family and finally two summers ago, to become a full part of it as a married man. I love my church, however much pain it still inflicts on itself and others. And I am not alone in this, as I have discovered these past two decades.
If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.
The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment.
It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Our remembered past: Israel & The Holocaust
A couple of weeks ago it was interesting to hear Avraham Burg, the former speaker of Israel's Knesset and the author of The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes make a heartfelt plea to his countrymen: remember the past, but do not be its slaves; pathology is neither patriotism nor statecraft. His story is a compelling and eloquent cri de coeur from a veteran of Israel's wars and politics and one we'd all to well to remember and learn from.
My conversation with Avraham Burg:
Monday, December 15, 2008
Pragmatism over Ideology
A reader on Daniel Larison's Conservative blog talks about Obama and Pragmatism. It's perhaps the most important outcome of the election. Call it the "Best and the Brightest," "competence over ideology," regardless, it WILL be the central guiding idea of the next eight years.
I don’t think you’re giving full credit to pragmatism as one of several possible natural dispositions of human beings. It isn’t just some facade that some ideologues put on to try to pretend they aren’t ideologues, which of course does happen. It’s an actual approach to life that is a natural path for some of us.
Take the scientific method, for example. It’s not natural to everyone, but it certainly reflects a basic human approach based on objective evidence, facts, observation, and trial and error. Pragmatists are people who simply aren’t inclined towards ideology and dogma, or even if they are to some degree, feel that such things need to be tested by real experience and reformed accordingly. They think it is more natural to proceed in this rather scientific, pragmatic way than it is to try to impose an ideology on nature.
Obviously not everyone is pragmatic, many are quite opposed to it. Some are opposed, but recognize that in politics pragmatism is valued by many, so they put on a pragmatic facade, in order to promote their ideology. So there’s always a question about someone who puts themselves forward as a pragmatist, as to whether they really are, or are just pretending to be.
Assuming the debate over Obama has inspired these remarks, I think its worth mentioning that a large part of the election campaign was fought over just this issue. Obama presented himself as a genuinely pragmatic politician who was not primarly concerned with ideology, but with what would work, and that he could appeal across ideological divides to come to agreements on what worked that would be good for the country.
McCain and many conservatives were accusing Obama of presenting a false facade, that he was actually a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, a leftist ideologue who was hiding his real ideological extremism behind this fake veneer of pragmatism, and that once elected he would show his true colors, and try to turn the country into a muslim, socialist paradise for Bill Ayers and al Qaeda terrorists.
The electorate rejected McCain’s version of Obama, and accepted Obama’s own self-description. Those who are surprised by Obama’s appointments thus far are those who for some reason mistakenly believed in McCain’s criticism. One of the best examples of Obama’s pragmatism is his appointment of Chu as energy secretary. Imagine that, and actual expert scientist in charge of energy research and development! Rather than a politician or military official or a “green” progressive environmentalist, Obama picked a guy who actually knows science. Is this being “centrist”, or is it being pragmatic in the real sense of the word.
I think the truth that is coming out, and which you have avoided seeing as best you can, is that Obama really is, by nature, a pragmatist, in the most basic sense of the word, and that ideology is not what makes him tick. That doesn’t mean he has no ideological biases, but that the forms and changes his ideology based on actual observation, analysis, and testing of those ideas, in what is loosely a scientific matter, and not even a purely political form of pragmatism.
Friday, December 12, 2008
TIME picks its non-fiction book of the year
Time said of the book:
"The gaping wounds of Iraq and Afghanistan have produced a torrent of words, but no single volume so far has the precision and power ofThe Forever War. Filkins has been covering the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 1998, and since then he has filled 561 notebooks with observations and interviews. Even under the direst of conditions Filkins is alive to novelistic detail: the popping sound of a 105 mm cannon, like 'a machine that served tennis balls'; a barber shaving the beards of Talibs so they can switch sides; a man whom Saddam forced to pay for the bullets that were used to execute his brother, and who received a receipt for his payment. Filkins' set pieces have the absolute clarity of lightning flashes that burn away the fog of war."Here is my conversation with Dexter Filkins:
Thursday, December 11, 2008
When Worlds Collapse
Where the discussion isn't going, at least in public, (or the PR level), is the possibility that the first foreign policy crisis the administration will face will be the complete economic collapse of a large, unstable nation. To be sure, Pakistan is nearly broke, and U.S. policy makers seem to be aware of that; but a worldwide demand crisis could lead to social unrest in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, Singapore, the Ukraine, Japan, Turkey or Egypt (which is facing an internal political crisis of epic proportions already). The U.S. won't have the resources to, say, engineer the rescue of the peso again, or intervene in Asia as in 1997.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
No Bailout of Detroit!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Obama and FDR "The Defining Moment"
Here is my conversation with Jonathan Alter:
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Another Obama perfect pick
Whenever he talks about this selection, Obama (plus his lieutenants) can describe it completely, sufficiently, and strictly in the most bipartisan high-road terms. They have selected a wounded combat veteran; a proven military leader and manager; a model of personal dignity and nonpartisan probity: an unimpeachable choice. Symbolic elements? If people want them, they can work with Shinseki's status as (to my recollection at the moment) the first Asian-American in a military-related cabinet position, not to mention a Japanese-American honored for lifelong military service on Pearl Harbor Day.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Why Prop 8 really passed
Moreover, those now engaging in attempts at boycotts and publishing names of Prop 8 supporters are engaged in the same kind of sloppy, miscalculated, tone deaf tactics that got Prop 8 passed. For those that ran the No on 8 Campaign, the blame for its passage is, to paraphrase Shakespeare, not the Stars, but in yourselves.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Who is Michelle Obama?
My conversation today with Liza:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Andrew Jackson & Jon Meacham
The economy and China's future
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Cyber Monday redux
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Limits of Power
My Conversation with Bacevich based on his book The Limits of Power:
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obama's voice
Elections do matter!
Obama understood the point—which eludes some presidential candidates—that running is about governing, that there should be a seamless connection between the two. The best way to judge presidential candidates—aside from whether one basically agrees with their values—is to try to envision them governing. Will they inspire people to follow them? What kind of people do they have around them? How do they run their campaign? The wise candidate, the one who sees long, will run the campaign as a preparation for the presidency. In Obama's case, from what we have been able to observe up to this point, there will be a straight line from his campaigning to his governing.
"Palling around with terrorists"
Powered by Podbean.com
Monday, November 24, 2008
Kerry Kennedy talks about Catholisism and her father
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Obama skips church, heads to gym
Friday, November 21, 2008
45 Years and still no clarity
Lamar Waldon is the country's leading assassination researcher. His work was the primary source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." He is a staunch believer in the involvement of the Mafia and the Cubans. His latest 800+ page tome is Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination
My interview with Waldron:
The Best and the Brightest Redux
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Jedi Mind Trick
Education, Education, Education
I recently spoke to Carl Glickman, the books editor who is Scholar-in-Residence in the Educational Administration and Policy Program at the University of Georgia.
NO BAILOUT
2008, Not the Year of the Woman
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Is Obama really this smart!
Hitchens shares the love..
Monday, November 17, 2008
A war of choice that also didn't work!
He begun his memoirs with Gordon Goldstein, inorder to tell his side of the story. He died before ever finishing them. Gordon Goldstein has written the story he thought that Bundy would have wanted to tell.
This is a piece of the puzzle that is needed to help us better understand America's tragic collison with it most fateful war of choice. Maybe we should have had this book five years ago!
My conversation with Gordon Goldstein, author of Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam
Sunday, November 16, 2008
What we can lean from a very special Gray Parrot
How Newspapers might think about reinventing themselves.
Why the Federal government can't work!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The End of Wall Street?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Howard Dean was at the cutting edge! Who knew?
My conversation with Matt Bai.
Liberman & Clinton: The Common Thread
Unlike the vice-presidency, a secretary of state has real constitutionally-designated things to do. From Clinton's point of view, it would be a natural position from which to run to succeed Obama in 2016 (or to make an inside push to oust him in 2012). The emergence of Max Baucus as the front senator for healthcare seems to me that Obama might have already been signaling this maneuver. If Clinton isn't the lead player on healthcare, what is she going to do?
So here's hoping he offers and she accepts. It's an elegant and shrewd move; both public spirited and yet coldly calculating at the same time. Pure Obama.