I haven't read a huge variety of books over the summer, but nevertheless on writing about most of those I have read, I discovered that there is rather a lot of ground to be covered. So I am splitting my commentaries into two parts, in part to avoid having an enormously lengthy post, and in part because I haven't finished writing about a couple of the things I've read. So here is part 1; I hope to post part 2 sometime in the next week or so.
Complicity by Iain Banks
Complicity is a thriller by Iain Banks, who is the same person as the science-fiction writer Iain M. Banks (his mainstream – i.e., non-sci-fi – work is published under the former name). The main character is Cameron Colley a cynical left-wing journalist who has something of a drug problem (mainly amphetamines, alcohol and cigarettes), a married girlfriend, an addiction to a computer game vaguely resembling Civilization and an obvious dislike for authority. His part of the story, which takes up the majority of the novel, is told in the first person. However, certain parts (including the opening scene) are told in second person, something that is somewhat unusual in novels. In these parts, the main character is a serial killer who targets rich and powerful people who have egregiously abused their power. These parts are often quite graphic, though I was able to read them in part because I knew it was fiction, but also because I couldn’t help a slight degree of admiration for the killer’s inventiveness in making sure the victims were killed (or in one case assaulted) in ways that were “appropriate” to their crimes. Not that such vigilante justice should be considered appropriate, especially these sorts of brutal assaults, but if anyone (fictional or not) deserves such fates, it would be people like these (though in the case of the murderer’s first victim, we aren’t ever told exactly why he was targeted, though it is possible to guess).
As is often the case in Banks’s novels, it is not immediately obvious what the parts about Colley (and the occasional references to his past) and the parts about the murderer have to do with each other. The connections between different elements only begin to become clearer as the novel progresses. Naturally, much of the plot is driven by the mystery of the murderer’s identity and motives, and the attempts of the authorities to apprehend the killer. The novel is a fairly grim but exciting, and Banks raises some interesting questions about the nature of justice in a society where the powerful often get away with murder. He doesn’t really attempt to answer these questions definitively, but merely by raising them he ensures that Complicity is thought-provoking as well as darkly entertaining.
Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card
Off and on over the past few months I’ve read a number of sci-fi and fantasy short stories, including tales by Philip K. Dick, Greg Egan, George R. R. Martin and Orson Scott Card. Philip K. Dick’s stories tend to be a little bit bizarre and at the same time a bit old-fashioned (some of them resemble episodes of The Twilight Zone). Two of the ones I read recently were about different types of post-apocalyptic futures. In one the world is dominated by a caste system in which Asians are on top and whites (often dismissed by those on top as smelly and ape-like) on the bottom and most technology is forbidden (though some of the whites secretly preserve it – thus the story in some respects portrays whites as actually superior, despite the reversal of traditional racial stratification in America). In the other a technological society dominated by robots has been overthrown by an anarchist revolution, and an anarchist team traveling the country to stop attempts to reorganize society along technological lines encounters a hidden society held together by a robot that escaped. This story is also ambivalent, in this case about whether the anarchists or the robot and its followers are in the right.
Greg Egan’s stories are quite different from Dick’s, being more recent and focusing on hard science. The one I read most recently focuses on the nature of human consciousness, told through a character in some ways reminiscent of the protagonist of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Other stories focus on advanced mathematics, genetics, and bioengineering. The George R. R. Martin story I read was set in the same world as his Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novels, though at an earlier time. The novels have recently gained additional prominence due to the adaptation of the first novel, Game of Thrones, as a popular television series on HBO. The novels are complex, with a vast number of characters, and grim, with major characters killed off with surprising frequency. The short story, one of several featuring the same two characters, is much simpler and less bleak, though it also has some moral ambiguity at its heart. Orson Scott Card’s short story features his character Alvin Maker in a 19th century America in which history has diverged somewhat from that of the real world. A few famous people from real history appear, though in this alternate America their life stories are different from those we are familiar with.
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Meditations is a collection of writings by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus based on the principles of Stoic philosophy, originally titled in its original ancient Greek “thoughts addressed to himself”. Marcus Aurelius, as he is generally referred to, lived in the 2nd century CE, and reigned as Roman Emperor from 161 CE to 180 CE. At the time he took power, the empire was at its height after a series of generally successful reigns by his predecessors Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius. During his reign, however, the Roman Empire was struck by wars with the Parthians and various German tribes, and most seriously by plague (believed to be smallpox or possibly measles). This was devastating to the empire, killing much of the population, eventually including Marcus Aurelius himself (the film Gladiator’s version of his death, which has his son Commodus murdering him for disinheriting him, is certainly false, especially since Marcus Aurelius had already made Commodus co-emperor). So despite being by most accounts a very capable ruler, Marcus Aurelius ruled in a time of great trouble that saw the beginning of Rome’s decline, and he also suffered substantial personal tragedy, including the deaths of many of his children in infancy or when they were still quite young. Perhaps these factors, as much as his educational background, encouraged his interest in Stoicism.
Among the notable themes of Meditations is the idea that life is short and each individual is in the grand scheme of things quite insignificant, so pursuing fame or praise is pointless. “This life is short. Both he that praiseth and he that is praised, he that remembers and he that is remembered, will soon be dust and ashes. Besides, it is one corner of this part of the world that thou art praised, and yet in this corner, thou hast not the joint praises of all men, no nor scarce of any one constantly. And yet the whole earth itself, what is it but as one point, in regard of the whole world [universe]?” In many ways, this resembles one of my favorite books in the Jewish scriptures, Ecclesiastes, with its constant refrain that everything is “meaningless” and there is “nothing new under the sun” (indeed, Marcus also says “there is nothing that is new”), or the soliloquy that William Shakespeare gave to Macbeth (“Tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day…”). He emphasizes several times that not only will everyone die, but eventually even those who remember them will be forgotten. But he also declares that death is not something to be feared, as humans are but “a mixture of elements, resolved into the same elements again.” Above all, he repeatedly reiterates the importance of rationality over emotion.
Marcus Aurelius, like most Stoic philosophers, placed little stock in worldly pleasure. He also expresses a low opinion of his own status as ruler and military leader declaring that “to [the title and credit of a philosopher] also is thy [i.e. his own] calling and profession repugnant. And yet his philosophy was not all negative. He repeatedly talks of the necessity of tolerating others, even those who do you harm, and of disregarding the insults and attacks of others: “It is reported unto thee, that such a one speaketh ill of thee. Well, that he speaketh ill of thee, that much is reported. But that thou art hurt thereby is not reported; that is the addition of opinion, which thou must exclude.” He also advocated acting positively for the benefit of others and of treating others kindly. He placed the good of the community over that of the individual (“That which is not good for the beehive cannot be good for the bee”), and went so far as to express the idea of a universal brotherhood of humankind: “And my nature is to be rational in all my actions and as a good and natural member of a city and commonwealth, towards my fellow members to sociably and kindly disposed and affected. My city and country as I am Antoninus is Rome; as a man, the whole world.” He refers several times to entity the translator renders as God, though this is not the Judeo-Christian god but the divine animating principle of Hellenistic and specifically Stoic philosophy (the one mention Marcus makes of Christians is negative), and he also refers to the traditional gods, though he condemns superstitious belief and takes a somewhat agnostic approach at times.
I don’t agree with all of the ideas Marcus Aurelius expresses or all the rules of behavior he prescribes, and even those that I do find reasonable are perhaps not so easy to follow (and judging by the occasional tone of strong self-criticism, he apparently found them difficult as well). But much of what he says is thought-provoking (though I should note that historians generally believe he was summarizing previous Stoic ideas rather than expressing completely original thoughts). I was particularly struck early on how just after coming off the internet where I had been gotten sidetracked into reading some particularly ridiculous comments by various people (something I generally try to avoid) practically the first thing I read was Marcus’s statement that one of the many people he thanked for making him what he was had taught him “not to be offended with idiots”. Again, I may not be able to follow such a stricture, but I certainly found it apt at the time. So, all in all, Meditations is an intriguing though not exciting read. However, if possible it would be best to seek out a more recent translation, rather than the very archaic one I read (though that probably helped it function better as a sleeping aid).
The Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay
Guy Gavriel Kay is a writer of fantasy and historical fiction who began his career in the field by assisting Christopher Tolkien in assembling J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Silmarillion. Other than The Fionavar Tapestry, the trilogy which formed his first published work, all of his novels have used places and periods in actual Earth history as direct inspiration. Thus, among the books I’ve read, Tigana is based in a country that resembles medieval Italy, A Song for Arbonne is based in a country that resembles medieval Provence (and has neighbors that resemble Italy and Germany), and the two-part work The Sarantine Mosaic is based in a land that resembles the Roman (Byzantine) Empire under Justinian (this work is the most closely based on real history of the ones I read, with numerous places, events and individual characters loosely or even fairly closely based on real places, events and people, though the ultimate course of events diverges from that in the real world). The Lions of Al-Rassan is likewise based on Earth history, in this case Spain (or Al-Andalus as the Moslems called it) at the time when the Muslim realms in the south were beginning to decline in the face of internal divisions and attacks from the Christian kingdoms in the north.
The land of Al-Rassan, or Esperana, is home to the people of three major religions, the Asharites (based on Moslems), the Jaddites (based on Christians), and the Kindath (based on the Jews). The Asharites of Al-Rassan have long dominated the peninsula, but their last caliphate has broken up into separate kingdoms, and the Jaddite kingdoms of the north are growing in power, and seek to reclaim the south of what they call Esperana for their religion. The Kindath are a minority without a homeland, usually tolerated by the Asharites (less so by the Jaddites) but occasionally subject to persecution by both. There are several major protagonists, including the female Kindath physician Jehane bet Ishak, the young Jaddite soldier Alvar de Pellino, the famed Jaddite commander Rodrigo Belmonte (loosely based on Rodrigo DÃaz, better known as El Cid), and the Asharite poet and warrior Ammar ibn Khairan (more loosely based on several individuals from Moslem Spain).
The Lions of Al-Rassan is in many senses more of a historical novel than a fantasy, despite being based in a place other than the real world. Not only does the land closely resemble medieval Spain, but there is very little trace of the supernatural, unlike in most fantasy works (there is one character that can “see” close family members in visions, but that’s it). As in most of novels by Kay that I have read, there is a lot of political intrigue, and characters are faced with moral dilemmas and conflicts of loyalty. Kay likes dramatic scenes and revelations, which though they may occasionally stretch credulity, are nevertheless an attraction for me as I have always enjoyed such things in books (Gandalf’s appearance to Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, for example) or movies (such as Darth Vader’s revelation to Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back). Kay’s books always have several such scenes, and this one is no exception. He also is adept at creating emotional scenes, probably more so than any other fantasy writer I’ve read. While he doesn’t kill major characters with the regularity of George R.R. Martin, he does do so at times, and he doesn’t shy away from occasionally nasty scenes. But in general, this book, like his others, is largely about relationships and human feelings. With well-written prose, a dramatic plot, and complex characters, The Lions of Al-Rassan is equal to Kay’s other works, and is one of the better fantasies/historical novels out there.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tripoli and More
The big news in the past few days has been the sudden breakthrough by the rebels fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi into Tripoli, the country's capital. Though the rebels had been making significant progress in the last few weeks, particularly in the west, their sudden advance coordinated with an uprising in Tripoli itself was a surprise. Though initial reports exaggerated the extent of their victory and intense fighting no doubt lies ahead, at least until Gaddafi himself is captured or killed, it is still an impressive achievement.
Of course while the overthrow of a dictator is something to celebrate, there is still no guarantee that Libya will end up much better off, as there is still danger that it could descend into chaos. But with a sufficient effort by the Libyans themselves, strong support from the West and other allies, and a dose of luck, Libya can become a much better place than it was before -- once Gaddafi is completely defeated, that is. Until that happens, everything is still up in the air.
Here are some interesting links on a variety of other topics.
On the intellectual paucity of our times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-elusive-big-idea.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
While this writer, like most people, may have a slightly rosier view of the past than is warranted and thus be judging the current age too harshly (it's hard to judge these things objectively without the perspective gained through the passage of time), he makes some interesting points.
On the recently deceased Jerry Leiber (and Nickolas Ashford):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/jerry-leiber-and-nickolas-ashford.html
There's no question that Leiber and Stoller should be numbered among the originators of rock and roll. Lieber also had respect for those who came after him; he once said the Beatles were "second to none".
Some articles from a few weeks ago on the debt deal (these two are among the more critical; there were a few that made reasonable arguments why the deal wasn't so awful but unfortunately I didn't copy those links at the time):
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92991/did-obama-get-rolled
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html
My favorite part of Krugman's piece is his analogy about that "those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker."
For a closer look at one of the vital programs endangered by the budget cutting obsession:
http://www.economist.com/node/18958475
This is a great illustration of all the harm that can be caused by the budget slashing approach, most importantly because people depend on these programs, but also because they stimulate economic activity.
Of course while the overthrow of a dictator is something to celebrate, there is still no guarantee that Libya will end up much better off, as there is still danger that it could descend into chaos. But with a sufficient effort by the Libyans themselves, strong support from the West and other allies, and a dose of luck, Libya can become a much better place than it was before -- once Gaddafi is completely defeated, that is. Until that happens, everything is still up in the air.
Here are some interesting links on a variety of other topics.
On the intellectual paucity of our times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-elusive-big-idea.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
While this writer, like most people, may have a slightly rosier view of the past than is warranted and thus be judging the current age too harshly (it's hard to judge these things objectively without the perspective gained through the passage of time), he makes some interesting points.
On the recently deceased Jerry Leiber (and Nickolas Ashford):
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/jerry-leiber-and-nickolas-ashford.html
There's no question that Leiber and Stoller should be numbered among the originators of rock and roll. Lieber also had respect for those who came after him; he once said the Beatles were "second to none".
Some articles from a few weeks ago on the debt deal (these two are among the more critical; there were a few that made reasonable arguments why the deal wasn't so awful but unfortunately I didn't copy those links at the time):
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/92991/did-obama-get-rolled
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html
My favorite part of Krugman's piece is his analogy about that "those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker."
For a closer look at one of the vital programs endangered by the budget cutting obsession:
http://www.economist.com/node/18958475
This is a great illustration of all the harm that can be caused by the budget slashing approach, most importantly because people depend on these programs, but also because they stimulate economic activity.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Defining a Terrorist
One big news event of the last month that I haven’t mentioned at all in my blog is the mass slaughter perpetrated by a self-obsessed right-wing maniac in Norway. I don’t want to go into all the depressing details (which anyone who follows the news will know most of anyway), but there is one interesting discussion that the tragedy has given extra impetus to, and that is arguments about the definition of a “terrorist” and the tendency in recent years to associate the term exclusively with Muslims, an issue I've touched on briefly in the past. This article summarizes the debate well, but I’d like to add a few thoughts as well.
First of all, the assertion that someone like Brevik who commits terrorist acts cannot possibly be considered a Christian while someone like Osama bin Laden can be called a Muslim is obviously absurd. History is full of brutal acts committed in the name of Christian religion that easily fit that modern definition of terrorism. In modern times, religious sectarianism was the main motivation behind the terrorist acts of groups like the Catholic IRA and the Protestant unionists in Northern Ireland. Religion also has motivated crazy people in the US to murder doctors who provided abortions (or even make death threats against John Lennon for accurately stating that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus – in Britain at least, which is what he was talking about). Sure, Christians can argue that the people who committed such acts did so in violation of the true tenets of the religion, but then Muslims can make the same assertion about terrorists who profess to be Muslims. As for the argument that that the Quran itself is at fault, while there certainly are some passages in the Quran that can be used to support jihad, there are also many that clearly restrict the use of violence. And verses in the Bible have also been used to justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior. So either there can be such a thing as a “Christian terrorist” or there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” either.
In fact, the term “terrorist” is widely misused. As an example, I recall that a number of years ago, the PKK (the Kurdish militant group that has been fighting the Turkish government) blew up a bridge as a truck full of Turkish soldiers was crossing it, killing them. A US official condemned this act as “terrorism”. But given that the target was soldiers who were on active duty and engaged in hunting down the PKK, this was not terrorism at all, but simply an ambush. While the PKK has certainly engaged in acts in the past that fit the definition of terrorism, in this case, the US was merely pandering to its Turkish allies by using the term. In fact, some of the Turkish government’s actions in this conflict should also be considered terrorism, as they involved arresting, torturing and killing civilians in an effort to frighten the Kurds and discourage them from supporting the PKK. Likewise, when Uyghur militants attack Chinese police, the Chinese government calls it terrorism, even though an attack on armed police officers is hardly terrorism in comparison to some of the actions the Chinese have engaged in to terrorize the Uyghurs and Tibetans. It could even be argued that the US has engaged in terrorism, such as in the firebombing of Dresden or the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Whether or not these actions are called terrorism (I would at least define the firebombing of Dresden as terrorism), it is clear that nations can engage in terrorism as much as militant groups can, and often on a grander scale.
So while there is a lot of room for argument about what particular acts qualify as terrorism, it is obvious that the exclusive association of the term with radical Muslims is wrong and even dangerous, as it encourages a prejudice against Muslims in general that is all too common among some small-brained people in the West (and elsewhere). If nothing else, terrible events like the one that took place in Norway serve as reminder that radical Islamists do not have a monopoly on reprehensible political violence targeting civilians.
First of all, the assertion that someone like Brevik who commits terrorist acts cannot possibly be considered a Christian while someone like Osama bin Laden can be called a Muslim is obviously absurd. History is full of brutal acts committed in the name of Christian religion that easily fit that modern definition of terrorism. In modern times, religious sectarianism was the main motivation behind the terrorist acts of groups like the Catholic IRA and the Protestant unionists in Northern Ireland. Religion also has motivated crazy people in the US to murder doctors who provided abortions (or even make death threats against John Lennon for accurately stating that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus – in Britain at least, which is what he was talking about). Sure, Christians can argue that the people who committed such acts did so in violation of the true tenets of the religion, but then Muslims can make the same assertion about terrorists who profess to be Muslims. As for the argument that that the Quran itself is at fault, while there certainly are some passages in the Quran that can be used to support jihad, there are also many that clearly restrict the use of violence. And verses in the Bible have also been used to justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior. So either there can be such a thing as a “Christian terrorist” or there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” either.
In fact, the term “terrorist” is widely misused. As an example, I recall that a number of years ago, the PKK (the Kurdish militant group that has been fighting the Turkish government) blew up a bridge as a truck full of Turkish soldiers was crossing it, killing them. A US official condemned this act as “terrorism”. But given that the target was soldiers who were on active duty and engaged in hunting down the PKK, this was not terrorism at all, but simply an ambush. While the PKK has certainly engaged in acts in the past that fit the definition of terrorism, in this case, the US was merely pandering to its Turkish allies by using the term. In fact, some of the Turkish government’s actions in this conflict should also be considered terrorism, as they involved arresting, torturing and killing civilians in an effort to frighten the Kurds and discourage them from supporting the PKK. Likewise, when Uyghur militants attack Chinese police, the Chinese government calls it terrorism, even though an attack on armed police officers is hardly terrorism in comparison to some of the actions the Chinese have engaged in to terrorize the Uyghurs and Tibetans. It could even be argued that the US has engaged in terrorism, such as in the firebombing of Dresden or the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Whether or not these actions are called terrorism (I would at least define the firebombing of Dresden as terrorism), it is clear that nations can engage in terrorism as much as militant groups can, and often on a grander scale.
So while there is a lot of room for argument about what particular acts qualify as terrorism, it is obvious that the exclusive association of the term with radical Muslims is wrong and even dangerous, as it encourages a prejudice against Muslims in general that is all too common among some small-brained people in the West (and elsewhere). If nothing else, terrible events like the one that took place in Norway serve as reminder that radical Islamists do not have a monopoly on reprehensible political violence targeting civilians.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
More Budget Madness
Given the prevalence of the issue in the news and its importance not only to the US but to the world economy, I sort of feel like I should comment more on how the extremists in the US Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) are bringing the US to the brink of financial disaster. But on the other hand, it's getting rather depressing to read not only the inanities spouted by the hardliners (and even the relative moderates -- "relative" being the key word here; most of them would be extremists in any other context), but the sort of "compromises" that President Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats have been reduced to pushing (huge spending cuts -- and far too little of it defense spending -- without any increases in revenue?). One thing I can understand is Obama's insistence on raising the debt limit through the end of next year. While Congress often raised the debt limit more than once a year in the past, they did it with a minimum of fuss. Only the same fringe characters who are creating a crisis this time around would really want to go through all this again any time soon.
I do wonder how many Americans really understand the facts of this debate. Even aside from believing the false ideas promoted by the right-wing fringe, like the claim that all wealthy individuals and corporations are "job creators" and any kind of tax increase will hurt growth while spending cuts won't, or the assertion that the US tax burden is particularly heavy, or any other such nonsense, many people may not even be aware that the raising the debt limit simply authorizes the federal government to pay the bills for spending that has already been passed by Congress. It has nothing to do with authorizing new spending. The time to be negotiating over future spending and taxes is when a new budget is proposed, not when the question is whether the US will fulfill its commitments. But given the crisis that some irresponsible people have created, perhaps Obama should consider using the 14th amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. He might actually have better constitutional grounds for doing so than for picking and choosing which bills to pay. Incidentally, while I can understand the writer's conclusion that anyone wanting to be US president should have their head examined, I don't think Obama (or most other people) fully realized what kind of unhinged, vitriolic opposition he'd be facing. Also, if no sane, sensible people wanted the job, then we'd end up with someone like Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin as president of the US, which would be a complete disaster for not only the US, but the rest of the world as well.
I do wonder how many Americans really understand the facts of this debate. Even aside from believing the false ideas promoted by the right-wing fringe, like the claim that all wealthy individuals and corporations are "job creators" and any kind of tax increase will hurt growth while spending cuts won't, or the assertion that the US tax burden is particularly heavy, or any other such nonsense, many people may not even be aware that the raising the debt limit simply authorizes the federal government to pay the bills for spending that has already been passed by Congress. It has nothing to do with authorizing new spending. The time to be negotiating over future spending and taxes is when a new budget is proposed, not when the question is whether the US will fulfill its commitments. But given the crisis that some irresponsible people have created, perhaps Obama should consider using the 14th amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. He might actually have better constitutional grounds for doing so than for picking and choosing which bills to pay. Incidentally, while I can understand the writer's conclusion that anyone wanting to be US president should have their head examined, I don't think Obama (or most other people) fully realized what kind of unhinged, vitriolic opposition he'd be facing. Also, if no sane, sensible people wanted the job, then we'd end up with someone like Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, or Sarah Palin as president of the US, which would be a complete disaster for not only the US, but the rest of the world as well.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Miscellaneous Musings
As a follow up to my last post, I should mention another landmark in space exploration that took place in the last few days. The NASA spacecraft Dawn went into orbit around Vesta, the second-most massive (and the brightest) of the asteroids. This is the first mission to any of the large asteroids (a number of missions have visited smaller asteroids). After orbiting and studying Vesta for a year, Dawn is scheduled to fly on to Ceres, the largest asteroid (and under the IAU's current classification, the smallest dwarf planet -- though a number of other bodies, including Vesta, are considered possible dwarf planets), which it will reach in early 2015. This mission marks a significant milestone in solar system exploration and should greatly increase our knowledge of the asteroids.
Back on Earth, however, things don't look quite so good. The extremists in the Republican party are continuing to insist on their nonsensical position on the US federal budget according to which they refuse to consider any form of revenue increase whatsoever in the effort to reduce the budget deficit, an absurd approach to take (especially since one of the biggest reasons there's such a big deficit in the first place is the foolish tax cut enacted during the W. Bush administration). Most of them compound the problem by acting reluctant to cut the defense budget significantly, despite the fact that it makes up half of the discretionary budget. What's more, a lot of them are even calling for measures that would heavily restrict the government's future use of the budget as a policy tool (one of its main functions), such as a balanced budget amendment. If their game of chicken with the debt ceiling and a default by the US government on its debt threatened only the US, it would be bad enough, but it could even endanger the world economy, which is still in rather shaky condition. There are many, many things that could be said about the ridiculousness of the Republican position, but for an overview of how the simpleminded "taxes bad" mindset has taken over the Republican party, see this article.
Of course the idiocy doesn't stop at tax and budget policy. The dim bulbs among the Republicans in the House of Representatives even attempted to repeal the very sensible and easily achievable standards for efficiency in light fixtures (standards which the industry itself supported), calling their efforts an attempt to "save the light bulb". Fortunately their effort failed, but nearly as miserably as it should have. If they had succeeded, no doubt they would have gone on to do away with fuel efficiency standards and even bring back leaded gasoline (after all, we can't have the government telling people what kind of gasoline they can buy, can we?). It's getting hard to think of civil ways to talk about these people....
Finally, having posted on it before, I showed mention the unraveling of the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Readers may note that I made a point of qualifying my comments about him with phrases like "if [he] is guilty of what he is accused of", so I have always acknowledge the possibility that he was innocent. On the other hand, even if Strauss-Kahn's accuser has proved to be unreliable, that does not necessarily mean he is not guilty, just that it would be impossible to make a strong case against him. It's worth remembering that he is also accused of sexual assault against a young French writer a number of years ago, and there were reports that she was considering bringing charges (depending on the charge, the statute of limitations would not yet have expired). Of course he may be innocent in both instances, but it would be easier to believe that if he gave a convincing explanation of his behavior, including a strong condemnation of anyone who would actually force themselves on someone else (I wouldn't expect him to condemn sexual relations based on consent, and there would be no reason for him to do so -- indeed that would just be hypocritical). As for his political career, whether he can recover remains to be seen. But if there is good reason to believe he is guilty of sexual assault, in France if not in New York, then I would rather hope not. While it's certainly possible for someone with significant moral flaws to be a good leader, and for the most part politicians should be judged for their public actions rather than their private lives, serious sexual assault is a bit too much to accept.
Back on Earth, however, things don't look quite so good. The extremists in the Republican party are continuing to insist on their nonsensical position on the US federal budget according to which they refuse to consider any form of revenue increase whatsoever in the effort to reduce the budget deficit, an absurd approach to take (especially since one of the biggest reasons there's such a big deficit in the first place is the foolish tax cut enacted during the W. Bush administration). Most of them compound the problem by acting reluctant to cut the defense budget significantly, despite the fact that it makes up half of the discretionary budget. What's more, a lot of them are even calling for measures that would heavily restrict the government's future use of the budget as a policy tool (one of its main functions), such as a balanced budget amendment. If their game of chicken with the debt ceiling and a default by the US government on its debt threatened only the US, it would be bad enough, but it could even endanger the world economy, which is still in rather shaky condition. There are many, many things that could be said about the ridiculousness of the Republican position, but for an overview of how the simpleminded "taxes bad" mindset has taken over the Republican party, see this article.
Of course the idiocy doesn't stop at tax and budget policy. The dim bulbs among the Republicans in the House of Representatives even attempted to repeal the very sensible and easily achievable standards for efficiency in light fixtures (standards which the industry itself supported), calling their efforts an attempt to "save the light bulb". Fortunately their effort failed, but nearly as miserably as it should have. If they had succeeded, no doubt they would have gone on to do away with fuel efficiency standards and even bring back leaded gasoline (after all, we can't have the government telling people what kind of gasoline they can buy, can we?). It's getting hard to think of civil ways to talk about these people....
Finally, having posted on it before, I showed mention the unraveling of the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Readers may note that I made a point of qualifying my comments about him with phrases like "if [he] is guilty of what he is accused of", so I have always acknowledge the possibility that he was innocent. On the other hand, even if Strauss-Kahn's accuser has proved to be unreliable, that does not necessarily mean he is not guilty, just that it would be impossible to make a strong case against him. It's worth remembering that he is also accused of sexual assault against a young French writer a number of years ago, and there were reports that she was considering bringing charges (depending on the charge, the statute of limitations would not yet have expired). Of course he may be innocent in both instances, but it would be easier to believe that if he gave a convincing explanation of his behavior, including a strong condemnation of anyone who would actually force themselves on someone else (I wouldn't expect him to condemn sexual relations based on consent, and there would be no reason for him to do so -- indeed that would just be hypocritical). As for his political career, whether he can recover remains to be seen. But if there is good reason to believe he is guilty of sexual assault, in France if not in New York, then I would rather hope not. While it's certainly possible for someone with significant moral flaws to be a good leader, and for the most part politicians should be judged for their public actions rather than their private lives, serious sexual assault is a bit too much to accept.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A Year on Neptune and the Future of Space Exploration
According to a news report the other day, as of July 11, it's been one year since the planet Neptune was discovered; one year on Neptune, that is. This sounds about right, since Neptune was discovered on September 23, 1846, and the planet takes 164.79 Earth years to orbit the Sun. The idea that a single year could last that long is fairly mind-boggling to most people, though it is not even close to being the most incredible statistic astronomy has to offer. Neptune itself, the most distant of the large planets in our solar system, is a fascinating place, and the story of its discovery is equally fascinating, though too long to relate here (incidentally, though Neptune was only recognized as a planet in 1846, it was observed several times before by astronomers who took it for a star, the earliest and most notable being Galileo Galilei). Neptune, like Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, is a gas giant planet, with a radius almost four times that of Earth and a mass of more than 17 times that of Earth. It is blue in color, has a faint ring system, and thirteen known satellites, most notably the large moon Triton. Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance of 4.5 billion km (compared to about 150 million km for the Earth).
There is still much to learn about Neptune, as well as about the even more distant objects beyond it, such as the small planets (or dwarf planets, if we accept the IAU's reclassification) Pluto and Eris (though it has been over 80 years since Pluto's discovery, only a third of a Plutonian year -- which lasts 248 Earth years -- has passed since it was identified). While a spacecraft is on its way to Pluto and its companion Charon, there are no other such missions scheduled, so we may have to settle for studying Neptune (which was visited once by a spacecraft, Voyager 2 in 1989) and other objects in the outer solar system from a distance for quite some time into the future.
While it may be a long time before any more robotic spacecraft visit Neptune, and even longer before humans get anywhere near it, there are a lot of other places in the solar system that we should be trying to get to in the next few decades, by robotic craft or even with human-crewed missions. Among them are Jupiter's moon Europa, Saturn's moon Titan, and of course Mars and the asteroids (the latter two being the near-term goals for human space exploration, along with the Moon). The problem, as usual, is getting enough funding for the missions (even though as I've pointed out elsewhere, space exploration costs far less than a lot of other things we spend money on, whether it's the US government spending money on the military or the general public spending it on sports or cosmetics). Many people are regrettably short-sighted about such things, not only politicians but people in the media as well.
For an example of the latter, take the recent issue of the Economist which featured a cover showing the space shuttle in flight and the title "The End of the Space Age". The cover refers to the other, much more widely reported space-related milestone of the past few days, the launch of the last space shuttle mission. The magazine's lead editorial declared human space exploration dead or at least almost so, and seemed to give the impression that this was a good thing. I disagree, of course, and so I sent a rather rapidly written but hopefully coherent response, which I will conclude this blog entry with:
Your editorial on the future of space exploration was regrettably short-sighted and unimaginative. I take issue not so much with your view of the near-term problems faced by human space exploration, particularly the budget difficulties hindering any major endeavors such as a return to the Moon or sending humans to Mars, as they are formidable. But I do disagree with your view that this hiatus in space exploration by humans is anything other than temporary (absent a disaster on Earth that is destructive to human civilization as a whole), and I certainly take exception to your implication that this is a good thing, made most obvious by your dismissively referring to advocates of space exploration as "space cadets".
The benefits brought by space exploration, whether human or robotic, have been numerous, but near-term "practical" benefits are not, or at least should not, be the main driver behind sending people into space, or for that matter behind any scientific endeavor. People like Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein did not do science because they were concerned about practical applications to their work. It is part of human nature to be curious about the unknown and so to explore new places. What's more, this type of exploration is highly inspirational. How many of today's leaders in the fields of science and information technology were inspired to take up their current careers by seeing humans walk on the Moon? A human mission to Mars could do the same for a new generation.
Furthermore, if we take a long-range view, there is a lot to be gained in human expansion into the rest of the solar system. Whether we talk about mining, testing cutting edge technologies, or even settling permanently on Mars or elsewhere, human space exploration will someday pay for itself. Of course that day is far in the future, and in the meantime a large upfront investment is necessary. But why should humanity restrict itself to thinking in terms of the next decade or even the next generation? There is no reason we cannot invest in something that will bear fruit a century from now (indeed, we had best learn to think in such long-range terms if we hope to deal with climate change).
Finally, your observation about "diminishing returns" from robotic exploration reveals a misunderstanding about the purposes and status of such exploration. The goal was never simply to visit as many places as possible to add them to the "stamp album". The goal has always been to learn as much about our neighborhood as we can, to answer all sorts of questions about our surroundings and our origins. What we have learned in many cases makes it more imperative, not less, that further exploration be made. Is the ocean under Europa's icy crust home to life? How about Saturn's massive moon Titan with its thick atmosphere and its hydrocarbon lakes and seas? Is there now or has there in the past been life on Mars? Only further exploration by robots or humans can answer these questions and many more. Perhaps the current generation will indeed prove too short-sighted to care, but eventually the natural drive to explore will drive us out away from Earth.
There is still much to learn about Neptune, as well as about the even more distant objects beyond it, such as the small planets (or dwarf planets, if we accept the IAU's reclassification) Pluto and Eris (though it has been over 80 years since Pluto's discovery, only a third of a Plutonian year -- which lasts 248 Earth years -- has passed since it was identified). While a spacecraft is on its way to Pluto and its companion Charon, there are no other such missions scheduled, so we may have to settle for studying Neptune (which was visited once by a spacecraft, Voyager 2 in 1989) and other objects in the outer solar system from a distance for quite some time into the future.
While it may be a long time before any more robotic spacecraft visit Neptune, and even longer before humans get anywhere near it, there are a lot of other places in the solar system that we should be trying to get to in the next few decades, by robotic craft or even with human-crewed missions. Among them are Jupiter's moon Europa, Saturn's moon Titan, and of course Mars and the asteroids (the latter two being the near-term goals for human space exploration, along with the Moon). The problem, as usual, is getting enough funding for the missions (even though as I've pointed out elsewhere, space exploration costs far less than a lot of other things we spend money on, whether it's the US government spending money on the military or the general public spending it on sports or cosmetics). Many people are regrettably short-sighted about such things, not only politicians but people in the media as well.
For an example of the latter, take the recent issue of the Economist which featured a cover showing the space shuttle in flight and the title "The End of the Space Age". The cover refers to the other, much more widely reported space-related milestone of the past few days, the launch of the last space shuttle mission. The magazine's lead editorial declared human space exploration dead or at least almost so, and seemed to give the impression that this was a good thing. I disagree, of course, and so I sent a rather rapidly written but hopefully coherent response, which I will conclude this blog entry with:
Your editorial on the future of space exploration was regrettably short-sighted and unimaginative. I take issue not so much with your view of the near-term problems faced by human space exploration, particularly the budget difficulties hindering any major endeavors such as a return to the Moon or sending humans to Mars, as they are formidable. But I do disagree with your view that this hiatus in space exploration by humans is anything other than temporary (absent a disaster on Earth that is destructive to human civilization as a whole), and I certainly take exception to your implication that this is a good thing, made most obvious by your dismissively referring to advocates of space exploration as "space cadets".
The benefits brought by space exploration, whether human or robotic, have been numerous, but near-term "practical" benefits are not, or at least should not, be the main driver behind sending people into space, or for that matter behind any scientific endeavor. People like Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein did not do science because they were concerned about practical applications to their work. It is part of human nature to be curious about the unknown and so to explore new places. What's more, this type of exploration is highly inspirational. How many of today's leaders in the fields of science and information technology were inspired to take up their current careers by seeing humans walk on the Moon? A human mission to Mars could do the same for a new generation.
Furthermore, if we take a long-range view, there is a lot to be gained in human expansion into the rest of the solar system. Whether we talk about mining, testing cutting edge technologies, or even settling permanently on Mars or elsewhere, human space exploration will someday pay for itself. Of course that day is far in the future, and in the meantime a large upfront investment is necessary. But why should humanity restrict itself to thinking in terms of the next decade or even the next generation? There is no reason we cannot invest in something that will bear fruit a century from now (indeed, we had best learn to think in such long-range terms if we hope to deal with climate change).
Finally, your observation about "diminishing returns" from robotic exploration reveals a misunderstanding about the purposes and status of such exploration. The goal was never simply to visit as many places as possible to add them to the "stamp album". The goal has always been to learn as much about our neighborhood as we can, to answer all sorts of questions about our surroundings and our origins. What we have learned in many cases makes it more imperative, not less, that further exploration be made. Is the ocean under Europa's icy crust home to life? How about Saturn's massive moon Titan with its thick atmosphere and its hydrocarbon lakes and seas? Is there now or has there in the past been life on Mars? Only further exploration by robots or humans can answer these questions and many more. Perhaps the current generation will indeed prove too short-sighted to care, but eventually the natural drive to explore will drive us out away from Earth.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
How to Write Chinese and other Asian names in English
Today I want to talk about something rather different from my recent posts, which have focused on politics and books. This is more of a writing style and editing issue, but one that comes up quite frequently here in Taiwan. It is the problem of how to write Chinese names in English texts. I'm not so much concerned here with the particular type of romanization (for those who don't know the term, this refers to spelling words from languages like Chinese, Thai, and Arabic using the Latin-based English alphabet) used, but the order in which the names should be written. This arises because in Chinese names the family name comes first, followed by the given name. This is true in most East Asian countries, including Japan, Korea and Vietnam.
Actually, the answer is quite simple: Romanized Chinese names should be written the same way they are written in Chinese, with the family name first. Thus we write Ma Ying-jeou (the president of Taiwan), Tsai Ing-wen (the leader of the opposition DPP), Hu Jintao (the president of China), and Mao Zedong (the former leader of China), and to be brief refer to them by their family names only, i.e., Ma, Tsai, Hu, and Mao. This is quite straightforward, but unfortunately many Taiwanese still end up confused, partly due to misguided attempts to adapt their names to English conventions.
Many Taiwanese have the idea that because in English names the family name comes last, they should also put their family name last when they write their name in English. But this is incorrect, unless they are using an English given name. For instance, the former vice president of Taiwan, Lu Xiulian, uses the English name Annette, so she is generally called Annette Lu in English-language news reports. But Chinese names are always written in the Chinese order, whether they are written in Chinese characters or in the English alphabet. Ma Ying-jeou does not use an English name, so his family name is written first. No respectable news organization writes it as Ying-jeou Ma. Unfortunately, many Taiwanese are not aware that this is an error; I even had my romanizations of a number of Taiwanese names appearing in my translation of the liner notes of Story Island (an album that won a number of awards and a Grammy nomination for design packaging) reversed by a Taiwanese editor, which infuriated me when I discovered it (especially since it makes it look like I myself made the errors).
The same principle applies to Korean names, so the president of South Korea is Lee Myung-bak (family name Lee) and the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong-il (family name Kim). Vietnamese names are likewise written family name first, so the prime minister of Vietnam is Nguyen Tan Dung (family name Nguyen). The only frequent exception to this rule is Japanese names. In Japanese, the family name also comes first, but it has become common practice to reverse this when the name is written in English, so the prime minister of Japan, whose name reads Kan Naoto in Japanese, usually appears as Naoto Kan in English news (though I have seen Japanese names written in the proper Japanese order in some places, and I prefer to write them that way myself).
Another common error Taiwanese make in writing their names is to leave the order alone but to put a comma after the family name. This incorrect and ugly (aesthetically-speaking) habit is particularly common among academics and people who have pursued advanced degrees, and seems to derive from the use of the comma in English names found in bibliographies, indexes and similar lists. But the reason for the comma in English names in such situations is simple; since in bibliographies and indexes we list names alphabetically by last (family) name, we reverse the usual order and use the comma to indicate this. So Barack Obama becomes Obama, Barack and Hillary Clinton becomes Clinton, Hillary. If a Chinese name appears in an index or bibliography, of course the family name comes first, but for Chinese names this is already the usual order, so no comma is necessary. Even for English names we only write something like "Obama, Barack" in specific situations. But some Taiwanese stick commas in their names on business cards and documents, and in the building housing the offices of Taiwan's legislators, the name plates on their doors actually have commas after their family names, which looks ridiculous.
One reason some Taiwanese have offered me for either writing their names backwards or sticking a comma into them is a fear that Westerners won't realize which name is their family name. I'll admit that if a Taiwanese writes his name as Lee Teng-hui, some Westerners might mistakenly call him "Mr. Teng-hui" rather than "Mr. Lee", though frankly I can't see how anyone who ever reads the international news could have a problem (everyone who does should be aware that Hu Jintao is "Mr. Hu" and Deng Xiaoping was "Mr. Deng"). But even if a few foreigners are ignorant, there is no reason for East Asians to mangle their own names to accommodate them. Perhaps on business cards or name tags they might want to capitalize their family name (e.g., TSAI Ing-wen), but that's as far as they should go.
Unfortunately, despite my best efforts and the advice of style manuals (not to mention the example of sites like Wikipedia and numerous news reports and articles from major international media organizations), Taiwanese still write their names all sorts of ways. I have even seen names written backward and with a comma (e.g., Ying-jeou, Ma), which combines the worst features of the two more common incorrect ways of writing names without even retaining the dubious virtue of clarifying which is the family name (though I suppose in a certain sense the comma is more logical here, because the normal ordering has really been reversed -- though this still doesn't explain why one would want to reverse it in the first place). While there is only so much I can do, I try to at least make sure the people I come into regular contact with learn the correct way of writing their names in English. Hopefully that will make at least a little bit of a difference.
Actually, the answer is quite simple: Romanized Chinese names should be written the same way they are written in Chinese, with the family name first. Thus we write Ma Ying-jeou (the president of Taiwan), Tsai Ing-wen (the leader of the opposition DPP), Hu Jintao (the president of China), and Mao Zedong (the former leader of China), and to be brief refer to them by their family names only, i.e., Ma, Tsai, Hu, and Mao. This is quite straightforward, but unfortunately many Taiwanese still end up confused, partly due to misguided attempts to adapt their names to English conventions.
Many Taiwanese have the idea that because in English names the family name comes last, they should also put their family name last when they write their name in English. But this is incorrect, unless they are using an English given name. For instance, the former vice president of Taiwan, Lu Xiulian, uses the English name Annette, so she is generally called Annette Lu in English-language news reports. But Chinese names are always written in the Chinese order, whether they are written in Chinese characters or in the English alphabet. Ma Ying-jeou does not use an English name, so his family name is written first. No respectable news organization writes it as Ying-jeou Ma. Unfortunately, many Taiwanese are not aware that this is an error; I even had my romanizations of a number of Taiwanese names appearing in my translation of the liner notes of Story Island (an album that won a number of awards and a Grammy nomination for design packaging) reversed by a Taiwanese editor, which infuriated me when I discovered it (especially since it makes it look like I myself made the errors).
The same principle applies to Korean names, so the president of South Korea is Lee Myung-bak (family name Lee) and the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong-il (family name Kim). Vietnamese names are likewise written family name first, so the prime minister of Vietnam is Nguyen Tan Dung (family name Nguyen). The only frequent exception to this rule is Japanese names. In Japanese, the family name also comes first, but it has become common practice to reverse this when the name is written in English, so the prime minister of Japan, whose name reads Kan Naoto in Japanese, usually appears as Naoto Kan in English news (though I have seen Japanese names written in the proper Japanese order in some places, and I prefer to write them that way myself).
Another common error Taiwanese make in writing their names is to leave the order alone but to put a comma after the family name. This incorrect and ugly (aesthetically-speaking) habit is particularly common among academics and people who have pursued advanced degrees, and seems to derive from the use of the comma in English names found in bibliographies, indexes and similar lists. But the reason for the comma in English names in such situations is simple; since in bibliographies and indexes we list names alphabetically by last (family) name, we reverse the usual order and use the comma to indicate this. So Barack Obama becomes Obama, Barack and Hillary Clinton becomes Clinton, Hillary. If a Chinese name appears in an index or bibliography, of course the family name comes first, but for Chinese names this is already the usual order, so no comma is necessary. Even for English names we only write something like "Obama, Barack" in specific situations. But some Taiwanese stick commas in their names on business cards and documents, and in the building housing the offices of Taiwan's legislators, the name plates on their doors actually have commas after their family names, which looks ridiculous.
One reason some Taiwanese have offered me for either writing their names backwards or sticking a comma into them is a fear that Westerners won't realize which name is their family name. I'll admit that if a Taiwanese writes his name as Lee Teng-hui, some Westerners might mistakenly call him "Mr. Teng-hui" rather than "Mr. Lee", though frankly I can't see how anyone who ever reads the international news could have a problem (everyone who does should be aware that Hu Jintao is "Mr. Hu" and Deng Xiaoping was "Mr. Deng"). But even if a few foreigners are ignorant, there is no reason for East Asians to mangle their own names to accommodate them. Perhaps on business cards or name tags they might want to capitalize their family name (e.g., TSAI Ing-wen), but that's as far as they should go.
Unfortunately, despite my best efforts and the advice of style manuals (not to mention the example of sites like Wikipedia and numerous news reports and articles from major international media organizations), Taiwanese still write their names all sorts of ways. I have even seen names written backward and with a comma (e.g., Ying-jeou, Ma), which combines the worst features of the two more common incorrect ways of writing names without even retaining the dubious virtue of clarifying which is the family name (though I suppose in a certain sense the comma is more logical here, because the normal ordering has really been reversed -- though this still doesn't explain why one would want to reverse it in the first place). While there is only so much I can do, I try to at least make sure the people I come into regular contact with learn the correct way of writing their names in English. Hopefully that will make at least a little bit of a difference.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Some interesting articles
Here are a couple of interesting articles I've come across in the past few days. The first is one by Fareed Zakaria entitled How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch With Reality. The criticism of today's conservatives is completely accurate, and many have noted how even in the Reagan era ideas such as taxes can never be raised under any conditions (even when they are already low and the country has a huge debt) were not standard among conservatives. Reagan himself raised taxes more than once, and I have already cited his budget director David Stockman's scathing criticism of this mentality. In comparison with today's leading right wing politicians and talking heads, the conservatives of previous generations do seem more rational. That's not to say that I agree with George Will, or with a number of the other assertions in the first part of the piece.
For one thing, while I agree with the criticism of Marxism as not being well grounded in reality (as I noted in my recent post which discussed The Communist Manifesto, among other books), not all aspects of traditional conservatism were firmly grounded in reality (for instance, as I mentioned in the same post, the capitalist economic theory regarding international trade). Furthermore, liberalism (as opposed to Marxism) can and often is fairly well grounded in reality. Certainly I and many other sensible liberals would agree that "to change societies, one must understand them...and help them evolve" (though we would disagree about "accept[ing] them as they are". Also, most conservatives, whether now or in the past, have not really been interested in changing society or helping it evolve. They want it to stay the same, or go back to some mythical golden age.
For that matter, George Will himself, while fairly intelligent and rational (certainly when compared to people like Limbaugh, Beck and Palin), has made assertions that were not very well grounded in the real world, such as in a recent column where he criticized Obama for not knowing history by picking on a few misstatements (yes, Obama's statement on Texas was incorrect, but the southern Democrats of four decades ago were essentially the same as the Republicans of today), but himself displayed a rather simplistic and misleading view of history. He seemed to imply that getting rid of or weakening programs like Social Security or Medicare would simply return the US to the conditions that existed before the New Deal -- as if the country had not changed in any other ways. Obama was completely right to say that Ryan's budget proposal would lead to an America that would be "fundamentally different than what we've known throughout our history", because even aside from the existence of programs like those Ryan wants to kill, America is a fundamentally different place from what it was 80 years ago. It's a country of close to 300 million people rather than 120 million, it's urban rather than rural, it's closely tied to a global system rather than being isolationist, it's far more ethnically and culturally diverse, and its communications are dominated by television and the Internet rather than radio and letters. It is also a place in which a lack of a safety net would mean even more suffering than was the case in the pre-New Deal days, and one in which (I would hope) people would be far less content to see others suffer, as many did before those social programs existed (not that they eliminated all suffering -- far from it -- but they did alleviate much of it for the most vulnerable segments of the population). While Will's view of history as given in his column lacks the blatant inaccuracies of people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it does share with them a rather myopic view that refuses to acknowledge that things have changed a great deal in America and the world since the early 20th century, and it is impossible to go back, even if we wanted to (I sure wouldn't).
There was a time, back when I was young and ignorant, that I would have agreed with Will's statement about conservatism being true. When I was in secondary school, I considered myself a conservative. Even then though, when I read about modern European and American history, I noticed how at virtually every point in the past, I agreed with the liberals. It was the liberals who wanted religious tolerance, an end to absolute monarchies, the abolition of slavery, labor laws, the breaking up of monopolies, women's suffrage, and civil rights. My assumption at the time was that modern liberals were simply trying to push things too far, as if we'd reached an ideal society and it should be kept the way it was. Of course later I learned that there were still many problems and inequalities, and more importantly I learned to empathize better with the situations faced by more disadvantaged people. This didn't mean given up rationality, or coming to insist on any particular means for solving all these problems. For instance, where properly regulated private enterprise is more efficient than government (and there are many areas where that is the case), I am in favor of it. The purpose is to create an open, tolerant equable society where all people have their basic needs met. George Will's brand of conservatism won't do that, and the completely irrational brand of conservatism Zakaria criticizes certainly will not do so.
Speaking of issues where leading conservatives are not only irrational but even downright immoral in their treatment of hardworking, innocent people, the New York Times Sunday Magazine recently published a long article by Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, about how he came to the US from the Philippines at the age of 12 as an undocumented immigrant (i.e., an illegal immigrant) and has lived under the shadow of possible discovery and deportation since. This is exactly the kind of person who the US should want to have here, and the kind who the Dream Act would help. And yet the right wing not only prevented its passage, but continues to demonize all illegal immigrants as criminals no better than murderers and thieves. While there is little hope for the unrepentantly racist and hardhearted among the anti-immigrant crowd, perhaps a few of the relatively open-minded ones could learn something from Vargas's story, or a recent film called A Better Life.
For one thing, while I agree with the criticism of Marxism as not being well grounded in reality (as I noted in my recent post which discussed The Communist Manifesto, among other books), not all aspects of traditional conservatism were firmly grounded in reality (for instance, as I mentioned in the same post, the capitalist economic theory regarding international trade). Furthermore, liberalism (as opposed to Marxism) can and often is fairly well grounded in reality. Certainly I and many other sensible liberals would agree that "to change societies, one must understand them...and help them evolve" (though we would disagree about "accept[ing] them as they are". Also, most conservatives, whether now or in the past, have not really been interested in changing society or helping it evolve. They want it to stay the same, or go back to some mythical golden age.
For that matter, George Will himself, while fairly intelligent and rational (certainly when compared to people like Limbaugh, Beck and Palin), has made assertions that were not very well grounded in the real world, such as in a recent column where he criticized Obama for not knowing history by picking on a few misstatements (yes, Obama's statement on Texas was incorrect, but the southern Democrats of four decades ago were essentially the same as the Republicans of today), but himself displayed a rather simplistic and misleading view of history. He seemed to imply that getting rid of or weakening programs like Social Security or Medicare would simply return the US to the conditions that existed before the New Deal -- as if the country had not changed in any other ways. Obama was completely right to say that Ryan's budget proposal would lead to an America that would be "fundamentally different than what we've known throughout our history", because even aside from the existence of programs like those Ryan wants to kill, America is a fundamentally different place from what it was 80 years ago. It's a country of close to 300 million people rather than 120 million, it's urban rather than rural, it's closely tied to a global system rather than being isolationist, it's far more ethnically and culturally diverse, and its communications are dominated by television and the Internet rather than radio and letters. It is also a place in which a lack of a safety net would mean even more suffering than was the case in the pre-New Deal days, and one in which (I would hope) people would be far less content to see others suffer, as many did before those social programs existed (not that they eliminated all suffering -- far from it -- but they did alleviate much of it for the most vulnerable segments of the population). While Will's view of history as given in his column lacks the blatant inaccuracies of people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it does share with them a rather myopic view that refuses to acknowledge that things have changed a great deal in America and the world since the early 20th century, and it is impossible to go back, even if we wanted to (I sure wouldn't).
There was a time, back when I was young and ignorant, that I would have agreed with Will's statement about conservatism being true. When I was in secondary school, I considered myself a conservative. Even then though, when I read about modern European and American history, I noticed how at virtually every point in the past, I agreed with the liberals. It was the liberals who wanted religious tolerance, an end to absolute monarchies, the abolition of slavery, labor laws, the breaking up of monopolies, women's suffrage, and civil rights. My assumption at the time was that modern liberals were simply trying to push things too far, as if we'd reached an ideal society and it should be kept the way it was. Of course later I learned that there were still many problems and inequalities, and more importantly I learned to empathize better with the situations faced by more disadvantaged people. This didn't mean given up rationality, or coming to insist on any particular means for solving all these problems. For instance, where properly regulated private enterprise is more efficient than government (and there are many areas where that is the case), I am in favor of it. The purpose is to create an open, tolerant equable society where all people have their basic needs met. George Will's brand of conservatism won't do that, and the completely irrational brand of conservatism Zakaria criticizes certainly will not do so.
Speaking of issues where leading conservatives are not only irrational but even downright immoral in their treatment of hardworking, innocent people, the New York Times Sunday Magazine recently published a long article by Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, about how he came to the US from the Philippines at the age of 12 as an undocumented immigrant (i.e., an illegal immigrant) and has lived under the shadow of possible discovery and deportation since. This is exactly the kind of person who the US should want to have here, and the kind who the Dream Act would help. And yet the right wing not only prevented its passage, but continues to demonize all illegal immigrants as criminals no better than murderers and thieves. While there is little hope for the unrepentantly racist and hardhearted among the anti-immigrant crowd, perhaps a few of the relatively open-minded ones could learn something from Vargas's story, or a recent film called A Better Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
