HAPPY NEW YEAR!
May 2005 be propitious for all. May it be a year which we can look back on with pride. May it be all that we wish for and all that we deserve.
Xerxes will see you on 2 January. Thanks to all who commented in 2004. I appreciate it.
About Me
- Xerxes
- New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
- Admire John McPhee, Bill Bryson, David Remnick, Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr and James Martin (and most open and curious minds)
30.12.04
Schoepenhauer for the New year
Courtesy of the New Statesman, here is a wonderful guide to winning.
Schopenhauer's sardonic little book, laying out 38 rhetorical tricks guaranteed to win you the argument even when you are defeated in logical discussion, is a true text for the times. An exercise in irony and realism, humour and melancholy, this is no antiquarian oddity, but an instruction manual in intellectual duplicity that no aspiring parliamentarian, trainee lawyer, wannabe TV interviewer or newspaper columnist can afford to be without.The melancholy aspect comes in the main premise of the book: that the point of public argument is not to be right, but to win. Truth cannot be the first casualty in our daily war of words, Schopenhauer suggests, because it was never the bone of contention in the first place. "We must regard objective truth as an accidental circumstance, and look only to the defence of our own position and the refutation of the opponent's . . . Dialectic, then, has as little to do with truth as the fencing master considers who is in the right when a quarrel leads to a duel." Such phrases make us wonder whether his book was no more than a bitter satire, an extension of Machiavellian principles of power play from princes to individuals by a disappointed academic whom it took 30 years to get an audience for his major work, The World as Will and Idea. Perhaps, but only partly. With his low view of human nature, Schopenhauer is also saying that we are all in the sophistry business together.The interest of his squib goes beyond his tricks of rhetoric: "persuade the audience, not the opponent", "put his theory into some odious category", "become personal, insulting, rude". Instinctively, we itch to apply it to our times, whether in politics, the infotainment business or our postmodern tendency to place inverted commas, smirkingly, around the very notion of truth. Examples of jaw-dropping sophistry by public figures (my own favourite is Tony Blair defending his quasi-selective choice of school for his son on the grounds that he did not wish to impose political correctness on his children: see Schopenhauer's rule number 26: "turn the tables") are easy enough to find. It is more entertaining to see his theory in the light of our national peculiarities.The flip side of our "healthy scepticism" can be a disinclination to trouble ourselves with rational discussion at all, and a tediously moderate people can be bored by its own sobriety. So it is that, in debate, we prefer to be stirred by passions, or simply amused. Hence the rampant nostalgia for the old political order, dominated by orators such as Michael Foot or Enoch Powell. Each did real damage to the country, Foot with his patrician self-abasement in the face of trade union power, Powell on race, and both with their culpable fantasies about Russia."Well you say that," comes the predictable response - a handy rhetorical trick in itself - "but let's not get into their policies; we could go round that buoy for ever" (see trick number 12: "choose metaphors favourable to your proposition"). "The point is that they were such wonderfully passionate, col-ourful and entertaining debaters, compared to the managerial drabness of the House of Commons today." (Trick 29 recommends diversion from the point at issue.) The pay-off line follows quickly (draw your conclusions smartly, says trick 20). "If only we had Boris as Tory leader, it would perk the place up no end!" (This is not wholly invention. Tory and Labour columnists have both written in this vein.)Perhaps because Schopenhauer was so very un-British, his 38 points overlooked our favourite rhetorical trick: coming up with "quirky" or "original" responses to serious questions. (The nearest he gets is trick number 36: "bewilder your opponent".) In Britain, a willed eccentricity, the cheapest form of distinction, works because it is part of our top-down ethos. The game is to dodge the issue in such a way as to show yourself above it - for example, by throwing off dandyish opinions. Take any premise ("Boris Johnson is not a serious contender for prime minister"), invert it, toss it to the herd with a supercilious smile - and the herd will warm to you, because we do so love a maverick, don't we? For similar reasons, "controversialists" (that is, vulgar cynics who argue positions they do not necessarily believe, the better to astound the impressionable masses) are a very British phenomenon.The anti-intellectualism all this implies is not, however, a uniquely British trait, and is covered in Schopenhauer's list. "If you know that you have no reply to the arguments your opponent advances . . . declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: 'What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension.'" Your opponent stands instantly convicted of pretension, a crime without appeal in democracies, of which Schopenhauer was no admirer. Truth and logic, he comes close to saying, get you nowhere in a mass society. "The only safe rule, therefore, is [to dispute] only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities."In a frequently light-hearted book, this is the least amusing message. The suggestion is that the audiences for serious discussion are doomed to shrink - and remember that Schopenhauer never experienced the sophistry of TV images, whose deliberate or, more frequently, casual mendacity a mere 38 points would not suffice to explain. Yet has his lugubrious prediction proved true? Or do we rather get a feeling, not of an absolute decline in standards of public debate, but of missed potential - something even the BBC has apparently begun to recognise? How many times have we listened to a radio or TV debate on art or politics or literature and asked ourselves, even as we are lulled by the undemanding discussion: are these the best people they can come up with? The answer is yes and no. Yes because in media terms they are the best: practised "communicators" with every crowd-pleasing response at the ready. And no because we have all read or heard or known people far more interesting and far more informed about the disciplines in question. Sadly, they tend to be folk who are not up to speed on their 38 points and who think the truth matters, and so, communication-wise, they are deemed useless. Still, they exist.If your preference is nevertheless for Schopenhauer's tragic vision of a world in thrall to debate that is indifferent to the truth, examples are not lacking, not just in art or politics, but in the allegedly objective and internationalist scientific world. A brief period as minister for science taught me that when it comes to rubbishing a rival's research or inveigling funds for your own, objectivity is out, and foreigners become a joke. Now I hear neo-Darwinian atheists lambasting as primitive and irrational every religion except the most populous and, in its extreme form, the most dangerous. Why are scientists so intellectually dishonest? For the same reason that the Archbishop of Canterbury hides behind procedural sophistry (needless commissions of inquiry and the like, when the need for liberalism is clear) in dealing with homosexuality in the Church: politics, dear boy. Which does rather diminish the right of scientists and churchmen to look down on politics as a scurvy trade.The palm for rhetorical shamelessness must nevertheless go to US presidents. "There you go again," said Ronald Reagan, annihilating with a grin the very concept of rational debate, and the right loved him for it. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Bill Clinton assured us, with his emetic sincerity, and the left - especially women - adore him still. And not even the melancholic German predicted that the world's most powerful democracy would one day be run by a president who cannot be accused of sophistry chiefly because he cannot talk at all. And they say Schopenhauer was a pessimist.
Schopenhauer's sardonic little book, laying out 38 rhetorical tricks guaranteed to win you the argument even when you are defeated in logical discussion, is a true text for the times. An exercise in irony and realism, humour and melancholy, this is no antiquarian oddity, but an instruction manual in intellectual duplicity that no aspiring parliamentarian, trainee lawyer, wannabe TV interviewer or newspaper columnist can afford to be without.The melancholy aspect comes in the main premise of the book: that the point of public argument is not to be right, but to win. Truth cannot be the first casualty in our daily war of words, Schopenhauer suggests, because it was never the bone of contention in the first place. "We must regard objective truth as an accidental circumstance, and look only to the defence of our own position and the refutation of the opponent's . . . Dialectic, then, has as little to do with truth as the fencing master considers who is in the right when a quarrel leads to a duel." Such phrases make us wonder whether his book was no more than a bitter satire, an extension of Machiavellian principles of power play from princes to individuals by a disappointed academic whom it took 30 years to get an audience for his major work, The World as Will and Idea. Perhaps, but only partly. With his low view of human nature, Schopenhauer is also saying that we are all in the sophistry business together.The interest of his squib goes beyond his tricks of rhetoric: "persuade the audience, not the opponent", "put his theory into some odious category", "become personal, insulting, rude". Instinctively, we itch to apply it to our times, whether in politics, the infotainment business or our postmodern tendency to place inverted commas, smirkingly, around the very notion of truth. Examples of jaw-dropping sophistry by public figures (my own favourite is Tony Blair defending his quasi-selective choice of school for his son on the grounds that he did not wish to impose political correctness on his children: see Schopenhauer's rule number 26: "turn the tables") are easy enough to find. It is more entertaining to see his theory in the light of our national peculiarities.The flip side of our "healthy scepticism" can be a disinclination to trouble ourselves with rational discussion at all, and a tediously moderate people can be bored by its own sobriety. So it is that, in debate, we prefer to be stirred by passions, or simply amused. Hence the rampant nostalgia for the old political order, dominated by orators such as Michael Foot or Enoch Powell. Each did real damage to the country, Foot with his patrician self-abasement in the face of trade union power, Powell on race, and both with their culpable fantasies about Russia."Well you say that," comes the predictable response - a handy rhetorical trick in itself - "but let's not get into their policies; we could go round that buoy for ever" (see trick number 12: "choose metaphors favourable to your proposition"). "The point is that they were such wonderfully passionate, col-ourful and entertaining debaters, compared to the managerial drabness of the House of Commons today." (Trick 29 recommends diversion from the point at issue.) The pay-off line follows quickly (draw your conclusions smartly, says trick 20). "If only we had Boris as Tory leader, it would perk the place up no end!" (This is not wholly invention. Tory and Labour columnists have both written in this vein.)Perhaps because Schopenhauer was so very un-British, his 38 points overlooked our favourite rhetorical trick: coming up with "quirky" or "original" responses to serious questions. (The nearest he gets is trick number 36: "bewilder your opponent".) In Britain, a willed eccentricity, the cheapest form of distinction, works because it is part of our top-down ethos. The game is to dodge the issue in such a way as to show yourself above it - for example, by throwing off dandyish opinions. Take any premise ("Boris Johnson is not a serious contender for prime minister"), invert it, toss it to the herd with a supercilious smile - and the herd will warm to you, because we do so love a maverick, don't we? For similar reasons, "controversialists" (that is, vulgar cynics who argue positions they do not necessarily believe, the better to astound the impressionable masses) are a very British phenomenon.The anti-intellectualism all this implies is not, however, a uniquely British trait, and is covered in Schopenhauer's list. "If you know that you have no reply to the arguments your opponent advances . . . declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: 'What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension.'" Your opponent stands instantly convicted of pretension, a crime without appeal in democracies, of which Schopenhauer was no admirer. Truth and logic, he comes close to saying, get you nowhere in a mass society. "The only safe rule, therefore, is [to dispute] only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities."In a frequently light-hearted book, this is the least amusing message. The suggestion is that the audiences for serious discussion are doomed to shrink - and remember that Schopenhauer never experienced the sophistry of TV images, whose deliberate or, more frequently, casual mendacity a mere 38 points would not suffice to explain. Yet has his lugubrious prediction proved true? Or do we rather get a feeling, not of an absolute decline in standards of public debate, but of missed potential - something even the BBC has apparently begun to recognise? How many times have we listened to a radio or TV debate on art or politics or literature and asked ourselves, even as we are lulled by the undemanding discussion: are these the best people they can come up with? The answer is yes and no. Yes because in media terms they are the best: practised "communicators" with every crowd-pleasing response at the ready. And no because we have all read or heard or known people far more interesting and far more informed about the disciplines in question. Sadly, they tend to be folk who are not up to speed on their 38 points and who think the truth matters, and so, communication-wise, they are deemed useless. Still, they exist.If your preference is nevertheless for Schopenhauer's tragic vision of a world in thrall to debate that is indifferent to the truth, examples are not lacking, not just in art or politics, but in the allegedly objective and internationalist scientific world. A brief period as minister for science taught me that when it comes to rubbishing a rival's research or inveigling funds for your own, objectivity is out, and foreigners become a joke. Now I hear neo-Darwinian atheists lambasting as primitive and irrational every religion except the most populous and, in its extreme form, the most dangerous. Why are scientists so intellectually dishonest? For the same reason that the Archbishop of Canterbury hides behind procedural sophistry (needless commissions of inquiry and the like, when the need for liberalism is clear) in dealing with homosexuality in the Church: politics, dear boy. Which does rather diminish the right of scientists and churchmen to look down on politics as a scurvy trade.The palm for rhetorical shamelessness must nevertheless go to US presidents. "There you go again," said Ronald Reagan, annihilating with a grin the very concept of rational debate, and the right loved him for it. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Bill Clinton assured us, with his emetic sincerity, and the left - especially women - adore him still. And not even the melancholic German predicted that the world's most powerful democracy would one day be run by a president who cannot be accused of sophistry chiefly because he cannot talk at all. And they say Schopenhauer was a pessimist.
29.12.04
Take Joy in the Day!
Some recent deaths, as well as the horrible carnage from the Asian Tsunami, have given me pause. While I am an active Christian, I believe this could apply to us all.
Jesus taught, "If the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched." One meaning of this teaching is that the end of life may come without warning; live every day prepared for it to be the last. That may sound bleak, but is the reverse. Approaching every day prepared for it to be the last raises your spiritual awareness, allows you appreciate the daily miracle of the sunrise, reminds you to show love, helps you to behave morally. Life is fragile and distressingly short. Keep this in mind as an aid to doing good and living fully in the one brief chance we are permitted.
So live each day as if it were your last! While it may not be, you and those around you will be far better off.
Jesus taught, "If the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched." One meaning of this teaching is that the end of life may come without warning; live every day prepared for it to be the last. That may sound bleak, but is the reverse. Approaching every day prepared for it to be the last raises your spiritual awareness, allows you appreciate the daily miracle of the sunrise, reminds you to show love, helps you to behave morally. Life is fragile and distressingly short. Keep this in mind as an aid to doing good and living fully in the one brief chance we are permitted.
So live each day as if it were your last! While it may not be, you and those around you will be far better off.
28.12.04
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
At the grave risk of offeding those who count by the Lunar Calendar or some other more esoteric method of measuring the march of time, may I wish all a most happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year.
It is hard not to see the continuing war in Iraq as a great scar on the world in 2004. Year end (and beginning) is always a time to reflect on the past and prepare for the future. One can only hope that the United States can face the world in a more inclusive and humble way than it has shown in the past few years. Our culture and our politics seem to be driving us toward greater isolation from the rest of the inhabitants of this small planet. It is an especial pity when the tools of globilization are at hand. Fear is not a productive way to face the future when one has the resources to do good. Let us hope, but let us not expect.
It is hard not to see the continuing war in Iraq as a great scar on the world in 2004. Year end (and beginning) is always a time to reflect on the past and prepare for the future. One can only hope that the United States can face the world in a more inclusive and humble way than it has shown in the past few years. Our culture and our politics seem to be driving us toward greater isolation from the rest of the inhabitants of this small planet. It is an especial pity when the tools of globilization are at hand. Fear is not a productive way to face the future when one has the resources to do good. Let us hope, but let us not expect.
The Hookie Awards
I can't help but believe that "Hookie" is hardly an apt name for an assemblage of prize winning essays. David Brooks has made a worthy attempt to gather together a splendid list of fine examples of opinion and fine writing. I only wish that he had given us some links where possible. The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Hookie Awards
27.12.04
The Year That Wasn't
Here is a fun piece about what might have been in the 2004 election.Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Ideas / The year that wasn't
Gerard Baker
Leave it a friend across the pond to so eloquently describe our conundrum at "Chrismastime." Courtesy of the Times + Arts & Letters.
Christmas captures the defining characteristic of Americans - their lack of cynicism and scepticism
AMERICANS ARE enjoying all the usual rituals of the Christmas season; the last-minute frenzy of present buying; the long wait in queues at airports and stations; and above all the inevitable controversy about the ever more absurd attempts to take Christ out of Christmas.
Every year some villain steps forward to take the Politically Correct Scrooge Award for sheer seasonal silliness. This year the traditionalists’ favourite target is, conveniently, a company called Target. A giant retailer in the continental hypermarket mould that sells everything from 86in television screens to bottles of tap water, Target has decreed that none of its products this year should carry the word “Christmas”. So instead of Christmas lights, Christmas trees and Christmas decorations, Target’s customers can spend their hard-earned dollars on holiday lights, seasonal trees and festive decorations.
NI_MPU('middle');
I am not sure if this ruling applies to model Nativity scenes. But I suspect that as long as they are relabelled Historic Middle Eastern Family Creative Toys they might just get in under the wire.
It is always fun to watch the contortions that people will go through to find new ways to avoid offending people. At a school not far from me, the children will be celebrating the last day of school in the usual way — with a midwinter peace assembly. This is the same school, by the way, that banned children from wearing martial costumes for its Hallowe’en parade. The headmaster began the day by confiscating these instruments of hate and before long had a pile of plastic guns, swords, light sabres and helmets blocking the light inside his office, and a huddle of crying children and bewildered parents outside.
I have heard some people refer to this time of year, perhaps half in jest, as “Chriskwanukkah”, an unlovely portmanteau of Christmas, Chanukkah and Kwanzaa, the African-American winter festival. But aside from being unpronounceable, this is self-evidently offensive to Druids and other observers of the pagan solstice and will presumably be dropped next year.
These attempts to be inoffensive and inclusive have started to become quite offensive and exclusionary.
I have lived in America long enough to know that I should never grasp the hand of colleagues or friends and wish them the joy and peace of the newborn king in case they turn out to be practising Zoroastrians. But it has got to the point where I worry now about upsetting fellow Christians if I proffer them a limp handshake and that flaccid salute to mushy multiculturalism: “Happy Holidays”.
And yet the truth is I rather like this annual Christmas controversy. For one thing it helps to debunk one of the more absurd myths about America that the rest of the world clings to — that it is firmly in the grip of some theocracy in which schoolchildren learn creationism by rote and White House officials slaughter the fatted calf before drawing up their foreign policy plans.
In fact, separation of Church and State is much more rigid here than is ever imagined in the wildest dreams of European anticlericals. My own children were able, if I may say so, to execute quite brilliantly their annual Christmas pageant at their Catholic school this week only because not one secular penny of taxpayers’ money supports it. My guess would be that your average Englishman or German is much freer to indulge in public displays of openly religious sentiment at this time of year than anyone in California or Florida.
But, above all, the annual fuss about taking Christ out of Christmas misses the central point about the holiday season in America. This time of year captures, perhaps better than any other, the defining characteristic of Americans in the modern world — their lack of cynicism and scepticism, their enduring hope and faith in themselves, their country and even the world around them.
In Britain and most of Europe, Christmas has become that special occasion for wallowing in cynicism. We love to complain about the shopping, the train delays and the weather. Popular culture disdains the spirit of the season, and plays up instead the secularist, sceptical, mocking, lost innocence tone of British life.
With a few ghastly exceptions from Sir Cliff, popular music in Britain at this time of year is blunt and unsentimental, even when charitable. But Americans indulge their sentimentality, pander to their idealism, reaffirm their belief in the spiritual contingency of human nature and their popular culture reflects that.
Nothing is too schmaltzy or saccharine. Even Hollywood for a brief moment casts aside its usual predilections and expresses a wide-eyed child-like thrill at the coming of Christmas. Radio stations become an endless loop of Christmas songs — not the typical “So Here it is Merry Christmas” British classic — but shameless repeats of Bing Crosby, Dean Martin and Harry Belafonte.
It’s a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra’s hymn to sentimentalism, will doubtless get a look in somewhere in the British TV schedules, but in America it will own its usual spot, slap in the middle of NBC’s prime time on Christmas night and I guarantee that there will not be a dry eye in the country when once again George Bailey hears the bell ringing for Clarence, the angel who gets his wings.
At other times, I can’t quite take all this American idealism and sentimentality. It is just a bit too much at odds with a complex world. As the country’s critics never tire of observing, it can lead to a little too much certainty and self-belief and a deficit of doubt and acknowledgement of error.
But, at this time of year, a bit of simple faith, a bit of uncynical joy and a bit of human hope induced by that unfathomable miracle that happened a couple of thousand years ago, is right on the mark.
gerard.baker@thetimes.co
Christmas captures the defining characteristic of Americans - their lack of cynicism and scepticism
AMERICANS ARE enjoying all the usual rituals of the Christmas season; the last-minute frenzy of present buying; the long wait in queues at airports and stations; and above all the inevitable controversy about the ever more absurd attempts to take Christ out of Christmas.
Every year some villain steps forward to take the Politically Correct Scrooge Award for sheer seasonal silliness. This year the traditionalists’ favourite target is, conveniently, a company called Target. A giant retailer in the continental hypermarket mould that sells everything from 86in television screens to bottles of tap water, Target has decreed that none of its products this year should carry the word “Christmas”. So instead of Christmas lights, Christmas trees and Christmas decorations, Target’s customers can spend their hard-earned dollars on holiday lights, seasonal trees and festive decorations.
NI_MPU('middle');
I am not sure if this ruling applies to model Nativity scenes. But I suspect that as long as they are relabelled Historic Middle Eastern Family Creative Toys they might just get in under the wire.
It is always fun to watch the contortions that people will go through to find new ways to avoid offending people. At a school not far from me, the children will be celebrating the last day of school in the usual way — with a midwinter peace assembly. This is the same school, by the way, that banned children from wearing martial costumes for its Hallowe’en parade. The headmaster began the day by confiscating these instruments of hate and before long had a pile of plastic guns, swords, light sabres and helmets blocking the light inside his office, and a huddle of crying children and bewildered parents outside.
I have heard some people refer to this time of year, perhaps half in jest, as “Chriskwanukkah”, an unlovely portmanteau of Christmas, Chanukkah and Kwanzaa, the African-American winter festival. But aside from being unpronounceable, this is self-evidently offensive to Druids and other observers of the pagan solstice and will presumably be dropped next year.
These attempts to be inoffensive and inclusive have started to become quite offensive and exclusionary.
I have lived in America long enough to know that I should never grasp the hand of colleagues or friends and wish them the joy and peace of the newborn king in case they turn out to be practising Zoroastrians. But it has got to the point where I worry now about upsetting fellow Christians if I proffer them a limp handshake and that flaccid salute to mushy multiculturalism: “Happy Holidays”.
And yet the truth is I rather like this annual Christmas controversy. For one thing it helps to debunk one of the more absurd myths about America that the rest of the world clings to — that it is firmly in the grip of some theocracy in which schoolchildren learn creationism by rote and White House officials slaughter the fatted calf before drawing up their foreign policy plans.
In fact, separation of Church and State is much more rigid here than is ever imagined in the wildest dreams of European anticlericals. My own children were able, if I may say so, to execute quite brilliantly their annual Christmas pageant at their Catholic school this week only because not one secular penny of taxpayers’ money supports it. My guess would be that your average Englishman or German is much freer to indulge in public displays of openly religious sentiment at this time of year than anyone in California or Florida.
But, above all, the annual fuss about taking Christ out of Christmas misses the central point about the holiday season in America. This time of year captures, perhaps better than any other, the defining characteristic of Americans in the modern world — their lack of cynicism and scepticism, their enduring hope and faith in themselves, their country and even the world around them.
In Britain and most of Europe, Christmas has become that special occasion for wallowing in cynicism. We love to complain about the shopping, the train delays and the weather. Popular culture disdains the spirit of the season, and plays up instead the secularist, sceptical, mocking, lost innocence tone of British life.
With a few ghastly exceptions from Sir Cliff, popular music in Britain at this time of year is blunt and unsentimental, even when charitable. But Americans indulge their sentimentality, pander to their idealism, reaffirm their belief in the spiritual contingency of human nature and their popular culture reflects that.
Nothing is too schmaltzy or saccharine. Even Hollywood for a brief moment casts aside its usual predilections and expresses a wide-eyed child-like thrill at the coming of Christmas. Radio stations become an endless loop of Christmas songs — not the typical “So Here it is Merry Christmas” British classic — but shameless repeats of Bing Crosby, Dean Martin and Harry Belafonte.
It’s a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra’s hymn to sentimentalism, will doubtless get a look in somewhere in the British TV schedules, but in America it will own its usual spot, slap in the middle of NBC’s prime time on Christmas night and I guarantee that there will not be a dry eye in the country when once again George Bailey hears the bell ringing for Clarence, the angel who gets his wings.
At other times, I can’t quite take all this American idealism and sentimentality. It is just a bit too much at odds with a complex world. As the country’s critics never tire of observing, it can lead to a little too much certainty and self-belief and a deficit of doubt and acknowledgement of error.
But, at this time of year, a bit of simple faith, a bit of uncynical joy and a bit of human hope induced by that unfathomable miracle that happened a couple of thousand years ago, is right on the mark.
gerard.baker@thetimes.co
Islam & Islamism
"It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution."
These are the words of Daniel Pipes who is the son of Richard Pipes who wrote this quite insightful article in the latest Harvard Magazine. It is always hepful to know thine enemy.
These are the words of Daniel Pipes who is the son of Richard Pipes who wrote this quite insightful article in the latest Harvard Magazine. It is always hepful to know thine enemy.
23.12.04
Try IT :: It's Tough
Here is something both lively and hard to occupy all of us over the weekend. The annual quiz published by the Financial Times. Tough but with a worthwhile prize.FT.com / Arts & Weekend - Quiz 2004 - Room at the inn?
22.12.04
Lighten Up!
I wish all a Merry Christmas! Whether it is Holy Day or a holiday, may it be both happy and joyous. It is a time to show some goodness to someone like the family member we like the least at the family meal -- a time for understanding and good will. Enjoy yourselves, but take time to bring a little joy and happiness to someone who doesn't see much of it during the rest of the year.
See you on the 27th.
See you on the 27th.
Hotel Rwanda
A shocking lack of the most basic human care must be applied to the failure of the first world in Africa. One can only hope that this film brings some much needed publicity to this horror. This -- not the oil for food mess -- should be Kofi Annan's downfall. Genocide does not begin to describe what has been happening for the last ten years. The New York Times > Movies > Movie Review | 'Hotel Rwanda': Holding a Moral Center as Civilization Fell
20.12.04
Guardian Books Quiz
Here you are. A perfect agenda for feeling inadequate this Holiday Season. Take the Guardian's annual Books Quiz.Guardian Unlimited Books | Quizzes (books)
Libraries
I believe that all of us were pleased to see that Google has embarked on the ambitious project of digitizing, for public use, much of the collections of the Stanford, Michigan and Harvard Libraries. This herculean task will certainly benefit researchers, scholars and even dillitantes like myself. But nothing will take the place of a library of books. This article from the Times admirably points out joys of the 'real' library.Times Online - Comment
Wise Tom
At Christmastime this year when there seems to be an unusual amount of squabble between the ACLU and the Fundamentalists on the propriety of Christmas displays in public places, it might be wise to ponder the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson who firmly believed that Jesus Christ was the wisest human who ever lived and that he codified in the Gospels the most thorough code of ethics or morals ever conceived (by the mind of man). Jefferson could not however, bring himself through faith or any other means to accept the divinity of Christ. He went so far as to redact the gospels by eliminating all reference to he supernatural, including all reference to the miraculous.(see, The Jefferson Bible).
Perhaps this is a wise foundation for non-Christians to ponder and to bring us all together this season. People of faith and people of no faith, Christians and non.
Christmas makes me nervous. The Infinite who came in a feeding trough is not the kind of God I want. He is too powerless for my liking. Such a God is an embarrassment, not just to the Herods of this world, but to all who are enamored with themselves and their own potency. I don’t want this God. I have an inn to offer, decorated for Christmas, not a stinking stall.
God exists in weakness and comes to those who reach up to him with empty hands. He is neither useful nor helpful. He came and still comes, not to solve our problems or answer our questions or fulfill our needs or bless our endeavors, but to expose our problems, to question our answers, to be our need, and to point us to his kingdom. In Christ, God enters time and space to turn our world upside down and inside out. “Valleys are made high, mountains are laid low.” We are left bewildered, undone.
Perhaps this is a wise foundation for non-Christians to ponder and to bring us all together this season. People of faith and people of no faith, Christians and non.
Christmas makes me nervous. The Infinite who came in a feeding trough is not the kind of God I want. He is too powerless for my liking. Such a God is an embarrassment, not just to the Herods of this world, but to all who are enamored with themselves and their own potency. I don’t want this God. I have an inn to offer, decorated for Christmas, not a stinking stall.
God exists in weakness and comes to those who reach up to him with empty hands. He is neither useful nor helpful. He came and still comes, not to solve our problems or answer our questions or fulfill our needs or bless our endeavors, but to expose our problems, to question our answers, to be our need, and to point us to his kingdom. In Christ, God enters time and space to turn our world upside down and inside out. “Valleys are made high, mountains are laid low.” We are left bewildered, undone.
Poor Tom
Tom Wolfe has been excoriated by the critics, including this one from the London Review of books, for his latest novel, LRB Theo Tait : Rutrutrutrutrutrutrutrut I Am Charlotte Simmons. What must be truly galling is that he has won the dubious "Worst Sex Scenes of 2004" award as well. The book describes college life in quite'intimate' detail.
18.12.04
Dumbing down? Don't blame the media
The diminishing quality of television should be of concern to us all. It is right to complain about the typical fare we are presented with as entertainment. However, we have no one to blame but ourselves. The ratings speak volumes about the real taste of the viewer. Junk gets high viewership. Good quality stuff is ignored. spiked-essays | Essay | Dumbing down? Don't blame the media
Just Leave Christmas Alone
Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post that non-Christians should not feel threatened by Christmas. They should view it as enlarging their field of vision. A view too wise to be generally adopted. Just Leave Christmas Alone (washingtonpost.com)
17.12.04
...and a Merry One to you too!
It's a pity that Bill Gates had to spread Corbis all over this otherwise brilliant print.
The Great Powers of Europe, Redefined
Timothy Garton Ash has written this thoughtful op-ed piece for the New York Times that tempts us with a fresh view of the European Union. Worth a read and some thought. The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Great Powers of Europe, Redefined
Assmosis? Contrasexual?
The Telegraph has come up with a wonderful review of the Collins website which agglomerates new words for consideration. Take a look at some of these: boyzilian: (noun) a Brazilian bikini wax for men
contrasexual: (noun) a financially independent, confident woman whose aspirations defy convention and who does not make romantic relationships a priority
globesity: (noun) perceived global epidemic of obesity
chavalanche (noun) when an onslaught of Burberry-wearing Smirnoff Ice drinkers descend on one's local
assmosis (noun) gaining promotion through sycophancy
kippers (noun) grown up children living with their parents (kids in parents' pockets eroding retirement savings)
smirting (noun) combination of smoking and flirting. Gmail - Expat Telegraph Newsletter
contrasexual: (noun) a financially independent, confident woman whose aspirations defy convention and who does not make romantic relationships a priority
globesity: (noun) perceived global epidemic of obesity
chavalanche (noun) when an onslaught of Burberry-wearing Smirnoff Ice drinkers descend on one's local
assmosis (noun) gaining promotion through sycophancy
kippers (noun) grown up children living with their parents (kids in parents' pockets eroding retirement savings)
smirting (noun) combination of smoking and flirting. Gmail - Expat Telegraph Newsletter
The End of the World
The Economist chose to lead its annual Christmas issue with a description of those who believed or believe that the biblical end of time is at hand. The article makes for good reading.Economist.com | The end of the world
16.12.04
Happy Christmas to All
More will be forthcoming as the 25th draws near, but Xerxes wishes to all his readers the happiest, merriest, holiest, and peaceful Christmas ever. Whether we "believe" in Christmas or not, it is a grand time to reflect and spread some goodness into our communities.
Big Mac Index
For some time the Economist has published an index of currency valuations tied to the McDonald's Big Mac hamburger on the theory that it is one of the few world-wide commodities whose value can measure purchasing power parity. It now finds the Euro 25% over-valued to the dollar and the yen 17% undervalued. Economist.com: :Big Mac index
The wisest fool
Here's something to contemplate at the holiday hearth. The Economist is sponsoring a contest to name 'the Wisest Fool'. Come on now, you can't resist this. BTW, both the Economist and the Spectator have spectacularly entertaining year-end double issues, now at your news agaents.Economist.com: :The wisest fool
Pagans All
As the Christian Holy Day of Christmas seems to have melted down into an amorphous and ubiquitous 'Happy Holiday', it is worthwhile to take note of this view in the Spectator of the rise of Paganism. What fools these mortals be. So Happy Holidays to all.The Spectator.co.uk
The Language
Richard Jenkyns writes a thoughtful and amusing article in the January Prospect about peoples reactions to the 'Mother Tongue". It also provides a good review of recent works on the language. Prospect - article_details
Bagdon?
Those of you who are anxious to vote again might want to consider this poll being taken by the History Net regarding any similarity between the current situation in Iraq to the ill-fated war in Vietnam. The situation 'on the ground' seems awfully similar to me --it's the climate at home that is different -- but for how long? TheHistoryNet: Where History Lives On The Web
15.12.04
...and, I kinda liked the film...
According to this article from Alternet, apparantly Dr. Reisman has the ear of the President and she blames all cultural decline on Alfred Kinsey and his published studies of human sexuality. Hmmm. AlterNet: Election 2004: Her Kinsey Obsession
14.12.04
TMQ & Modern Times
Amtrak used your tax money to hire a person to pretend to be a computer. Tuesday Morning Quarterback suggests having fun with Julie by calling the Amtrak number, 800-USA-RAIL, and trying to confuse her. I did, and part of the conversation sounded like this:
JULIE. How many people will be traveling?
ME. It's a big country. How should I know how many people will be traveling?
JULIE. That sounded like you said, 'One adult.'
ME. I was being evasive. But I refuse to tell you why I was being evasive.
JULIE. My mistake. How many people will be traveling, and please be sure to say if there will be children or senior citizens.
ME. Of course there will be children. Children are our hope for the future.
JULIE. That sounded like you said, 'Eight children.'
ME. Do you have children, Julie? I'm starting to worry that machines will have children.
JULIE. You need to say what kind of adults will be traveling.
ME. The dashing, irresistible kind. It's me, after all. I'm sort of a 1940s-movie handsome-stranger-on-a-train kind of guy.
JULIE. I'm having trouble understanding you."
JULIE. How many people will be traveling?
ME. It's a big country. How should I know how many people will be traveling?
JULIE. That sounded like you said, 'One adult.'
ME. I was being evasive. But I refuse to tell you why I was being evasive.
JULIE. My mistake. How many people will be traveling, and please be sure to say if there will be children or senior citizens.
ME. Of course there will be children. Children are our hope for the future.
JULIE. That sounded like you said, 'Eight children.'
ME. Do you have children, Julie? I'm starting to worry that machines will have children.
JULIE. You need to say what kind of adults will be traveling.
ME. The dashing, irresistible kind. It's me, after all. I'm sort of a 1940s-movie handsome-stranger-on-a-train kind of guy.
JULIE. I'm having trouble understanding you."
13.12.04
The Plot Against Sex in America
This is avery well thought out piece by Frank Rich of the New York Times on the machinations by the reds to eliminate references to sex in the media. Makes one think. The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: The Plot Against Sex in America
11.12.04
Continental Drift
This is a penetrating anaysis of the split between Continental European and the Anglo and other worlds. Much of interest here as well as a reminder that the Weekend FT is a wonderful and eclectic source of information.FT.com / Arts & Weekend - Continental drift
10.12.04
Values
CW has it now that the last election was about "values". Ask yourself why the Beeb gives such prominence the the extinction of an animal in the Congo, when thousands are dying, being raped and mutilated in other parts of Africa. Values indeed! I am all for the World Wildlife Fund and I am saddened by the extinction or near-extinction of any animal. But our priorities should be with the saving of human life. Genocide rules in Africa today. The first world must accept responsibility. BBC NEWS Science/Nature Congo poachers leave bonobo at risk
Food, Glorious Food
It wouldn't be the holidays without some mention of food. This site is a treasure trove of good food writing, which we all know is second only to food eating.mLeite's Culinaria: Award-Winning Food Writing and Recipe Collections
8.12.04
Hic Ririte
We all need a good laugh now and then, so:
You know the old story about the housewife in her basement doing the wash? She's wearing her nightie, and she thinks, "Well hell,I might's well put this in as well," and then Being dripped on by a leaky pipe puts on Her son's football helmet; whereupon The meter reader happens to walk through And "Lady," he gravely says, "I sure hope your team wins."
The title is, of course, written in Latin and translates as 'laugh here'. It is used at points in the written manuscript of the Latin Commencement speech at Harvard so that the unlearned in the audience know when to laugh.
You know the old story about the housewife in her basement doing the wash? She's wearing her nightie, and she thinks, "Well hell,I might's well put this in as well," and then Being dripped on by a leaky pipe puts on Her son's football helmet; whereupon The meter reader happens to walk through And "Lady," he gravely says, "I sure hope your team wins."
The title is, of course, written in Latin and translates as 'laugh here'. It is used at points in the written manuscript of the Latin Commencement speech at Harvard so that the unlearned in the audience know when to laugh.
Chinese in the Buyer's Seat
The IBM/Levovo deal is a fascinating one in many respects. First of course is the very notion that IBM which pioneered the PC business is abandoning it. More importantly the deal may signal the beginning of a Chinese acqisition boom, based upon pent up capital surpluses. If the Chinese float the Yuan, they may pick up some bargains in the US just as the Japanese did in the seventies. FT.com / Industries / IT - Lenovo deal may herald dawn of Chinese M&A era
7.12.04
Scared Yet?
Here is a quote from today's Financial Times:
Amid reports that investors are starting to question the US government's AAA bond rating, the greenback slid to a new lifetime low of $1.3470 against the euro and a 12-year low of $1.9508 versus sterling.
How long is going to be until someone inside the beltway recognizes this as a problem. It's not the travellers (stupid). It is the place of the US economy in the international market.
Amid reports that investors are starting to question the US government's AAA bond rating, the greenback slid to a new lifetime low of $1.3470 against the euro and a 12-year low of $1.9508 versus sterling.
How long is going to be until someone inside the beltway recognizes this as a problem. It's not the travellers (stupid). It is the place of the US economy in the international market.
Oui, en (H)Atlanta
The Louvre and the High Museum in Atlanta have announced a program under which the Paris museum will lend hundreds of its works to the Atlanta museum for a fee of 10mUSD. Seems like a good move for both and it may give some others a good idea. The Art Newspaper -- News
Jed Perl
One of America's most talented art critics gives his opinion on art books. This article from the New Republic is not just a suggestion piece for gift giving but is also a rather profound essay on art books in general. TNR Online | Bookings (print)
Prospect
I hope that all of you are familiar with Prospect - landing_pagePROSPECT. It is an unusually varied and intelligent monthly which never fails to have several articles of interest. I am prompted to alert you because they have recently redone their website. Give it a look.
Pearl Harbour Day
I won't dwell on the subject of Pearl Harbour. Tonight is the first night of Chanukkah. Let us all join in wishing our Jewish brothers and sisters a festive time at this, their feast of the miracle of lights.
With thanks to Garrison Keillor, I give you this sketch of Heywood Broun -- one terrific and not to be forgotten writer.
It's the birthday of journalist and correspondent Heywood Campbell Broun, born in Brooklyn, New York (1888). Broun grew up the privileged son of a large printing plant owner, Heywood Cox Broun, a Scottish emigrant. Heywood Jr. spent most of his life and career as a journalist and political activist fighting for the underdog.
Broun attended exclusive private schools before going off to Harvard University, yet he never finished his degree, instead he left Harvard a few credits short of graduation in 1910.
In the 1920's, Broun wrote a column called "It Seems to Me" for The New York World. Broun's column pioneered the Op-Ed format of journalism, featuring personal views independent of the paper's editorial stance. His personal commentary was sometimes amusing and often highly critical, usually speaking for the underprivileged. This column made him one of the most loved figures in journalism.
In his lifetime Broun was a prolific writer, who could reportedly turn out a column in 30 minutes, and was responsible for some 21,000,000 words. He said, "For the truth there is no deadline." His career spanned many talents, including sports writing, drama criticism, war correspondent and syndicated columnist. He wrote for numerous journals and newspapers including: the Nation, the New Republican, the New York Times, the New Yorker and the New York Post.
In 1933 Heywood founded The Newspaper Guild. Although he had always led a comfortable life and was paid well for his work, he wanted to found a union that would protect the rights of reporters and newspaper employees. His contemporaries called him "The Presiding Saint" of the Newspaper Guild and he was reelected president every year until his death from pneumonia in 1939. Upon his death, president Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "He was a hard fighter, but always a fair adversary, and no matter for whom he worked he wore no man's collar."
Broun said, "I doubt whether the world holds for anyone a more soul-stirring surprise than the first adventure with ice-cream."
With thanks to Garrison Keillor, I give you this sketch of Heywood Broun -- one terrific and not to be forgotten writer.
It's the birthday of journalist and correspondent Heywood Campbell Broun, born in Brooklyn, New York (1888). Broun grew up the privileged son of a large printing plant owner, Heywood Cox Broun, a Scottish emigrant. Heywood Jr. spent most of his life and career as a journalist and political activist fighting for the underdog.
Broun attended exclusive private schools before going off to Harvard University, yet he never finished his degree, instead he left Harvard a few credits short of graduation in 1910.
In the 1920's, Broun wrote a column called "It Seems to Me" for The New York World. Broun's column pioneered the Op-Ed format of journalism, featuring personal views independent of the paper's editorial stance. His personal commentary was sometimes amusing and often highly critical, usually speaking for the underprivileged. This column made him one of the most loved figures in journalism.
In his lifetime Broun was a prolific writer, who could reportedly turn out a column in 30 minutes, and was responsible for some 21,000,000 words. He said, "For the truth there is no deadline." His career spanned many talents, including sports writing, drama criticism, war correspondent and syndicated columnist. He wrote for numerous journals and newspapers including: the Nation, the New Republican, the New York Times, the New Yorker and the New York Post.
In 1933 Heywood founded The Newspaper Guild. Although he had always led a comfortable life and was paid well for his work, he wanted to found a union that would protect the rights of reporters and newspaper employees. His contemporaries called him "The Presiding Saint" of the Newspaper Guild and he was reelected president every year until his death from pneumonia in 1939. Upon his death, president Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "He was a hard fighter, but always a fair adversary, and no matter for whom he worked he wore no man's collar."
Broun said, "I doubt whether the world holds for anyone a more soul-stirring surprise than the first adventure with ice-cream."
4.12.04
New Yorker Cartoons
This Autumn, the New Yorker published a large volume with every cartoon it has ever published. Some are included in the book itself, others are included on two included CD's. This is one of the essays which accompany the book. Humour at its finest. The New Yorker
3.12.04
How Christmas Works
Let's say you live in Nepal. Let's magine that you are coming to the Western World around the end of December. This guide to Christmas would be a must read. It is highly entertaing to all of us. Howstuffworks "How Christmas Works"
Off the Cliff
More on the precipitous fall of the USDollar. Here the Economist weighs in. The rapidity of the fall could not happen at a worse time with the Bush ecomnomic team in transition. It clearly must be Bush's idea to allow the dollar to reach these levels but it is difficult to see to what end. The Chinese Yuan remains pegged to the dollar. Imagine the chaos if that peg were removed and the yuan were allowed float to levels that would grossly affect Chinese exports to the United States. Is anybody watching in D.C.? Economist.com
1.12.04
Latin
A few entries ago -- "Dumbing Down" -- I noted that Latin was required in English Schools in 1898. It is a pity that it is not so today. As this review aptly points out, there is much to be gained from a study of Latin. It is truly a remarkable language and it deserves a place in our curriculum. Times Online - Books
Fond Favorite
Wodehouse has always been a favorite. A new biography by Robert McCrum is splendid reason to celebrate this wonderful writer with a photograph of his home in London with Stephan Fry poking out the window. 
Butterflies and Wheels
Here is a very interesting website put together by some philosophers. It subsumes some fascinating links to other articles that might have gone un-noticed in other publications. Take a look. Butterflies and Wheels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)