What Darwin Never Knew

PBS's NOVA had an excellent show on Darwin, evolution, natural selection, DNA, etc. the other night. It has a nice short biography of Darwin and his scientific discoveries and scientifically political challenges of his time. It goes into Darwin's theory of natural selection and then to more recent knowledge about DNA (what Darwin never knew). The new stuff for me was the information about the hierarchy of genes. There are genes that make stuff (creating the proteins that make our eyes, brain, limbs, etc.). There are genes that act like switches turning on or off the other genes, and then there are genes that control the switch genes.

The web site linked above itself appears to have further interesting information on evolution and DNA.

Challenging the President

Ryan Grim of HuffingtonPost.com takes up the challenge from President Obama to identify any gaps between what Obama campaigned on and the policies that his administration have supported since his taking office. Some pointers in the article to remember.

Bone Vitality

For some reason I was awake and listening to the People's Pharmacy on KERA 6am Saturday morning. I hardly ever listen to this show in part for the obvious reason, but I felt fortunate to listen to this one. It was on bone vitality. The first guest was medical journalist Michael Castleman who with a coauthor recently came out with the book Building Bone Vitality: A Revolutionary Diet Plan to Prevent Bone Loss and Reverse Osteoporosis.

At least in the radio show, Castleman's main point was that taking calcium supplements Or drinking alot of milk has not been shown to make much of a difference in bone vitality. Rather, a diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables plus exercise is the best prescription for maintaining strong bones. The reason is that there are other nutrients besides calcium that are necessary for bone health (I think manganese and phosphorus were a couple mentioned), and one gets these from fruits and vegetables.

Also pointed out was that a diet high in animal protein causes the blood to become acidic, and this causes calcium to come from the bones to maintain a ph balance in the blood. I first read about protein leeching calcium from the bones 20 years ago during the early days of my vegetarian period. Perhaps this view is gaining traction.

The second guest on the show was Walter Willett, MD, DrPH, and a chairman of the nutrition department at Harvard's school of public health. He was of course more politically non-committal about Castleman's claims, particularly about animal protein, but he didn't refute Castleman's calcium claim. He was behind a diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables. What nutritionist wouldn't be?

One small negative about the show is that Joe Graedon, one of the show's hosts, seemed to distance himself from Castleman's protein claim ("it's out there") when talking with Willett. Yet when he and his wife Terry were talking to Castleman earlier, there wasn't any skepticism expressed on either hosts' part. A little two-faced I thought.

The Origin Of Species

From Wikipedia

It's a day to remember Charles Darwin. It's 150 years ago today that his On the Origin of Species was published.

The Debt Buildup

The New York Times has a foreboding article today about the national debt. The interest on it could get very expensive pretty soon adding to an already ballooning debt.

But as the HuffingtonPost points out, Paul Krugman has this opposing view, and Dean Baker has this opposing view.

Animal, Vegetable, Miserable

Karen Barbour

The New York Times rather stunningly published a strong op-ed today by Gary Steiner on veganism. Steiner's opinion is not focused on the health or environmental benefits of veganism but rather on the humanitarian reasoning. I have to commend the Times for publishing the opinion.

 

The Fall of Greg Craig

    Doug Mills, The New York Times

 An interesting narrative in Time magazine (link below) about Greg Craig, Obama's former (or soon to be former) White House counsel. It is about what happens to someone who tries to follow the policies that Obama set out during the presidential campaign and early in the administration. He gets cut off at the knees.

The Fall of Greg Craig

Eating Animals

Sue Coe, "My Mother and I Watched a Pig Escape From a Slaughterhouse"

 The New Yorker's November 9 edition was a good issue. Lawrence Wright has an extensive article on Gaza, and Elizabeth Kolbert reviews Jonathan Safran Foer's book "Eating Animals". I like the issue of eating animals (and the alternative, vegetarianism/veganism) receiving more national media and serious prominence. The review is good up until the Kolbert gets a bit silly by asking whether veganism is enough in solving all our environmental problems. Of course not, but it would certainly have desirable effects in that area.

The Warning

Frontline had a very good program on a couple of weeks ago. Thankfully, one can still watch it online which I just did. The program is about the unregulated market in derivatives and how a woman named Brooksley Born (above) back in the 90's tried to warn the government that there needed to be regulation of this dark market. Unfortunately, the economic powers that were, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, held sway, and nothing was done, despite events at the time! And today, we've seen how derivatives brought Wall Street to its knees and how the government has had to step in and bailout a number of firms. Hopefully, there will finally be some regulation enacted, but it is slow going, particularly with Obambi in the White House.

Toothless Paper Tiger

Here is a very good interview by Kathy Freston at huffingtonpost.com of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn. Dr. Esselstyn explains how the western diet is the great contributor to heart disease.

Held by the Taliban

Tomas Munita, The New York Times

The New York Times has had an engrossing 5-part story in its pages this week about David Rohde's seven months in captivity by the Taliban. David Rohde is a Times reporter who along with a couple of Afghan colleagues was kidnapped by the Taliban last November. They were held and moved about Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan until he and one of the Afghans escaped in June. Rohde tells the story of their captivity, and the story gives some insight into the motives and behavior of the Taliban.

Australia's Dry Run

Amy Toensing, National Geographic

An interesting article about the drought in Australia and its affects on farmers; from a few months back in National Geographic.

Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering

Damon Winter, New York Times

Wow, time really flies. It's been three weeks since I read this very good Sunday feature article in the Times.

graphic: Clean Water Act violations: the enforcement record

video: Toxic Waters: Coal in the Water

interactive: Find water polluters near you

E. coli contamination in ground beef

Ben Garvin, New York Times

A good feature article in the Times today regarding E. coli contamination in ground beef. Makes one think more carefully when buying the stuff.

With video and Graphic: Anatomy of a Burger

Two weeks in a row on Sundays for good feature articles. Last week's article to come.

Tour de France: Stage 7

It was an interesting stage today as the Tour had its first mountain stage, in the Pyrenees. As expected Cancellara lost the yellow jersey, and surprisingly, it was a relatively unknown Italian who took it.

Most notably though near the end of the climb that ended the stage, Contador made a break on his own from the leaders and ended up second overall two seconds ahead of Armstrong. According to Armstrong in this video interview, that was not the plan. Astana was supposed to sit with Cadel Evans and others.

Personally, I welcomed seeing Contador getting ahead of Armstrong. The leadership of Astana appears to be in flux. If I were Contador, I would have expected the team to be supporting me going into this tour. However, with Armstrong in the mix and plainly up until today looking for glory himself, there doesn't seem to be any direction on who the leader is. Team director Johan Bruyneel's comments are interesting further down in this article. What they do seems to be up to the racers to plan. Is Bruyneel not going to be a part of any leadership decision making?

Of course, a team could have more than one leader, but I think lends itself to some confusion. Who are the domestiques to support? Both it seems, but that may be alot to ask, and might some domestiques have an allegiance to one leader over the other? Does one leader sometimes support the other and vica versa?

Though as a teammate might be expected to do today, Armstrong did remain with the other leaders and not help out in any chase of Contador.

Well, a couple more mountain stages in the Pyrenees and then plenty more of the Tour to come particularly in the Alps. Glad we've got Saturday and Sunday to watch tomorrow's mountain stages.

Tour de France: Stage 3

The Tour de France is on, and I'd forgotten how much fun it is to follow this race. Fortunately, I have the VS (versus) channel, catching it live in the mornings and replays in the evenings.

Today was a real interesting stage. I've only read about it. Brit Mark Cavendish won his second consecutive stage and at such a young age (24) is confirming his status as the sprinter to beat. Woo hoo! Crikey.

More interesting however was the fact that Lance Armstrong was a part of today's surprise team Columbia-Highroad-led breakaway. Armstrong is a member of team Astana whose leader is ostensibly Alberto Contador. Armstrong is now third overall, and with quotes like these here, you wonder if he's abiding by that leadership designation:

"I am not ok with that theory saying there can be only one team leader," said Armstrong.

"I have won seven Tours de France, I will have to be counted in."

Regarding that first quote, I'd be really surprised if Armstrong was not ok with that theory during his seven-year victory run. Anyway, this sets up for some real intrigue into the dynamics of the Astana team. Are they going to rein Armstrong in? Or are they going to bow to his ambitions and allow both he and Contador to battle for the title? It is impressive that at 37 Armstrong has made such a showing early on. But yes, it is early.

A real interesting post race interview of Armstrong coming up at the right hand side of this page here.

A Reporter at Large: Brain Gain: newyorker.com

Ok, I finally remembered the last now memorable New Yorker article that I've recently read (maybe I do need a neuro enhancer!). This one is a bit disturbing. It's about the increasing usage of neuro enhancing drugs, something like speed, that allow people to stay awake longer and be more productive. It's one thing to occasionally take these drugs when cramming for exams or meeting work deadlines, but it's another thing when people talk about and businesses plan for the use of neuro enhancers to be a lifestyle choice, and that is what this article examines. Very disturbingly, the author at the end doesn't see a problem with it. Hello??? Long term health effects!!! I certainly hope that these drugs don't become a wave of the future. We'll all regret it.

A Reporter at Large: Brain Gain: newyorker.com

Shared via AddThis

A Reporter at Large: The Sixth Extinction?: newyorker.com

The most significant article that I read recently was by Elizabeth Kolbert. Kolbert has been writing about climate change for the past several years. This article is about the extinction of species, man's likely role in them, and about the disappearance in areas of certain frog and bat species. It is another somewhat depressing but definitely sobering article by Kolbert.

A Reporter at Large: The Sixth Extinction?: newyorker.com

Shared via AddThis

Annals of Business: Not Quite Cricket: newyorker.com

Another good and somewhat entertaining article about the financier (Sir) Allen Stanford who is under federal investigation for defrauding people of billions. A native of Mexia, Texas, Stanford made a name (and a knighthood) for himself on the island of Antigua by establishing himself in the islands banking system and also for being a big promoter of cricket. Tidbits in the of his past indicate that he's not been all he says he's been (e.g. college football player, related to Stanford University's namesake Leland Stanford).

Annals of Business: Not Quite Cricket: newyorker.com

Shared via AddThis

Annals of Law: No More Mr. Nice Guy: newyorker.com

One of some good articles in The New Yorker that I've recently read. This one is about Chief Justice John Roberts being more conservative and combative, particularly about race, than he had appeared during his initial nomination publicity and confirmation hearing. No surprise, duh!

Annals of Law: No More Mr. Nice Guy: newyorker.com

Shared via AddThis

Wall Street and the Third World: vanityfair.com

A good article by Joseph Stiglitz about the damage that has been done by the current economic crisis to the idea of market forces. America has prescribed tough medicine (spending cutbacks, no bailouts) for other parts of the world when they have faced economic crises, but then it does the opposite when facing its own crisis. The ideas of the West in regards to global economics have been under suspicion in the developing world, because the ideas seem to benefit primarily the West and not all the world.

Wall Street and the Third World: vanityfair.com

Shared via AddThis

Rwanda, The Life After

Paul Kagame

There is an excellent article by Philip Gourevitch in the May 4 edition of The New Yorker. Click here for the abstract and a link to the full text. It takes the reader from a micro view of life in Rwanda to a macro view of the politics and wars involving Rwanda. Basically, it's about the strides that Rwanda has made since the genocide in 1994.

At first, I thought the article was just going to be about individual lives of people and the after effects of the genocide. In regards to the genocide, justice, if it can be called that, has been in the form of truth commissions (a system called Gacaca) where the guilty parties in the genocide confess their crimes and are given relatively light prison sentences. It just seems too overwhelming to try and sentence all the guilty to lengthy prison sentences.

Gourevitch interviews both the Tutsi survivors and the Hutu killers who live amongst each other once the killers are released from prison. It's a weird comingling. The interesting part is reading the reactions of the survivors to this living situation and the openness of the killers in describing the crimes that they committed.

The article then moves to a more regional focus where Gourevitch recounts the ongoing battles of the past 15 years among the national armies of Rwanda and Congo and the rebel Tutsi and Hutu armies within the nations. Allegiances shift as the years go by. But common in all of it are the endless massacres and rapes suffered by the civilian populations. The history though sad is epic.

The common thread through the article is the tireless efforts of the Rwandan leader and Tutsi Paul Kagame (shown above). Rwanda has a long way to go to alleviate its poverty, but it has made great strides in getting its economy going. (an interesting tidbit: its parliament is mostly made up of women). Kagame seems to have been instrumental in keeping Rwanda together. He has done it with a lot of compromise, painful compromise at times.

I couldn't help sensing a lesson in Rwanda's experience (the compromising) and maybe a comparison with Barack Obama, another skinny leader with roots from nearby Kenya.

UPDATE: The Wikipedia page for Kagame is much less flattering of the man than Gourevitch's article. A number of human rights organizations have criticized the Kagame-led government and armed forces for civil rights abuses, press restrictions, and mass killings. Perhaps some of the accusations towards Kagame are unjustified, but there is too much smoke around him to believe that he's not guilty of some abuses and/or crimes.

The demise of newspapers

I woke up at 4 in the morning today. Not that terrible of a thing, because I turned on the radio as I often due at night to BBC News on 90.1 KERA in Dallas. Depressingly though was a report about the financial struggles of today's newspapers. With people, particularly the younger crowd, turning increasingly to the internet for their free and wide-ranging news and also free want-ads and job postings, it's making it very hard for traditional newspapers to make a profit. A major part of newspapers' revenue has been the want-ads and job postings.

Given the long history of newspapers, those revenue sources are disappearing almost overnight with the existence today of web sites like craigslist and monster.com. With more people getting their news from the internet, there is also less viewership of newspapers' commercial advertisements which has subsequently caused their value to drop.

I say the news is depressing, because I love reading a newspaper, particularly The New York Times, in my hands. There is so much more that I will get out of the hardcopy than I'll get from a paper's website. I think generally people look only at the top stories at a news website. There is less likelihood that they will look at the back stories than they would if they had all the sections of a newspaper in their hands. So there's also less viewership of the advertisements laced throughout the newspaper.

The concern is not only from a commercial standpoint. Will readers get the same depth in stories online as they do with newspapers? I seriously doubt it. The internet is ideal for a quick read of the events of the day, but the quality of the reading experience I think is much better with a newspaper. I and I think most people reading a lengthy article would prefer it in hardcopy. There is not going to be the same patience by readers looking at a laptop or desktop computer screen.

I know that the Times is losing a lot of money these days. Many others are as well, and we're seeing newspapers going out of business or merging with each other all the time now. Is this medium going away?

Being of such a disruptive technology, it seems natural that the internet will take over as the prime medium for news. I greatly think the internet is a good thing because more information is available to more people. It's a very democratic phenomena. Yet, what happens to all the people in the newspaper industry? There are not going to be positions for all of them in the new news industry. Obviously, we won't need as much printing. It's another example of technology saving labor efforts but the replacement work for people not being readily apparent. It seems that there is going to be a lot of suffering to come among people in the newspaper business whether they are the writers, editors, or printers, because right now getting re-trained for some other occupation (which can be quite a mystery as to what that is) is going to take quite a bit of time.

Atheists in the news

The Times has an interesting article today about the rising visibility and numbers of atheists (or nonbelievers). It's nice to see atheists starting to come out of the closet so to speak, feeling more comfortable being openly atheist in public (as the article says much like gays!).

One poll shows that 15% of Americans are non-believers, and astonishing number to me considering how rare it seems to run into one. I guess it happens more often than one realizes. Then again, I live in the Bible Belt. The number of self-identified Christians has dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2008. Hopefully, this will give the Christian Right some pause before imposing its beliefs on the public.

The article also noted Barack Obama's mention of non-believers in his inaugural address. I don't think it's realized yet what a notable event that was. I haven't been happy with Obama lately, particularly regarding the torture debate, but I do appreciate his respectfulness. He's a smart guy. I just hope he doesn't bow to the political winds too much.

Regarding Torture. . . .

I like this video, right on! Saw it at Glenn Greenwald's site.

To The Point

I really like this radio show out of Santa Monica, CA. It comes on at 10pm weeknights at KERA 90.1 in Dallas. A good current events program with guests of sometimes opposing views. The host, Warren Olney, maintains a good pace to the program and poses some challenging questions to his guests.

Too Much Wall Street

josephstiglitz.com

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has a good op-ed in the New York Times today. It's a criticism of the Obama administration's latest bailout plan for banks for buying up their toxic assets. As Paul Krugman has already publicly proclaimed, Stiglitz is critical of the plan for being heavily favored towards banks and investors with great risk towards taxpayers.

In the plan, taxpayers take about 92% of the risk in the form of matching funds and guaranteed loans to investors. If buying some toxic assets somehow pays off, then investors and taxpayers get some profit, but if the purchases don't pay off, taxpayers are stuck with the vast amount of the losses. Privatized gains, socialized losses.

This is another example of Wall Street having too much of an influence in Washington. Goldman Sachs CEOs were the previous two Treasury secretaries, and Larry Summers and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are heavily influenced by Wall Street.

There is an article in the May issue of Atlantic Monthly that is getting some publicity. From what I hear and need to read myself, it discusses the US taking on some aspects of a banana republic, one of those aspects being "financial oligarchs" having too much influence in the country.

Anyway, I'm not too pleased with the Obama administration's economic plans. Obama is too afraid of temporarily nationalizing banks which may be the more effective way to go. Let's see some real leadership and less talk from the man.

The Dark Side by Jane Mayer

From doubleday.com

I just submitted my latest book review at Amazon. This time it's for the book that I've been reading lately, Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. I gave it 5 stars. Definitely a worthwhile read.

This is an important book that every American should read. It's angered me watching documentaries and reading books and articles about how the Bush administration has gotten away with its lawless detainment and torture policies. Who wants to read another account only to get angry again? Well, this book may be the most comprehensive account of those policies and their damaging consequences, and it is further confirmation on the need for investigations and hopefully meaningful prosecutions of the perpetrators (Bush included though hard to believe that would occur).

The book is primarily focused on the torture subject, how the policies that enabled torture were developed, who developed them, and the resulting inhumane treatment of detainees. Some detainees were important Al Queda terrorist figures, and some were people innocent of any wrongdoing. Many of the early pages are devoted to the lawyers (e.g. David Addington, John Yoo) in the Bush administration who had outsized roles in determining what the President and his executive branch should be allowed to do in this so-called war on terror. Bush is practically invisible in this account, because it is VP Cheney and his loyalists that dominated the policy making. Bush was there to basically sign off on everything.

The accounts of torture are very disturbing. Some torture resulted in death from which no one has been held to account. Many Middle Easterners were rounded up in the global dragnet. Some were indeed dangerous, but too many had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism at all. Yet the innocent ones still had their lives taken away from them, and they suffered great physical and emotional pain.

The book shows how these policies resulted in interrogation practices getting out of control, how interrogators became inhuman themselves, how torture became bureaucratized. There was a lot of human endeavor involved in developing and executing the torture programs.

Mayer does cover the fight that some government lawyers and personnel made against the policies, but with some exceptions, they generally failed. My one criticism of the book (and of Mayer in at least one interview) is that Mayer gives too much credit to them. One example is Alberto Mora. Yes, Mora did potentially risk his career in protesting the torture policies and was up against an array of forces, but I think he could have done more. He was entirely too naive with Jim Haynes, and he was very passive in waiting for a working group report to come out that ended up being a whitewash.

I say that this is an important book for Americans to read, because it's important to know what was done in America's name (and is why I give the book 5 stars). We as a country have essentially supported these policies by allowing them and their consequences to happen and by not holding anyone to account. Reading this book should provide further credence to any American that investigations and prosecutions are highly in order.

.NET or Java?

Just saving a link here to an old (2006) forum discussion about whether to learn .NET or Java in a career path. Some points in the discussion worth reading and remembering. I'm leaning to Java, because I know it better, and .NET of course gets one into the Microsoft world. Blah! The discussion favors Java. It's more widespread than .NET and C#, and it's on more platforms. NetBeans is free too vs Visual Studio. Microsoft products though are pervasive in the workplace, and Microsoft always seems to be able to throw its weight around.

Reading Jane Mayer's Dark Side

I am a little over half way through Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. Right now, I'm reading about the abuse and torture perpetrated by American military and CIA in Iraq, specifically Abu Graib, and reading another account of the torture is again an angering experience.

Abu Graib is just one example of the torture the Bush administration authorized. The torture occurred at CIA black sites, in extraordinary rendition destinations like Egypt and Syria, at US bases in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo Bay, at a naval brig in the US, and at various camps and prisons in Iraq.

I've read other books and news articles about the torture and seen documentaries covering the issue, but The Dark Side pretty much covers it all. There is such a mountain of evidence of the torture that it cannot be denied that it happened nor that it was not authorized at the highest levels of our government. Why there is any debate about whether Bush administration officials (including Bush himself) should be investigated and many of them prosecuted is maddening.

The writing is on the wall. This issue will never go away until there is justice, and if there is not justice, then this chapter will be a permanent stain in America's history. It's already a stain, but let's at least get some of it out.

More Comedy Central hysterics: Doom Bunker

I'm not much of a creative blogger. Just stealing from elsewhere (huffingtonpost.com) today, but I had to save this video of Stephen Colbert's Doom Bunker.

Part 1:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Glenn Beck's War Room

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
Joke of the Day

Part 2:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Doom Bunker - Jack Jacobs and Stephen Moore

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
Joke of the Day

CNBC: Ponzi Network?

From seeing on huffingtonpost.com, Jon Stewart takes a stab at Rick Santelli of CNBC for his well publicized histrionics (and canceling his appearance on The Daily Show) and then does a brilliant take down of CNBC itself for its incessant and irresponsible Wall Street cheerleading while as we now know Wall Street was tanking.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Bush DOJ OLC Memos

In what may be (and what I hope will be) the beginning of a movement to start investigations into the Bush administration's policies and acts in its fight against terrorism since 9/11, the Department of Justice yesterday released several DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memos from the Bush administration.

Most of the memos were written by John Yoo when he was at the OLC during the 9/11 aftermath. Two memos are by Steven Bradbury, the acting OLC head at the end of the Bush adminstration. Bradbury's memos, written in October 2008 and on January 15, 2009 (just 5 days before Obama took office), repeal the legal opinions in the Yoo memos, but they notably come long after the fact and right before Bush left office. They look to be a way of covering Bush administration asses.

The big news though are the Yoo memos. I have only read excerpts of them from blogs and news accounts, but they are getting lots of prominence for their amazingly distorted Constitutional views of Presidential power in times of military action. Yoo essentially says that the President can disregard the 1st and 4th amendments, do anything he deems necessary to ensure national security, and that Congress can not get in the way of any of this.

The reviews of these memos are starting today, and the criticism is rolling in. See Glenn Greenwald, Scott Horton, and Jack Balkin for examples. The mainstream media is getting into the act too (h/t Glenn Greenwald for all). Let's hope that some momentum is gained from this towards eventual investigations. If the public becomes more aware of what the Bush administration was up to, and a clamor for investigations hopefully grows, then it will be easier for Obama and Congress to initiate them (and not resist them as they have).

The timing of the memos being released couldn't be more coincidental for me. I've begun reading Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. It's an engrossing chronicle of the Bush administration actors and their actions in the time since 9/11. There have been a number of critical books written about the Bush administration all of them hovering around the war on terror and the Iraq war, but this book may be the most important account of what the Bush adminstration has done. It goes directly to the heart of the matter: how the Bush administration followed an extreme ideological viewpoint, ran amok of the law, and consequently seriously harmed the reputation of the USA as a moral standard bearer in the world.

I've only read about a third of the book. However, I just read a chapter on the lawyers in the administration, particularly David Addington (Cheney's VP counsel and later chief of staff) and John Yoo. So the release of these memos ties in nicely with reading the book. From what I've read so far, I highly recommend the book.

World's Worst Persons in the World, February 25, 2009

From Huffington Post, I caught a video of Keith Olbermann having one of his best World's Worst segments that I've ever seen. It's just funny. To Billo: "You're full of crap". To Sean Hannity: "You don't know your ass from your elbow". Exquisite. Keith still has his mojo. I'd thought it might have been waning.

Ian McEwan

Since reading Atonement during my trip to the UK, I've all of a sudden become fascinated by Ian McEwan. And coincidentally, the New Yorker just recently had a very good and lengthy profile of McEwan. He's at the top of the literary world right now, and I hadn't realized how far back his relative prominence in that world existed. He's been friends with Christopher Hitchens (of political talk show fame) and Martin Amis since the 70's.

He's apparently quite a thinker, interested in science, and does a quite bit of research before writing his books (What good author doesn't?). McEwan also has an interesting family history which includes discovering just a few years ago that he has an older brother born from his mother and father, but when his mother was still married to another man (or was it his father still married to another woman? already mixed up on that).

I see his name quite often now. Maybe he's just high on my radar. He's given some thoughts on John Updike, had his endorsement on the front cover of the Roman Republic history book Rubicon by Tom Holland (another book I picked up during my UK trip), and has been interviewed by Richard Dawkins on being an atheist. Here's McEwan's website, and the Richard Dawkins interview:

The man's all over the place. Err...will he get overexposed??

Atonement by Ian McEwan

It's slow at work and so another book review submitted to Amazon. I don't get enough time to read that many books, but the long plane rides on my UK trip (and no TV at my grandmother's) afforded me the time. I picked up Atonement and McCarthy's The Road at DFW airport while awaiting my departing flight. I almost selected McEwan's Saturday instead but thought perhaps I should read the book that's brought him his recent fame. As I mention in my review, I hadn't yet read any of his work yet. Saturday may be my next novel to read though there are some non-fiction books at the front of my queue. Here's the review:

This was my first Ian McEwan read, and it was a good one. This was an interesting story though not really a whole lot happened in it, and somehow it went for a few hundred pages. The reason for that was McEwan's precise and extensive descriptions of characters' thoughts and the story's various settings. McEwan is rather amazing at imagining the possible details of a one's thoughts, details that most people might not ordinarily be conscious of, but upon reading them ring true. The limited plot is lengthened also by the story being told from several viewpoints, particularly in Part 1. It was all very intelligently done.

But was there really any atonement in this story? At least atonement when it counted? I don't know if the title really applies considering how things turned out.

I hadn't ever planned to see the movie. Seemed to be a chic flick, but after this reading, I plan to rent/on demand it. I guess by being from the England and reading it while on my recent trip there, I appreciated an English story.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

I just submitted a book review at Amazon for Cormac McCarthy's book The Road. I had a chance to read it during my trip to the UK recently. Here it is:

I'll confirm what I've read elsewhere here that The Road is dark. And it's almost unrelentingly dark. I won't go any further in that descriptive direction lest I get into giving too much of the sense of the story away. It's not an easy read, but it's a memorable one. I haven't read anything else like it. The Road was my first Cormac McCarthy book. So I don't know if his others are in anyway similar. Also, the writing style is unique and took getting used to early on. I gave it four stars, because it is well written, a deep story in terms of the characters's thoughts and their relationships, and I was kept interested in how the story would turn out. I held off giving it five stars, because the story was a bit limited.

A Nation of Cowards?

Charles Blow, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, had a column today on racism. It was an interesting column and worth reading, but it bothered me that he only focused on white racism towards blacks and ignored a near similar amount of racism by Asians and Hispanics towards blacks. This is at least according to the charts presented. So I submitted a comment criticizing Blow for this. It was an Editor's Selection, and it received 14 reader recommendations. Woo hoo! It's amazing that there are people who read that far into the comments. There were 300+, mine being a little over the 100th. Here it is:

It is bothersome to me that whites apparently have a hidden bias, but it bothers me as well that Mr. Blow in this piece glaringly omits the bias of Asians and Hispanics. According to the Project Implicit graphic, Asians and Hispanics are not far behind whites in their bias and so almost as vastly different as whites are from blacks in a lack of bias. So why does Mr. Blow just focus on whites? It is unfair to focus just on whites when Asians and Hispanics are almost as bad in their bias. Mr. Blow wants to talk about the facts. Well, he should then acknowledge the bias in Asians and Hispanics as well. Focusing just on whites can create a resentment among whites and lead to a less constructive discussion.

I went to the Project Implicit website that Blow references, and it's quite an interesting site. One can take a number of rather fun tests. I took three tests, one about political preference, one I've already forgotten, and the one on racial bias. For anyone reading the above comment, it should come as no surprise that the racial bias test results had me having a strong automatic preference for whites over blacks. The results were based upon how quickly I related photos of black and white people with favorable and unfavorable words. The test started with whites and good words grouped together and blacks and bad words grouped together. Then the groupings were swapped. The website determined that I was slower associating the good words with blacks than I had with whites. I don't know. I thought the switching of the groupings may have messed me up and not made me more neutral. However, I did answer one question on I think it was comfortableness where I as neutral for blacks and had a slight positive towards whites. I was just being honest, but that may have been the key to the results.

I don't think of myself as being racist, but perhaps there is some bias. The question is is bias the same as racism, or is bias a step towards racism. Bias can result from just what one is used to. I grew up in a white neighborhood, went to white schools, and pretty much have white friends. I get along with blacks at work, but admittedly, I don't have any black friends with whom I socialize. I have dated black women and even had a black girlfriend for about a year. I also voted for Barack Obama. Take that, Project Implicit! Anyway, view the test results with what you think they're worth.

...and nonbelievers

Another notable line in Barack Obama's inauguration speech was this:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."

I was stunned to hear the words above in bold, and Obama said practically the same thing during his interview with Al-Arabiya. For the nonbelieving me, it's an amazing but also quite welcome inclusiveness. I've never heard any American politician respectfully acknowledge nonbelievers, atheists if you like. These days it seems taboo to say such a thing. I am liking this guy. If she were a believer and looking down or up from wherever, Madelyn Murray O'Hair would definitely be cheering. I know, a contradiction.

I just wonder if Obama will keep up with such a line. Perhaps not because officially as President in his inaugural speech he has somewhat already introduced his governing philosophy to America and now to a Middle Eastern audience. But if he's going to be consistent it's got to crop up again, and you know the media and religious circles will be picking up on it. Unfortunately, too many people will have a cow (if they haven't already). However, it's a good sign that Obama welcomes nonbelievers in the political discourse.

Build, not destroy

I caught a segment on PBS' Frontline/World last night about a movement by local business people and citizens in Palermo, Italy to fight against the control that the Mafia has over businesses. It was and is an inspiring story about a people taking back control from a destructive presence. Here's a link to their Addiopizzo site.

The segment reminded me of something President Obama said in his inauguration speech:

"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy."

That was directed at Al Qaeda and any other organization intent on terrorism. So far, there haven't been any quotes from Obama's speech that have been highlighted as being historically memorable. I think though that last bit might be one. It's what I thought of and resonated with me when watching the story about the Palermo business people rising up against the Mafia.

Hopefully, this quote's point is resonating in the Arab world. Obama reiterated this point in his recent interview with Al-Arabiya. However, it goes both ways. With the Iraq War, does America fully understand the destruction it has caused? With the war in Gaza and prior to that Lebanon, does Israel fully understand the destruction and suffering it is causing? Hamas, of course, doesn't seem to understand the destruction it is causing either.

Boston Public Library

That picture of John Updike two posts ago was taken in the Boston Public Library. The hall that he is in is according to this the Bates Hall. I could be mistaken about exactly which room it is, but I definitely recognize the space. It was in this hall over 20 years ago on one of those tables in the photo's background where I came to appreciate the greatness of the New York Times.

It was one of those unremarkable experiences that somehow never leave your memory. But I guess it involved a discovery for me. I had heard of and read the Times before, but the setting, spreading out the pages of the Times on a nice big wooden table in an architecturally historic room, and perhaps having the free time that day to absorb and fully appreciate the paper made it memorable.

Seeing one my favorite authors in a place for which I have a fond memory makes for a cool photograph.

John Updike interview

A video interview of John Updike from last October by the New York Times.

John Updike dies today at 76

Robert Spencer for the New York Times

Though John Updike lived a decent and a generally expected number of years, it's still a great loss when a giant of literature passes. Usually, before calling someone a giant you let decades or a century pass by since their career or life ended. It seems premature to do so when they're still alive or active in their profession. However, John Updike produced some classic works, particularly the Rabbit books (I read all of them, easily drawn into the writing and LOL quite often), was quite prolific (many essays and short stories, poetry too), and was highly regarded in the world of literature. It was easy to recognize John Updike as a special writer.

I sound like I've closely followed his career, but that wouldn't be true. I'm not a short story, essay, or poetry reader, and I've only read the four Rabbit books (Rabbit Run, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich, Rabbit at Rest) and In the Beauty of the Lilies. Actually, just checking Wikipedia, there was Rabbit is Remembered novella. Totally missed that. The Rabbit books were crazy, funny, lewd, but immensely readable. Not that they were cheap page turners, but well told stories that were comfortable to read. The Beauty of the Lilies was somewhat of an epic, a novel tracing four generations of a family. I thought it was quite good up until the end which obviously drew (too much I thought) from a certain true event.

I had bought other books of Updike's which for some reason I never read, The Coup and Villages. I might still read Villages since I think it's more contemporary.

A five page (online) New York Times obituary is here. I only got through the first page before wanting to post this. It says he died of cancer. His life was cut short.

More examples of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I'm continuing to look over Ethan Bronner's war in Gaza reports. Here are some that I have comments on (in reverse chronological order):

In this article on January 5th, I have a quibble about what Bronner writes in the 11th paragraph:

"Israel has said it wants to end Hamas’s will or ability to shoot rockets at civilians in southern Israel, which Hamas has been doing for years, terrifying tens of thousands of inhabitants."

While I would imagine that the rockets have been terrifying Israelis and that the rockets fall in random places though generally near the southern border with Gaza, in comparison to Israeli firepower, they haven't been causing that much damage, and is it really true that "tens of thousands have been terrified"? Are they or have as many been as terrified as the Palestinians are right now with American-made warplanes, helicopters, and drones flying overhead dropping more accurate bombs or other weaponry, not to mention an army ground invasion? That last part of the above sentence could have come straight out of an Israeli official's mouth.

I also had thoughts about the following:

"Some officials here and abroad began exploring ways to keep Hamas from rearming as it has through smuggler tunnels in the Sinai. Some were suggesting a huge concrete underground wall, and others suggested heavily armed international monitors."

Yeah, I guess it's not good for Hamas to be able to smuggle arms into Gaza, but then what about Israel being able to rearm itself with American aid? Shouldn't there be a limit on what America provides to Israel, particularly with the destruction Israel is causing in Gaza and what it did to Lebanon in 2006? I don't read reporting about that possibility however remote. If you're going to let Israel be infinitely rearmed, why shouldn't Hamas have some armament? I never liked Hamas when they were carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel a few years ago. Yes, I viewed them as a terrorist organization that was harming the peace process rather than helping it. And Hamas is still terroristic with its rockets, but I cannot help feel some sympathy for their cause and the Palestinians as a whole when they have been blockaded and then pummeled by overwhelming Israeli firepower.

Because of its rockets, here is an article published Jan 3rd about how Hamas can be removed from power. Because of its disproportionate use of force, I ask how can the Israeli leadership be removed from power? There is no such talk of that.

This article on Dec 30th focuses on the ceasefire negotiations first and then goes onto describe the casualties of the war. Might one want to recount the immediate death and destruction first and then report on negotiations for a ceasefire? Wouldn't that properly highlight the horror that is going on in Gaza?

Here's one more for this post, and article published on Dec 29. What I don't like is in the 12th paragraph and a general point of the Israelis is the unchallenged assertion by Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, that he has nothing against the citizens of Gaza. Well, if he has nothing against Gazan citizens, then he shouldn't be commanding his forces to wreck their cities and towns. These types of statements are stupefying, and apparently Bronner accepts them.

An example of Ethan Bronner's reporting

I mentioned in my last post that I would try to find some articles of Bronner's that I think equated the Israeli suffering with that of the Gazans. This post was to have references to several articles, but I had too much criticism of just one of his articles that it filled up a whole post. If there is more, I will post more.

This article on January 5th is my most memorable article. It had some things beyond just the equating of suffering that bothered me about it. First, Bronner writes in the second paragraph "On the 10th day of Israel’s war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza, ...". Well, that's exactly the way that Israel would like you to view it, that this is a war on Hamas, not on the Palestinians. The problem with that is that Israel's massive retaliation for the Hamas rockets can't help but destroy many Palestinian lives. The Israelis know that. The Palestinians know that. NY Times readers know that. The world knows that. If the war were actually to be on the Islamic rulers (Hamas), Israel would have been much particular about its targets and would have not tried to wreck practically the whole Gazan infrastructure. To describe the conflict as a war on the Islamic rulers of Gaza totally misrepresents what is going on.

The 4th paragraph says this: "Intense battles continued into the late night, with early reports of rising casualties on both sides." Rising casualties on both sides? As if it's an equal amount of rising casualties! As Bronner himself reports just a few paragraphs later, the Palestinian death toll had risen to 550, a quarter of those civilians. Hamas had killed 5 Israelis since the conflict began. Again, rising casualties on both sides??!! It is ludicrous to write such a statement when the figures are so disparate. One ponders at how Bronner undercuts his own writing.

Bronner spends much of the rest of this article regurgitating what each side's leaders are saying without writing himself that Israel's response is disproportionate. He writes that the French, the UN, Arab states are working on a deal to bring an immediate though maybe temporary end to the hostilities. Does Bronner ever state why they are doing this? Does he not want to print the reason?

Granted, Bronner reports all the facts for which he deserves credit, but from those facts can't he see the justification for an immediate ceasefire?

Email to NY Times correspondent Ethan Bronner

Today I submitted an email to New York Times correspondent Ethan Bronner. Bronner is the Times' Jerusalem bureau chief and has been the Times' primary correspondent covering the war in Gaza. In the Week in Review section of today's Times, Bronner had this defense of his reporting of the war. What disturbed me about the piece was this:

"...and how the war of language can confound a reporter’s attempts to narrate — or a new president’s attempts to mediate — this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair."

Reporting so that both sides view it as fair is not the point of journalism! The point of journalism to report events accurately. This statement really summed up for me Bronner's reporting. Generally, it has been good, but at times particularly early on in the war, Bronner seemed to equate the destruction wrought upon Gaza with what the Hamas rockets were doing to Israel. I wish I had the quotations to show this, but I haven't yet found them after a quick look at the large number of articles by Bronner on the war. If I get a chance to review the articles, I'll post examples of I'm writing about here.

Below is the email. It's okay. I was in a bit of a rush, because I had to meet somebody soon after writing it. I don't know if I'll get a response to my bullet in his in-box. He may be getting a whole lot more after this piece.

Dear Mr. Bronner,

Earlier today I read your "The Bullets in My In-Box" opinion piece. I understand that there are difficult challenges in reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I was quite disturbed by the one that you mention, that "the war of language can confound a reporter's attempts to narrate - or a new president's attempts to mediate - this conflict in a way both sides can accept as fair". Certainly, a new president must mediate this conflict in a way that both sides can accept as fair. However, mediating and narrating are two quite different things. What a reporter should be concerned with is that the narration is accurate, not with how both sides view the narration. This attempt to narrate fairly in the eyes of both sides explains to me your reporting on the war in Gaza. At least a couple of times I detected an equating of the suffering experienced by the Israelis with the suffering experienced by the Gazans. I will paraphrase, but there was one article where you wrote that there was suffering on both sides, and I found this to be a highly inaccurate way of characterizing (or to use your term "narrating") the suffering. As everyone knows, the Gazan suffered so much more than the Israelis: for now a 100 to 1 ratio in terms of deaths, who knows how many injured Gazans, and a wrecked infrastructure endangering the health of Gazans and furthering their suffering. So when you justify your reporting as an attempt to narrate fairly in both sides' eyes, then I find that to be very misguided. You do not need to worry about how the two sides view your reporting. With all due respect and knowing your years of experience, your goal should be to report accurately no matter what the sides think. If it paints a picture of one side more negatively than the other, then so be it. If the reporting is accurate, then that is what happened, and both sides must accept the truth and how it reflects upon them. Sometimes, it is like reporters seem to feel like their reporting must put them in the middle, thinking that they will then be viewed as impartial. But when one side is clearly in the wrong (as Israel was killing many more Gazans than Hamas killing Israelis), then reporters should not be trying to justify its views. I hope your future reporting more accurately conveys the suffering in any such future conflicts.

Regards,

President Barack Obama 2009 Inauguration and Address

It was a momentous day today with Barack Hussein Obama becoming the first African-American president.

I watched the inauguration with Ali. A bit of a flub during the oath (Chief Justice Roberts' fault I think). Ali and I both thought Obama's address was good. I was pleasantly surprised at the originality of it. I was expecting some echoing of prior addresses by FDR, Lincoln, or JFK. However, it was all Obama. The address I thought began rather sternly which I appreciated. Rather than being too celebratory, it was a reminder that the country (and the world) is in difficult times, and to me, it was basically a call to work, to get active about sorting out the country's problems, particularly economic. Like his acceptance speech on election night, the address was sobering. It was another wake up call in my opinion.

Not posted, but I did catch some of the presidential procession down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. The Obamas according to recent precedent walked parts of the distance.

The Inaugural Parade of bands, military and other groups was really cool and went on into the early evening. I haven't watched inaugural parades, but I don't recall newsclips of previous parades continuing into darkness. That was rather neat to see, and I really enjoyed hearing the marching band music. The drums really get one going. While most of the viewing stand became empty after awhile, Barack and Michelle Obama were there until the end as I guess they should be.

There's still balls to come, but for television viewers, that's about it for today. All in all, it was a very happy day. Let's hope the months and next four years ahead are successful ones for getting America back on track.

How I blew Sunday evening

I had to resolve my Mario Kart Wii obsession with attaining gold trophies in the Grand Prix racing in all 8 circuits in all the 4 modes. For the past week I only had the Lightening Cup in Mirror Mode to go. So after deciding to use my Nortel personal holiday on Monday, I proceeded to spend whatever time it took (the whole evening) to achieve my goal.

The Lightening Cup is the last and hardest of the circuits. I found this out in the 150cc mode when it took me forever to get the gold. The circuit has courses that are very windy requiring alot of good drifting. Another pain is that if you get any kind of trophy in this circuit (after having attained trophies in the other circuits) the dang game plays these game credits that go one for about 5 minutes, and one cannot skip out of them by pressing the 'A' button. So whenever it looks like I might get the silver or bronze but not the gold trophy, I quit the circuit and start over.

Anyway, last night it took me between 2 and 3 hours to get the Lightening Cup gold in the Mirror mode (which is the same as the 150cc but everything is flipped). Before achieving gold, I got 3 silvers and a bronze (and therefore the obligatory credits) in addition to all the circuits I quit trying to avoid the credits. And you know, after spending so much time on this game, it's rather anticlimactic when one does get gold. One is just happy that it's over. If I had gotten gold in one attempt (as I amazingly did in the Special Cup circuit) or alot fewer attempts, I would have been stoked.

So now my Mario Kart license is completely filled with gold boxes, and I can move on with my life.

Today, MLK day, the idea is to make up somewhat by being a little productive. Have a derby car to start on for Erin's Adventure Princess Derby Day this weekend.

My first Amazon book review: Outliers

I posted my first ever book review on Amazon yesterday. It was for Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers: The Story of Success". I gave it 4 out of 5 stars. It was very readable with numerous examples of very interesting cultural phenomena. I got through it quickly. But at the end as I write below, the gist seemed to change to more about hard work. I didn't find the central premise to be entirely convincing. Here's the review:

Worth a read but not great ****

I almost gave this 3 stars, but gave it 4, mainly because it was a very interesting read. However, the thrust of the book, that one's circumstances are more influential on one's success than one's own hard work, wasn't that compelling to me. Certainly, how one is raised or the opportunities one has play a big part in leading to great success, but I think Gladwell too much minimized hard work as a factor. Alot of people have opportunities, but why is it that some take advantage of those opportunities and others don't? I think there is a matter of judgement in one's path to success, and that doesn't seem to be considered here.

The first half of the book gave a number of compelling examples about how one's circumstances contribute to one's great success. But by the end of the book, particularly when Gladwell is writing about his parents, the gist seems to be about hard work.

While very interesting examples of culture affecting behavior are given throughout, how did the Kentucky family feud chapters fit in with the rest of the book about success? Also, the second half of the book was all over the place though the KIPP school chapters were extremely interesting to read about.

Overall, well written, nice interesting narratives of cultural phenomena, but a bit short and not entirely convincing on the circumstances aspect.

Nortel files for bankruptcy

It happened as had been rumored since the weekend. See the story here. Prior press reports of a potential bankruptcy had been dismissed by our executives. Hah! They're words in all the talks about the way forward are pretty much bunk at the moment. Mike Z sent an email out today to employees about our company restructuring. Couldn't bring himself to say the "b" word.

Black Hawk helicopter crash at A&M

A tragic helicopter crash occurred yesterday on the Texas A&M campus. One person (a 2008 A&M graduate) was killed, and four were injured. Story here. It occurred during some ROTC training.

Letter to The New Yorker, about what else?

I sent this in to the New Yorker just a little while ago:

To the Editor,

David Remnick writes a nice Comment piece (Homelands) regarding Barack Obama and the advent of his presidency. However, like much of American politicians and the media, Mr. Remnick unfortunately discounts the disaster that has unfolded in Gaza. He writes "The civilian suffering and deaths are inevitable; the lessons less so." No, Mr. Remnick, the civilian suffering and deaths are not inevitable. The human tragedy in Gaza is not just another conflagration in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that we should passively view as inevitable and therefore accept. It is blind American support for Israel and American-made F-16s and bombs that are allowing Israel to rip Gaza and its people apart. Hamas certainly is to blame for triggering this assault, but by no means do their rockets justify what Israel is doing to Gazans. There is just no comparison in the suffering between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And the lessons are not less inevitable. By now, Americans and one would wish Israelis should know that unjustified war (Iraq) or a disproportionately violent response are not the answers to terrorism. Fighting terrorism with even greater terrorism (yes, these wars are terrorism) is exactly the wrong way to go about achieving peace. Only further anger and radicalism ensues. Mr. Remnick is right; "the obligation of constant engagement is deep", but when the engagement is not occurring and a people are being pummeled with the many lives forever torn or lost, there should be an immediate and fierce effort to achieve a peace. America should be a part of that effort. Resignation to inevitable violence, such as it is in Gaza and in 2006 in Lebanon, is lacking in compassion and is unnacceptable.

I am sure that Barack Obama will bring back that American engagement to the Israeli-Palestinian situation that has been sorely missed over the past 8 years. So far though, he has been disappointingly quiet about Gaza or only supportive of Israel's right to defend itself. I hope though that during his presidency the Israeli-Palestinian situation will be truly treated even-handedly by America as 71% of Americans would like it to be (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php?lb=btis&pnt=503&nid=&id=).

Regards,