Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:00:29 PM     Larry McMurtry reviews Clinton's book. At last an adequate review. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/books/review/0623books-mcmurtry-clinton.html illiam Jefferson Clinton's "My Life" is, by a generous measure, the richest American presidential autobiography - no other book tells us as vividly or fully what it is like to be president of the United States for eight years. Clinton had the good sense to couple great smarts with a solid education; he arrived in Washington in 1964 and has been the nation's - or perhaps the world's - No. 1 politics junkie ever since. And he can write - as Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, to go no farther back, could not. ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 4:08:20 PM     From Erasmus In Praise of Folly http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/e/e65p/e65p.zip But counsel, you’ll say, is not of least concern in matters of war.  In a general I grant it; but this thing of warring is not part of philosophy, but managed by parasites, panders, thieves, cut-throats, plowmen, sots, spendthrifts, and such other dregs of mankind, not philosophers; who how unapt they are even for common converse, let Socrates, whom the oracle of Apollo, though not so wisely, judged “the wisest of all men living,” be witness; who stepping up to speak somewhat, I know not what, in public was forced to come down again well laughed at for his pains. ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 3:59:03 PM       What I find myself thinking about is the relation of politics to lived lives. The relationship is tenuous. Those whom I know who do not read the papers not watch TV, nor the Internet, seem no more nor less mixed up than those who spend a good deal of their time trying to discern what is happening.   Trying to govern is difficult. The old Chinese saying -Confucius - governing like trying to cook a goldfish. From the top, looking outward and down, you see people more ore less aware, all with private agendas, all mixed in factions and lines of old friendships and collegiality. That handful of people is who one has to govern with and through. By the time one's perspective gets to the level of the senate, the varying voices in deep disagreement and speaking from such different assumptions make you realize that real collegiality cannot at the best spread very far.   Looking out further to the cities and towns one sees that each person is nearly embalmed in the amber of their relationships, regions, job, and character. they read a local paper, watch television, talk on the phone with children and parents, take an occasional trip.    If you are on a horse, a certain governance is possible. On top of a pile of sand you just have to watch your own footing because you tend to sink in each movement. Why in the midst of this does government work at all, what is the glue, the sinews, the nerves, the hormones? And given this picture, what does democracy mean? Progress? Freedom? ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 2:07:55 PM     This is good enough to post whole, since it is hard to get impressions of Kerry. That he elicts this kind of response is itself telling. June 22, 2004 Dear friends, A group of us traveled to Denver last night and had the opportunity to stand and listen, close up, to Presidential candidate, John Kerry.  I witnessed a humble public servant who has dedicated his entire life to on the job training, through long years of hands on experience learning and practicing the arts and skills of governing, of policy making, of coalition building and of implementation.  I witnessed a man of true vision for the possible, who understands that true leadership arises from the marriage of heart and head and from the willingness to dream what may be possible and then figure out how to make that dream palpable and real. Kerry spoke unabashedly about the need for an ecologically sustainable world, which is also economically productive.  He spoke of the need for putting money towards programs in which our disenfranchised youth are mentored with understanding and compassion and educated with skills rather than thrown into prisons which eat resources and further destroys these precious young lives. As Kerry spoke of forging and repairing friendship and partnership around the world, the crowd sighed in relief.  Those of us in the room understand how building cooperative and mutually respectful relationship has to be a major component to any prayer of future national security. He spoke in depth about how we would lower the cost of health care while creating an economic motivation for quality of care and delivery. He spoke returning the the 90's when we systematically paid off the deficit and balancing the national buget.  He covered a lot of turf, and covered it well. We were listening to a highly intelligent and thoughtful man who understands the issues, understands how things get done and has shown the patience and the skill to do them.  Kerry is not afraid of economic competition but he is clearly a man who will foster a fair and just and ecologically sustainable competition, both here and abroad. Lat night, John Kerry said "Under my presidency America will only go to war because we have to, not because we want to.  And we would only do so with full and accurate disclosure to the American people." I found myself held by the crowd and leaning back into my husband's arms with tears of hope welling in my eyes. I was not alone. Kerry is real human being.  Kerry is a man of integrity and of solid vision and values.  Kerry is also giving his life for us. As he moved among us to shake our hands, I found myself saying to him "Please take us there." He said simply, "I'll try." When my friend, Margo behind me called out, "Bless you - we're with you" He smiled broadly and said a heartfelt "Thank you!" John Kerry is Presidential. I am much more inspired after seeing him than I was before, when I was in the "well it's what we've got" camp. And I believe Kerry would be a fine president in terms of policy, implementation and in providing the solid, steady kind of leadership which will be required to turn the great ship of this country back on course.  But Kerry does not appear to be a crowd -pleasing, energy raising show-man, which, although just fine with me, unfortunately, is often what wins the votes of the un-decided. Traveling back to Boulder on the bus, the conversations were hushed and serious. How can we really take this country back?  How can we win? He's got the content.  He's got the know how.  He actually is what we want in a President.  He is not perfect. But he is perfectly human. To get Kerry elected, more of us need to not only give money (very important) but many more of us need to work in all ways make to make this happen.  Those of us who know how to give inspiring speeches should be doing so wherever we can find to give them. We need to register voters, drive to the polls and figure out anything and everything we can to create success. If each of us committed to regime change at home, pledged to personally find five people to vote for Kerry who would not otherwise have voted, and personally committed to get them to the polls on election day, we could win this electon.  And in the process of filling this commitment, we would be serving a larger vision.  We would be reaching out beyond the people we may already know.  We would be educating ourselves and others.  We would be making a difference. If each of us committed to regime change at home, dug deeper, and offered more money that we think we have, we could make the difference.s Kerry acknowledged, and the group present agreed, "This is the most important election of our lifetimes."  We need to, as Margo said, bless him every day.  And we cannot expect him to be other than he is.  If more passion is needed, well then it is up to us to provide it.  If more money is needed, well, then it is up to us.  He and Terry have stepped forward and offered their lives.  Let's not let this be a futile sacrifice.  Let's get this man in office with all the support, encouragement, hard work and blessings it takes to make it happen.  This is not a one-man job.  This is not the job of the inner circle or the experts.  This is not the job of the already dedicated political activists. Getting Kerry elected is our job.  And as he so eloquently said last night, "We are in this for the children."  For the children, for the grandchildren, for ourselves, for the world.  Please give in any way that you can. Judith Ansara Gass Co-Director of the Peacemaker Institute.  Boulder Colorado. ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 12:04:44 PM     This is interesting and it had not occurred to me (I love these little doses of humilation) that animals don't "hear" what we hear.   -----Original Message----- From: NHNE [mailto:nhne@nhne.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 12:13 AM To: *News List Subject: [nhnenews] Early Hominid Ears Primed for Speech    EARLY HOMINID EARS PRIMED FOR SPEECH By Bob Holmes and Shaoni Bhattacharya New Scientist June 22, 2004   http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996053   Early humans evolved the anatomy needed to hear each other talk at least 350,000 years ago. This suggests rudimentary form of speech developed early on in our evolution.   The conclusion comes from studies of fossilised skulls discovered in the mountains of Spain. A team of Spanish and US researchers used CT scans to measure the bones and spaces in the outer and middle ears of five specimens, thought to belong to Homo heidelbergensis. This species is thought to be a relative of the ancestral line leading to neanderthals.   The team worked out how well the hearing apparatus they found could respond to sounds of various frequencies.   The hominids' ears would have been sensitive to frequencies between two to four kilohertz, the range most important for understanding human speech. Chimpanzees' ears are relatively insensitive at those frequencies. Their ears are most strongly attuned to sounds peaking at either one kHz or eight kHz. ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:53:46 AM     The president is weak. Clinton is interesting but didn't cope with the upcoming future that we are now in (recession was on its way, no way out, though Bush made it worse). Iraq is a real mess Iran is a real threat (they are great chess players, as are the Chinese, and we need to know that smart people out there know how to play the game of prestige, power, and feint). Income continues to skew in the US (inflation ahead of wage increases, and those increases are average, knowing that the further down the sale the more inflation hits and wages are retarded.) The most interesting speculation in the daily press comes from the WSJ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005244 Saying that without US "hegemony" the world will fall apart. The question, may it not also with American dominance, as the US falls apart too? Do we have an entropic world, now being exploited by the unknowing and worse the knowing, as thy play tough stakes in musical chairs? But we need to take seriously What if the world is heading for a period when there is no hegemon? What if, instead of a balance of power, there is an absence of power? Such a situation is not unknown in history. Though the chroniclers of the past have long been preoccupied with the achievements of great powers--whether civilizations, empires or nation states--they have not wholly overlooked eras when power has receded. Unfortunately, the world's experience with power vacuums is hardly encouraging. Anyone who dislikes U.S. hegemony should bear in mind that, instead of a multipolar world of competing great powers, a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to it. This could turn out to mean a new Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic rapine in the world's no-go zones; of economic stagnation and a retreat by civilization into a few fortified enclaves. We need institutions, but what kind? Democratic decentralism, fascism, how about monarchy? The good news is that more people are thinking and writing well about all this. It has never been harder to keep up. I've been reading through the English social novels, from Defoe to Austen, because they document social changes that were slow and profound. Balzac did the same in France, and the Russian novels do quite well, like Dead Souls. Marx once paid Balzac the complement, "he was so good he created characters twenty years before they actually appeared in French society." Who now understands the modern forces well enough to try? ********

Posted here Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 11:32:44 AM     Apologies for break in posting. Computer problems required relaoding. ********