|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1495425274
| 9781495425271
| 1495425274
| 4.16
| 843
| Apr 13, 2014
| Apr 15, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Mar 27, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 275607005X
| 9782756070056
| 275607005X
| 3.96
| 675
| Apr 06, 2016
| Apr 06, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
Luscious. Gorgeous. Highly recommend if you can read French. Heck I'd recommend this even if you can't read French just to enjoy the art. I'm hoping t
Luscious. Gorgeous. Highly recommend if you can read French. Heck I'd recommend this even if you can't read French just to enjoy the art. I'm hoping they translate this one (and soon) into English because not only is this a gorgeous comic but the story is great too, wonderful take on an Arthurian legend. I won't hold my breathe for the English-translation though, there is some out there sexual content in this that will probably make it hard to release in the American market, but who knows I don't know how that stuff necessarily works. The art kind of reminds me of Cucumber Quest, which is a really fun, light-hearted, humorous, and beautiful webcomic. It is also similar in theme (heroic quests) but much much darker, with some heavy subject matter. Both this and Cucumber Quest rely on a painterly technique, much of the form is defined by contrast, color, light. As with Cucmber Quest the compositions are excellent. It's just a beautiful style, wonderful flow. And a gritty nasty story, a feminist take on an Arthurian legend with a bit of class stuff thrown in there. And an anti-hero you can't help but root for. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 05, 2017
|
Mar 11, 2017
|
Mar 05, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1627795391
| 9781627795395
| 1627795391
| 4.18
| 5,010
| Mar 15, 2016
| Mar 15, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
Damning critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party. I pretty much agree with most (heck all!) of Franks’ analysis, although he veers into
Damning critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party. I pretty much agree with most (heck all!) of Franks’ analysis, although he veers into a full blown sarcastic polemic. Which is ok I guess, I mean, I agree with his points and his arguments but sometimes the anger is so seething that it distracts from the argument. I guess the more emotional someone gets with their arguments the more leery I get… and I do have to say I often have trouble myself in avoiding this trap! It’s not always easy to decouple emotion from one’s arguments!!! easier said than done. But that said Franks’ presents a strong point by point critique throughout his book and I generally agree with his assessments. Ever since the election of that man who shall not be named there’s been a lot of writings out there mirroring Franks’ critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party and how this powerful elite has turned its back on the working class, and even large segments of the middle class. This has provided an opening for the Republicans to use cultural and identity issues as trojan horses to capture large segments of the working class, these issues providing cover for their less popular economically regressive agenda (that’s my interpretation of their general economic positioning). It’s been a brilliant strategy, and ever since the 70s when Democrats started turning their back on the working class Republicans seized this opportunity to drive a wedge into this demographic, peeling off large segments and assimilating them into their base. In many respects Democrats sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and have yet to fully learn the lessons. Franks’ provides a nice analysis and overview of this history. Over the last 40 years there is an entitled smug arrogant educated professional elite that has gained power in the Democratic party (Clintons are emblematic), and their economic philosophy runs counter in many respects to core progressive economic principles. They are anti-New Dealers, anti-progressives, banking elites, captains of industry (specially Silicon Valley), and they don’t want to hear about inequality. They have fully bought into the narrative that we live in a pure meritocracy, therefore those who succeed do so on their own merit, intelligence, perseverance, hard work, etc, while those who don’t succeed, don’t get educations (regardless of access), who suffer are 100% accountable for their lots in life. I’m all for personal accountability, but imo like most things it is a mix. There are systematic barriers and entrenched wealth that tilts the field in favor of certain people while putting up barriers for others. It’s sneaky to ignore this disparity in opportunities, ignoring the system barriers, system rules, power dynamics in the system, and trying to pin everything on the individual. Opportunities are hoarded by elite segments of our society, there is more margin for error when one has wealth and power. Of course there are people who can transcend their lack of opportunities, economic disadvantages, and these cases are always seized upon and highlighted by the elite to showcase how the system has fluidity and fairness. As far as I can tell though, from the data I’ve seen, fluidity between social classes, the actuality of the American dream, at least currently, is largely in retreat and in many respects illusory. And this Democratic elite has largely championed progressive cultural and identity issues, which I do think are important, but often at the cost of focusing or championing progressive economic issues (largely because it doesn’t fit their agenda and narrative). The idea of meritocracy is often used to justify one’s wealth and justify the poverty of others, to me it often warps into a self-serving narrative meant to mythologize one’s own success and reinforce the status quo. That’s not to say that people who have succeeded haven’t worked hard, aren’t smart and awesome, but as too often happens many in this group discount their access to opportunities while ignoring the lack of access to opportunities that many others face. Personally, I’m a believer in aspiring towards meritocracy, while counterbalancing the effects of meritocratic winners taking all by enacting greater redistribution, fairer more equal distribution of educational resources, universal healthcare, solid safety net, exploration of universal basic income, establishing more balanced relationships between capital and labor, etc etc. Too often meritocracy is used in this sneaky cynical way to deny people respect of their human dignity, it is used as an excuse to let people die in the street, it is used as an excuse to judge others. Meritocracy without humanism is dangerous, callous, and frankly soulless. That's how I see it. It's a slippery slope when applied in too extreme a manner, it is a way of denying compassion and destroying man's humanity. I think the most important point that Franks hit upon was the necessity for the liberal professional cosmopolitan elites to engage in a bit more humility (and yes one can argue other side could engage a bit more in this as well ha!). We (consider myself part of this group) need to avoid moral and intellectual grandstanding, our smug cultural arrogance often leads us to look down upon the non-educated, the rural populace, conservatives. By automatically and unequivocally viewing them as morally-backward idiotic rubes we push people away, we antagonize, we disrespect, and we preclude effective dialogue. Not only does it not serve our interests, but it is rather disrespectful and inhumane as well! Plus, if the packaging is done right, and the messenger plays it smart, I think large segments of the working class would be open to the progressive economic agenda. Maybe I’m naive, maybe I underestimate the average American’s distrust of government (although in its current incarnation distrust is justified!), fear and leeriness of bureaucracy, and their lionization of the individual and the ethos of surviving on one’s own and refusing hand-outs no matter how badly one is getting hammered… but I suspect that if people see this is a policy path to open opportunities that could give greater/fairer chances for individual success then maybe it can be sold effectively. But as so often happens, the suffering has to hit catastrophic levels before critical mass of people will push for major political system changes. As always, please feel free to jump in and critique any of my thinking. It’s helpful to hear from others. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 06, 2017
|
Feb 10, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0674654617
| 9780674654617
| 0674654617
| 4.16
| 1,360
| Nov 1964
| 1996
|
it was amazing
|
Great read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulous
Great read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulous researcher, and surgically perceptive. I enjoyed most of the essays, although my favorites were the title essay, the Anti-Trust essay, and the Barry Goldwater essay. The least interesting essay was the one on the Spanish-American War, but even that one had some interesting insights into the American psyche (and contradictions) regarding foreign policy and imperialism. In the Goldwater essay, Goldwater certainly comes across as an intransigent ideologue (big surprise!). And I got an education on the whole silver movement which was a nice example of trying to solve a complex (and very real) problem with an overly simple solution. The irony is that the silver people weren’t wrong, but the means of successfully expanding the money supply was a route many from the gold camp and silver camp didn’t see coming: credit creation. The Anti-Trust essay was interesting because many of the same challenges face us today regarding massive oligopolies that subvert democracy by controlling our politics and legislation. How these problems get solved is interesting. Going to share a few quotes: Here’s one from the Goldwater essay that speaks to our times, what I consider an extremely dangerous tool/tactic:: “When (Goldwater/the pseudo-conservative) argues that we are governed largely by means of near-hypnotic manipulation (brainwashing), wholesale corruption, and betrayal, it is indulging in something more significant than the fantasies of indignant patriots: it is questioning the legitimacy of the political order itself. The two-party system, as it has developed in the United States, hangs on the common recognition of loyal opposition: each side accepts the ultimate good intentions of the other… But an essential point in the pseudo-conservative world view is that our recent Presidents, being men of wholly evil intent, have conspired against the public good. This does more than discredit them: it calls into question the validity of the political system that keeps putting such men into office.” And this was a passage (from the Anti-Trust essay) that made me laugh: “The left, if it can be called that, rebels in the name of nonconformity and opts out of the whole bourgeois world in the manner of the beatnik and the hipster. The right (in the manner of Barry Goldwater and his enthusiasts) rebels in the name of the older individualism, which believed that economic life should inculcate discipline and character. Though they would hate to admit it, they are both bedeviled in different ways by the same problem; each of them is trying to make its variety of nonconformism into a mass creed - which is a contradiction in terms. The beats opt out of corporate uniformity in their own uniforms and erect themselves into a stereotype. The right-wingers sing their praises of individualism in dreary, regimented choruses and applaud vigilantes who would kill every vestige of genuine dissent." Here’s one final long quote that I really like, sums up a lot of things. I’m especially thinking of the 5G/Bill Gates hornet’s nest of conspiracies I’m seeing all over social media: "The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a 'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the motive force in historical events. History is a conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power... The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of this conspiracy in apocalyptic terms... He constantly lives at a turning point: it is now or never in organizing resistance to conspiracy. Time is forever just running out... Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated - if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention... This enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman: sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He is a free, active, demonic agent. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history himself, or deflects the normal course of history in an evil way... The paranoid's interpretation of history is in this sense distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as consequences of someone's will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional); he is gaining a stranglehold on the educational system.” Recommended for anyone interested in US history and examination of US national identity and psyche. I’m consistently surprised at how well Hofstadter’s writing and analyses hold-up (also highly recommend his book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 041508301X
| 9780415083010
| 041508301X
| 4.37
| 578
| 1959
| Sep 21, 2001
|
it was amazing
|
A+ Awesome collection of Bertrand Russell's essays, showcasing his incredible diversity of thought and interests. Political philosophy, economics, inte A+ Awesome collection of Bertrand Russell's essays, showcasing his incredible diversity of thought and interests. Political philosophy, economics, international diplomacy, science, history of philosophy, morality, religion and spirituality, mathematics, logic, etc etc, all of these are showcased in this collection. I'd only read an essay of his here an essay of his there before, so this was a wonderful deep dive into his works. Obviously in a collection of essays there will be some that are better than others. Personally I had a bit of a harder time with the section of his essays about mathematics, it was above my head so harder to follow and understand. Also a few weaker essays and pieces that are a bit fluffy light on substance or one-dimensional, but those were absolutely the exception. But overall most of these essays are very accessible and readable. I love his methodology of thinking, the framework is built upon a deep reliance on logic and critical reasoning techniques. He has a clarity of thought and explanation, and an ability to perceive the layers beneath the layers, the subtleties of the issues, that is really quite extraordinary. Even if one doesn't agree with his final conclusions one can't help but admire his methodology and critical thinking skills. It is instructive and inspiring. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 28, 2017
|
Mar 20, 2017
|
Jan 13, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 193149858X
| 9781931498586
| 193149858X
| 4.22
| 1,607
| unknown
| Jun 01, 2004
|
it was amazing
|
The book Limits to Growth views the world through a systems analysis prism. It looks at where we are at in terms of current and potential future earth
The book Limits to Growth views the world through a systems analysis prism. It looks at where we are at in terms of current and potential future earth resource use and waste creation and what the earth can sustain in these arenas. We are in overshoot mode according to the book (we entered this zone back in the 80s according to their data). This is a dangerous mode to be in especially for long periods of time as it increases probability of a collapse occurring. How solid are the models and science of the book I can't really say, but the overarching themes and arguments seem logical. Given the vast degree to which we are terraforming the earth (for living space, transportation, food, industry), rates of resource extraction, amounts of waste creation, rate of transitioning (too slow) to more sustainable modes of energy, production, consumption, and how we are affecting the climate one has to suspect we are courting disaster by playing with fire, pushing earth systems to their limits, tempting collapse of broad macro-ecosystems which would be catastrophic for global human civilization in all aspects (social, economic, political). The debate around the book and concept is interesting. There are various critiques of the book worth reading as well to get a sense of what the debate looks like, but the fundamental concepts and problems advanced by the book work well imo, and I'm fairly aligned with the assessments and conclusions the authors of this book make. There are three authors: Dana Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers. The quotes, see below, are from the authors' preface. And I hate to say this, I'm normally quite an optimistic person but when it comes to this stuff I come down more on the side of Jorgen and Dennis. Doesn't mean I think we are screwed and can't do anything, in fact there is much we can do. But I think if we don't make monumental changes and shifts in policy the major environmental pressures will keep growing eventually forcing a significant downward shift of global civilization, the irretrievable damage we cause to the planet will fundamentally lower and cap what this planet is capable of providing us in terms of potential average human welfare. Technology can provide buffers, but without proper policy and management of resources and earth systems it will not save us. Imo the idea of tech saving us is just an excuse for us to continue as is, heedless of future consequences that may be irrevocable regardless of what future tech might accomplish. Of course I do think technology will be part of the answer in helping us create and maintain more sustainable systems and mitigating problems we have caused, but I just don't like the blind techno-utopianism that is willing to give us an excuse to continue in a heedless irresponsible manner. Such belief in future tech as the deus ex machina that solves all the problems we caused today gives us carte-blanche to do whatever, blindly continue the status quo, because we think future tech is our ace in the hole that will pull us back from disaster. It's a very risky assumption, such thinking means one is willing to bet on such an unknown future thing when the stakes are so high, the risks of continuing status quo are massive. It's seductive because it shifts all onus and responsibility to the future and the magic of the future generations to solve the problems we caused and perpetuated today. But some (much?) of the damage we cause today will likely prove irrevocable, so that's a bit of an issue with that argument for me. Sure it's impossible to predict the potential damage of our current status quo, especially in regards to things like climate change which are such wildcards, it is hard to super accurately predict how damaging climate change will ultimately prove. How much will it change broad macro-ecosystems and climate patterns? what will be the degree and magnitude of shifts? everything is so interconnected that these shifts are quite frightening to imagine, the potential cascades... but I think it's safe to assume that continuing our status quo is incredibly risky and we have embarked on a broad and dangerous experiment. I do try and feed my optimism while hoping to stay grounded in some sort of realistic assessment of actual circumstances and contingencies. We should try and keep building awareness, pushing solutions, living the change we believe in, and explain the vision of what may be possible: "We promised Dana Meadows before she died in early 2001 that we would complete the “30-year update” of the book she loved so much. But in the process we were once more reminded of the great differences among the hopes and expectations of the three authors. Dana was the unceasing optimist. She was a caring, compassionate believer in humanity. She predicated her entire life’s work on the assumption that if she put enough of the right information in people’s hands, they would ultimately go for the wise, the farsighted, the humane solution- in this case, adopting the global policies that would avert overshoot (or, failing that, would ease the world back from the brink). Dana spent her life working for this ideal. Jorgen is the cynic. He believes that humanity will pursue short-term goals of increased consumption, employment, and financial security to the bitter end, ignoring the increasingly clear and strong signals until it is too late. He is sad to think that society will voluntarily forsake the wonderful world that could have been. Dennis sits in between. He believes actions will ultimately be taken to avoid the worst possibilities for global collapse. He expects that the world will eventually choose a relatively sustainable future, but only after severe global crises force belated action. And the results secured after long delay will be much less attractive than those that could have been attained through earlier action. Many of the planet's wonderful ecological treasures will be destroyed in the process; many attractive political and economic options will be lost; there will be great and persisting inequalities, increasing militarization of society, and widespread conflict." What do you guys think? where do you guys stand? ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 27, 2017
|
Apr 10, 2017
|
Dec 29, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062276166
| 9780062276162
| 0062276166
| 4.34
| 5,595
| Oct 13, 2015
| Oct 13, 2015
|
it was amazing
|
Very much enjoyed this book. Entertaining, albeit incredibly disturbing (that is if everything claimed in this book is proven to be true!). I have to o Very much enjoyed this book. Entertaining, albeit incredibly disturbing (that is if everything claimed in this book is proven to be true!). I have to offer this statement first: when it comes to CIA history, the deep state, and the history of the Kennedy assassination, in many respects I'm a blank slate. I don't know many of the facts, many of the details. I'm inclined to believe the worst though (those who operate in the shadows often have little checks on their power, no accountability to the public, which is very dangerous and can bring out the worst in human nature). But certain extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and even if I'm somewhat inclined to lap up what is being served in this book because it fulfills my bias I still am cognizant there may be deep flaws in the evidence here. This is one of the first books I've read that gets into CIA history in a nuts and bolts manner, while also delving into the Kennedy assassination (final third of the book). The author, David Talbot, seems to have conducted exhaustive research, many of his claims and arguments are backed by facts (uh, I think?). So while I'm marked by his arguments, I need to emphasize that I'm kind of a blank slate here and liable to be very impressed by the first cogent argument I come across on these subjects, of which Talbot's is for me. He offers some pretty astounding assertions and arguments, many of which I have no idea as to how much water they hold. The evidence and argument he crafts, the narrative of the CIA being behind the Kennedy assassination with Dulles playing a prime role? uh, yeah that seems eminently plausible to me. But then again, while I don't know much CIA history I'm certainly inclined to believe the worst about that agency and its shady history and machinations, that's my bias, and it is a strong one. Not to say that there aren't incredibly moral and good people who serve and have served this agency, and it does serve a purpose (although one could question why we should have an agency of this type operating outside of military structure and purview). But given its secretive nature, lack of strong oversight and accountability, I'd say it is an organization that is particularly vulnerable to corrosive unscrupulous undertakings. The problem is Talbot does rely on some circumstantial flimsy evidence at times, and some weak witnesses: for instance the testimony of Howard Hunt's son, St. John. He is an incredibly weak and flawed witness imo. Talbot does not really acknowledge this, he presents this guy's evidence without any caveats. Here's an article on his son and Hunt I came across, it is interesting. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/f... There are some good critiques of this book as well. I'd take everything with a grain of salt, especially the Kennedy assassination stuff. Here's a nice review of someone who seems to know a thing or two about this history, provides a counterbalance: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... It's hard for me to parse how deeply biased Talbot might be. He certainly doesn't like Dulles or the CIA (I don't blame him for that though haha). How much he is cherry-picking his facts and information to craft his narrative, how solid are certain testimonials, what are the various hidden motivations and agendas of various witnesses? I honestly don't know but I would sure as heck want deep background info on each witness to establish their credibility. I do know the CIA had a big hand in various overthrows of democratically elected governments and was intimately connected with large multinationals and did their bidding. This is the least controversial stuff to me in this book, mostly covered in the first half: overthrows and attempted overthrows in Guatemala, Congo, Iran, France, CIA links to Nazis. Yadda yadda. In effect the CIA is fundamentally undemocratic, and serves (at least served, in the period of Dulles' time and beyond) to maintain and expand the powers of an oligarchic elite. Regardless of how accurate or not this book is, it is damn entertaining and very well-written. I highly recommend it. I'd say this book is a mix of the documented known aspects of our history with various conjecture propped up by circumstantial evidence, some more solid some more speculative. Like I've mentioned, separating what's what is tricky for me. One interesting aspect of the book was the window into the the inner-workings, power struggles, and inner-office politics of the CIA. That was really neat stuff. Would love for my buddies that know this part of American history and have some knowledge of CIA history to read this book. It'd be great to hear your critique and analysis of David Talbot's narrative and evidence. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 07, 2017
|
Jan 18, 2017
|
Dec 27, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0394703170
| 9780394703176
| 0394703170
| 4.12
| 3,256
| Feb 12, 1963
| 1964
|
it was amazing
|
Finished this a while back been meaning to write the review. It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also great Finished this a while back been meaning to write the review. It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also great for anyone interested in US history. Hofstadter's examination of religion and its role in American society is fascinating. It is by no means simple, there have been multiple factions in the religious sphere here, some were forces for enlightenment/reason/knowledge and others were anti-intellectual forces that cudgeled people with blind dogmatism and preached constant and full submission to authority. These forces waxed and waned, sometimes one gaining the upperhand over the other in the political sphere, each exerting different levels of power in various regions. There is also an interesting class angle that is intermixed within all this, the main one that comes to mind is the elite New England uppercrust religious intellectuals who held a lot of power and sway in that region and often times at the federal level. They helped establish many of the original higher level education institutions. Some fascinating dynamics between them and anti-establishment anti-elitist populist dogmatists who preached against reason and science because it didn't conform to their world-views. But they also hated the elitist New England brahmins because of their outsized power and their monopolization of the educational resources in this country. One particularly interesting fact that Hofstadter hits: sometimes the greatest anti-intellectuals emanate from the intellectual sphere, reactionary intellectuals who might be perfectly intellectual within a broad array of subjects but in certain arenas are completely blind and retrograde. It was an interesting point and I think very true, I consider them the most pernicious because they leverage their credentials and operate from a larger platform from which they push their wacky anti-intellectual arguments. They are insiders who (sometimes) revel in torpedoing the knowledge establishment (and colleagues) from the inside. I imagine this is generally done in good faith, but sometimes I have to imagine there is jealousy or anger towards colleagues or the intellectual establishment that prompts this sort of thing. I don't know. We can all be blind to our biases, even the highest level experts and intellectuals... but these people can end up doing a lot of damage, the public seizes upon their arguments to confirm their conspiracies or push their anti-intellectual agenda. Highly recommend this book. Hofstader is a great writer and historian imo. The scope of this book is broad but there is a lot of nuance and in depth examination. It is not a book you read in one sitting though, best to read in slow morsels, digest, think about... Maybe it will be a grinding read for some but I found it completely spell-binding as it really got me thinking and I think helped me learn quite a bit of US history as well. Also a great examination on the philosophy of education, the US education system, attitudes towards education and knowledge, and how these have all evolved. Education and knowledge are not not very high up on the totem pole (as compared to sports and entertainment and worship of power and money). The fact that the word intellectual is still a dirty word here in this country is very telling. We face many of the same problems now that we did 50 years ago when this was written, which is really a mind-bogglingly sad fact. Maybe we face a new dark age? I have no idea. The paradox is that we have access to more information than ever before but it seems like we only consume and accept what will reinforce narratives we already believe in (in pointing this out I'm not saying I'm immune to this myself haha! but I try to recognize and fight my tendencies but it is certainly not easy). That's why a proper approach to education and instilling critical thinking and curiosity via the education system (but also via family and community) is so important imo, it takes resources and a lot of trial and error, but we are going down the wrong path that is for sure. Anti-intellectualism is not only an American thing. But we have a rich history of it, and its influence in our culture matters a lot given our power and influence in the world. But if we can't invest in our education system and instill curiosity, love of learning, valuing of knowledge, and an ability to appreciate and practice a certain level of critical thinking within our populace we will gradually lose power in the world. That's how I see it. We've managed to stay on top for a long time, even when our education system wasn't the best because we had a nice brain-drain going for us (along with a lot of fantastic fundamentals like a wealth of natural resources). With current policies we might end up reversing the brain-drain which we have relied upon for so long, it has masked the flaws in our education system and its classist fundamentals. If this happens the flaws of our education system will likely be magnified beyond belief, and we will all bear the economic repercussions (which are already being felt but will only get worse). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 16, 2017
|
Mar 16, 2017
|
Dec 24, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0345409469
| 9780345409461
| 0345409469
| 4.29
| 74,432
| 1995
| Feb 25, 1997
|
it was amazing
|
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the great paeans to science, logic, and critical thinking buttressed by philosophy and deep moral sensibility. This is t
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the great paeans to science, logic, and critical thinking buttressed by philosophy and deep moral sensibility. This is the first book of Sagan's I've read, I was so impressed, wonderfully written, very accessible and easy to read. He is a scientist by training, a highly critical thinker, but he is clearly a very multidimensional multitalented man. He has grounding in many other areas outside of science, including philosophy, political science, questions of morality, etc... I found him to be extremely intelligent and well thought out in his thinking (I would've been surprised if it had been otherwise haha!), but he also manifests a deep and what I feel is a true humility which adds power to his positions. He is exquisitely rational, but he is also deeply compassionate and filled with wonder. This book should be required reading for all our children, and heck all the adult population. It provides a blueprint for the way I feel we should approach life and existence. Sagan through a variety of examples, shows the carnage that can take place when fake facts, uncritical blind emotional thinking takes over. We are more easily manipulated, more liable to fall under the sway of unscrupulous authoritarians that take advantage of a credulous populace. None of us is impervious to bias and dogma, but we can continually try to check these basic human impulses by working to hone our critical thinking, by learning how to think and analyze the strength of evidence, by striving to keep our minds open to new information... Inflexibility of mind and blindly rejecting (new) information because it doesn't fit our preconceived notions and narratives is pernicious, closed-system ideological thinking is a great danger to our society and culture. We should use the scalpels of rationalism and critical thinking as equally towards our own notions as the notions that disagree with us. It's not easy to practice and no one is perfect but this is something that every one of us should strive for imo. He spends a bit of time on an interesting duality within science and critical thinking. At its core is a meticulous rationalism based upon evidence and testable hypotheses, but it is balanced and fueled by our creative wonder, curiosity, and excitement in regards to the natural world. There is always a push pull between cold hard rationalism and wonder/curiosity, but these dynamics are absolutely integral to one another and play off one another. With humility and curiosity we acknowledge our ignorance which in turn pushes us to ask questions and pursue questions and then tests that can allow us to further peel back layers of our reality and when we are lucky gain more knowledge. Pure rationalism without wonder and creativity and curiosity is an empty shell. As I see it, curiosity is the engine behind intellect and innovation. Science, unlike most faith and religion, is willing to question itself, and be guided by evidence. It is open to a type of creative destruction, old rules and established thinking is destroyed when new contradictory evidence comes to light, and if the evidence is strong and broad enough it changes the paradigms and pushes things forward. Science is not static, it is not perfect either and not immune to dogma and dogmatic thinking, but by using the scientific method, given enough time and resources, it is self-correcting. Which is more than can be said for pretty much anything else imo. As I see it the scientific method has to be one of the greatest innovations of the human species. So another aspect I love about Sagan is his compassionate and respectful methods in trying to guide people towards a more rational critical thinking methodology. Sometimes I feel that skeptics are too obsessed with their (supposed) intellectual superiority and enjoy belittling and disrespecting others who do not practice scrupulous critical thinking. They spend a bit too much time indulging in making fun of people, taking gleeful joy in bashing them. It's rather sad and totally counterproductive imo, not to mention insulting. Plus the great irony is some of these skeptics/skeptic community engage in a sort of dogma, and get sucked into a huge sort of groupthink that congeals around frigid static consensus that doesn't tolerate contradictory evidence against the status quo. It's rather weird, not every skeptic indulges in that but a good number do. That is my impression at least. If any of you have thoughts on that I'd love to hear it, maybe I'm off base. Anyways, Sagan doesn't have this self-serving style, instead he focuses on guiding and helping people, he does not go out of his way to try and show intellectual superiority and dominance. He is respectful, humble, and kind, and I think that is a beautiful way to try and open peoples' minds and guide them towards the value of critical thinking, grounded skepticism, and honest dialogue. Awesome book. Awesome dude. Sagan inspires and challenges me to be better, to do better. And I think that is awesome. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Jan 24, 2017
|
Dec 22, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0374227357
| 9780374227357
| 0374227357
| 4.35
| 4,516
| Sep 25, 2014
| Sep 30, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
state formation - rule of law - accountability of political institutions. These are the 3 key themes that Fukuyama explores. Traversing a wide range o state formation - rule of law - accountability of political institutions. These are the 3 key themes that Fukuyama explores. Traversing a wide range of societies, in this book he examines how political orders evolved and also decay since the industrial revolution. Any time there is a large shift in the economic/labor landscape the political system must catch up, reform, and craft new policy visions to deal with the new contemporary landscape. Yesterday's institutions are not always up to today's problems (see USA). Like its predecessor, this book contains a ton of information. Personally I love it, but it is going to warrant a reread from me. Just so much good stuff here. I do have to mention that I am not well-versed in political science, political systems, political theory, etc. As far as I can tell Fukuyama's analysis and critiques are valid and compelling. I haven't explored any counter-critiques of his political order series, but I'd be interested in seeing what other political scientists make of his work. It strikes me as incisive and nuanced. But hey, I've been wildly wrong and misguided in judgment before, so who knows! The thing that sticks with me is his analysis of the formation and reasons behind why many states in Europe (with exceptions) have powerful central governments while the US has often had a much weaker federal state. One aspect Fukuyama delves into is the role of war in helping develop political systems, state power/organization, and efficiency, this was rather fascinating analysis and did make some sense to me. In regards to the US political system, it has evolved over time, especially once industrialization was taking place, and with the country much more integrated and unified (rail systems, telecommunication innovations), many of the contemporary problems of that time required reforms towards a stronger federal state to legislate, control, and enact policy at a national level. That said the US central state has always been much weaker than many of the European states, it is part of our cultural-DNA and we as a society have great leeriness towards centralized governmental power. I appreciate that Fukuyama does talk about geographic conditions playing a role in political system development. But he does not view it as the only factor. I get really sick of pure geographic determinism, I feel it is too simplistic of an answer and it ignores various other factors like human agency. His explanations of why certain countries failed to incorporate more liberal democracies was fascinating, especially when he analyzed colonialism and its aftermath. And yet while the legacy of colonialism has sometimes turbocharged political disasters after it was dismantled, the countries that fared best were countries that had better centralized governments in the pre-colonial era. It was interesting to see how the colonized countries' political traditions in pre-colonial times were important factors in how the countries developed in their post-colonial eras. His analysis of contemporary US political issues is very interesting. I tend to agree with a lot of his views on this. We have a bloated federal government that is completely dysfunctional. We have regulations but they are inefficient, duplicative, and cumbersome. Don't misconstrue that statement though. I am all for regulation. My example is this, Dodd-Frank is a ridiculous travesty, billions of pages long, overly complicated, and in the end ineffective because it was watered down by special interests (banking lobbyists). Imo we could have solved that problem by reinstituting Glass-Steagall and legislated increased capital requirements on the banks. End of story. Don't bail out those idiots either, and if you do, force some reforms down their throats. Of course this never happened because the corporate banking interests have too much power in the system, controlling gov legislation and capturing regulators... our system is way too tilted towards the lenders and securing and bailing them out while letting the little guys, the borrowers, pay through the nose and have their lives destroyed. We should apply a more even standard of accountability towards both lenders and borrowers. Anyways, I digress... The point is, I agree with Fukuyama, we need proper regulation that isn't hijacked by special interests. Our political system is awash in special interest money, and in many respects this is subverting the will of the people. Special interests, especially large corporations, are dictating policy and regulation. That's why so few people approve of our government, our trust has been decimated because we feel large interests control the system to a higher degree than they ever have... it's fine for special interests to have a say, but right now it is tilted way too far towards powerful corporate entities. Fukuyama harps on the issue of trust, peoples' trust of the government. It is a key factor in a government's ability to rule and legislate, if the people have no trust or lose trust then things usually trend towards disaster... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 09, 2016
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0701186585
| 9780701186586
| 0701186585
| 4.24
| 16,932
| Mar 03, 2016
| Mar 03, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
Philosophy. For some reason that word and subject makes me shudder. Okay, it's not "some reason." It's the fact that I have a stereotype in my mind of
Philosophy. For some reason that word and subject makes me shudder. Okay, it's not "some reason." It's the fact that I have a stereotype in my mind of those who practice philosophy often times seem to delight in not practicing philosophy but actually practice some dark art of obfuscation and intellectual one-upsmanship that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation or subject. I'm being kind of mean but that's how I feel sometimes, much of it could be chalked up to my own ignorance. It can be hard since I have no background in this subject, and I'm not well-versed enough to be able to decipher who are honest deep thinkers adding valuable contributions and theories (that I just can't understand) to those who are merely intellectual obfuscators using philosophy as a selfish tool to deliberately try to show people how smart they are (well, how smart they think they are!). Sometimes it's a mix, people fall along a wide spectrum, even great thinkers can be intellectual snobs who fall into pushing empty ideas dressed up by a bouquet of verbal garbage. I guess you could say I do somewhat subscribe to the following quote, although I don't think it is universally applicable but I do think it is appropriate for most cases in life, and it can apply to philosophy: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein Anyways, all that to say that the author, Sarah Bakewell, is absolutely fabulous. She explains things simply. I loved her writing, I loved her thinking, I loved her explanations. She makes philosophy, at least existentialism, incredibly accessible. That is a huge selling point. The other thing I love with this book is how she delves into the biographies of all these philosophers (starting with a variety of German phenomenologists to the French existentialists) as a means of illuminating their ideas and thinking. So I said I've never been into philosophy, not in an academic sense. Which is totally true. But like a lot of disaffected suburban kids, I discovered and was mesmerized by the French existentialists when I was in HS. I romanticized them and lionized them, although I only knew and read and understood their ideas in the most superficial manner. Camus was always my favorite mostly because he seemed so cool, haha! But as I've gotten older I've gotten a deeper appreciation of those writers/philosophers who focused on the absurdity of life, specifically Camus. It's something that rings true to me, not necessarily in its universality but because it mirrors some of my own personal life experiences. Bakewell gives treatment to a wide range of philosophers, some notable ones that stick in my mind are Husserl, Heidegger, Camus, Sartre, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas. There were many others as well. What struck me was how well she described them, their ideas, their lives. None were perfect, each had personal flaws and errors in judgment, grievous deviations and errors in ideas (which to be fair is bound to happen when you are working on countless ideas!). Sartre was a fascinating character to me, and via Bakewell's analysis as much as he made certain errors in philosophy or politics I came to see him as she did, a man who operated in "good faith." I really want to further explore the schism that took place between Camus and Sartre regarding politics. Politically/morally I skew more towards Camus, but I don't know all the nuances of their argument. I'd like to read Camus' The Rebel for a deeper insight into his thinking. An interesting aspect to all these thinkers is that many were friends, deeply connected. It's amazing how many of these relationships disintegrated due to politics. It's sad, and terribly relevant imo. For example, Beauvoir (whom I deeply respect) and Sartre basically excommunicated certain friends (whom they had had loving relationships with for years upon years) because of a difference in politics. On the one hand I get it, these are people who trafficked in thinking, in ideas, and politics encompasses all these moral, intellectual values, the deep fundamentals of one's personal matrix. And yet it speaks to today, this is killing us as a society, the lack of ability to connect with those who hold different political values. Personally I do not think friendships should end because of politics, unless it is under the most radical circumstances. I guess I was somewhat disgusted by Sartre and Beauvoir's attitude on this count, because as thinkers I would think they would want to engage in relationships with people who would push their thinking, challenge their thinking, and that they would appreciate intellectual adversaries who were able to show them where their arguments might lack logic or manifest weakness. Because that is how I TRY to approach these conversations with people who think completely differently from me. If we can engage in honest good faith dialogue, and if you are able to successfully show me where my logic, my argument lacks fundamentals, where the weak spots are, then you are doing me a favor! you are helping me see. You are forcing me to think more deeply, dig into a deeper more nuanced analysis where I have to craft a rebuttal, or shift and evolve my stances and thinking... Not only does Bakewell beautifully show us these philosophers' thinking, their ideas, and their personal biographies, she also expertly presents the backdrops of their societies, the political, historical, and economic forces that played a role in shaping them. This is hugely important, we are all products of our time, and this is never more true than for these German and French philosophers who came of age in a time of insane nationalism, war, nihilism, despair, political upheavals within their societies, racism, colonialism, bigotry, etc. To see how they acted within this backdrop, how they manifested (and evolved) their morals/personal philosophy within this context helped me see who they really were, what they stood for, what ideals they were willing to live up to (or not live up to). This book brought up some great moral and philosophical questions that are relevant in all of our lives. The cool thing was much of the existential philosophy was not just abstract mumbo jumbo, but it had direct implications and questions for how we as individuals choose to live our lives. Questions of freedom and personal choice/free will and individual moral accountability. Sure there are weak points within the philosophy of existentialism and yet there are many relevant questions and thinking grounded within reality that can help push us in analyzing and thinking about our own lives and how we live them. So near the end of the book when it got into questions of personal freedom, ability of the individual to act within larger historical forces, I couldn't help but think of Westworld. We all operate within "loops," life habits that are comforting, that keep us anchored and free from too much freedom. I think it was Sartre who said that true freedom is frightening, and I do agree. Many of our actions are based in habit, it is difficult and tiring to practice true freedom in thinking and actions. Plus there are the larger forces holding us back from practicing true freedom including society, culture, our hardware/biology, life necessities... But sometimes we have to rise to the challenge, and live life with greater consciousness in an attempt to pierce through our habits that keep us from exercising greater personal agency. It cannot always be done, but it is important to try and recognize our trappings so that we can better decide when it is necessary to break through our habits and exercise greater personal imperative. (Tbh I do not think a 100% deep true freedom is possible as I think such freedom would break our minds haha! habits are actually good for us, they anchor us, but the key is picking and choosing when to break the habits, that is the freedom we have imo) Last note. I did think that existentialism seems to have certain similarities with Buddhism. Specifically the idea of practicing greater awareness and consciousness in every moment, both philosophies seem to be focused on the power of the individual and freedom. Ack, ok last last note of something that totally fascinated me. Bakewell brought up a study that said that for those who believe that there is little freedom, personal choice, those that believe we are destined by our society/culture/historical forces to make certain decisions, guided and controlled by fate if you will... well these people are more likely to act more cruelly. The hypothesis is that they feel less personal accountability for their actions, their belief in a lack of freedom is an alibi for them, it allows them to distance themselves from personal accountability and blame their actions on destiny/larger forces. For those who believe we have greater freedom, greater choice in life, well they act less cruelly, since they see greater personal accountability within their own actions. I just thought that was so interesting. I need to see if I can find this study this is based on. I mostly listen to audiobooks so unfortunately I can't dog-ear these sections that strike me, I wish I could cite that study and look further into it, check out the methodology and fundamentals of the study... google here I come! Long story short. I love love loved this book. Recommend it for everyone. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 05, 2016
|
Dec 14, 2016
|
Dec 05, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 140006855X
| 9781400068555
| 140006855X
| 4.24
| 6,879
| Oct 2013
| Oct 29, 2013
|
it was amazing
|
WWI is just fascinating. I've been trying to learn more about this period as I see it as a grand operatic tragedy, full of lessons, parallels, and war
WWI is just fascinating. I've been trying to learn more about this period as I see it as a grand operatic tragedy, full of lessons, parallels, and warnings for us contemporary folk. I tend to have a bit more knowledge of the War itself than the events preceding, so this was a very useful and informative read for me. First off, I think this book is excellent. It is very readable, well-written, and actually quite exhaustive. Lord only knows how much research went into this thing, the depth and breadth here is impressive. I don't think many writers can pull off such history at this level of quality. MacMillan also draws out interesting sketches of all the various personalities and characters, which makes the book more readable because you feel a certain intimacy and understanding of these people. Anyways, I'm going into this book feeling relatively confident. I've been learning more and more about this era, and one of the problems I still have is I get lost in all the intricacies, the various rotating cast of characters and personalities, the internal politics, international incidents, and double-dealing diplomacy. But that will not happen this time I promised myself. No, not this time! I got this, gonna really focus and not get lost in the underground warrens of this thing, just because there are 20 French guys all with similar sounding names that seem to rhyme with "jambon," no, that will not intimidate me. They (who is they? I don't know, but they're def trying) can't stop me and my increasing comprehension and domination of WWI. But you know, WWI is just too crazy, and it always happens like this: a solid feeling of comprehension envelops me as I'm getting a handle on some Austro-Hungarian foreign diplomat, I'm understanding his background, his possible motivations, his machinations, his biscuit-eating habits, and then *POOF* he is dismissed by a grouchy leader or dies and now he is gone from the matrix. NOOOOOO, don't do this to me! And of course he is replaced by some guy with a confusingly similar name and probably the same goddamn mustache and vastly different biscuit-eating habits. At least that's how it all feels. The general vibe though is all these various characters are doing their little machinations, and all I can think is stop being so confusing and being so bad. You guys are wrecking everything!!! (and you're confusing me in the process which is the greater crime!) Of course remembering each individual character isn't critical, my main goal was to get a feel for how things unfurled, how the international diplomacy was functioning and how the internal politics in the various countries was evolving. How did the situation spin out of control to such a degree? how did Europe manage to squander so much life, wealth, power on such a pointless tragedy? It's a true testament to the capacity for folly we humans harbor. A lot of people helped push things in the wrong direction, not always willfully, but a good amount operated in bad faith and with darker motives and lack of imagination as to potential consequences. Random thing: did you know Lord Asquith was quite busy during his role in leadership sending long turgid love letters to his mistress? spilling state secrets and talking endlessly about her pet penguins and stuff like that. Maybe he should've focused on training those pet penguins, teach them ninja-skills and the art of war. Would've been the smart and cool thing to do, an army of ninja penguins. Suffice it to say those penguins didn't do #@!$ during the war because Asquith was not a visionary. At the end of the day, this book helped me learn quite a bit. As with many of the things I read, I wish I could've assimilated more of the info, but I think if I keep reading on this subject I will gradually keep building a stronger knowledge foundation. Sidenote: I think the closest historical parallel to Trump is Kaiser Wilhelm II. Obviously I have limits in my knowledge of history, but so far he is the one I connect most to Trump. Maybe Mussolini too but tbh I don't know enough about him to make a solid comparison, although superficially it seems like it is there. Kaiser Wilhelm II is a freaking brat, Joffrey-lite, I don't have many good things to say about him hehe. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 29, 2017
|
Jun 08, 2017
|
Dec 03, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 067974472X
| 9780679744726
| 067974472X
| 4.54
| 103,166
| Jan 31, 1963
| Dec 01, 1992
|
it was amazing
|
Devastating and outstanding. James Baldwin is an amazing writer; stylistically elegant but razor sharp in peeling back layers of muck to get to the es
Devastating and outstanding. James Baldwin is an amazing writer; stylistically elegant but razor sharp in peeling back layers of muck to get to the essence of things. With words as his flamethrower he scorches the sacred illusions and myths we hold and tell about ourselves. Should be required reading imo. Can’t wait to read more of his work, I read Giovanni’s Room many years ago, remember liking it will certainly reread it along with the rest of his work. He is unflinching and devastating with his presentation of how he sees himself and how he sees the world. I think he is on the mark and I respect his brutal honesty. Here are some of the quotes that marked me (there are a lot!): “I do not mean to be sentimental about suffering - enough is certainly as good as a feast - but people who cannot suffer can never grow up, can never discover who they are. That man is forced each day to snatch his manhood, his identity, out of the fire of human cruelty that rages to destroy it knows, if he survives his effort, and even if he does not survive it, something about himself and human life that no school on earth - and indeed, no church - can teach. He achieves his own authority, and that is unshakable. This is because, in order to save his life, he is forced to look beneath appearances, to take nothing for granted” “Time catches up with kingdoms and crushes them, gets its teeth into doctrines and rends them; time reveals the foundations on which any kingdom rests, and eats at those foundations, and it destroys doctrines by proving them to be untrue.” “The subtle and deadly change of heart that might occur in you would be involved with the realization that a civilization is not destroyed by wicked people; it is not necessary that people be wicked but only that they be spineless.” “We human beings now have the power to exterminate ourselves; this seems to be the entire sum of our achievement.” “Liberals’ attitudes… revealed, in fact, that they could deal with the Negro as a symbol or a victim but had no sense of him as a man.” “But there is no reason that black men should be expected to be more patient, more forbearing, more farseeing than whites: indeed, quite the contrary. The real reason that non-violence is considered to be a virtue in Negroes - I am not speaking now of its racial value, another matter altogether - is that white men do not want their lives, their self-image, or their property threatened.” “And they didn’t even read; depressed populations don’t have the time or energy to spare.” “The brutality with which Negroes are treated in this country simply cannot be overstated, however unwilling white men may be to hear it.” “And legend and theology, which are designed to sanctify our fears, crimes, and aspirations, also reveal them for what they are.” “People always seem to band together in accordance to a principle that has nothing to do with love, a principle that releases them from personal responsibility.” “To accept one’s past - one’s history - is not the same thing as drowning in it: it is learning how to use it.” “The glorification of one race and the consequent debasement of another - or others - always has been and always will be a recipe for murder. There is no way around this.” “But I am also concerned for their dignity, for the health of their souls, and must oppose any attempt that Negroes may make to do to others what has been done to them. I think I know - we see it around us every day - the spiritual wasteland to which that road leads… Whoever debases others is debasing himself.” “Most of the Negroes I know do not believe that this immense concession [speaking of desegregation] would ever have been made if it had not been for the competition of the Cold War, and the fact that Africa was clearly liberating herself and therefore had, for political reasons, to be wooed by the descendants of her former masters.” (funny enough I just read an article on Nixon which cites one of his letters that seems to confirm this strategy) “There are too many things we do not wish to know about ourselves. People are not, for example, terribly anxious to be equal (equal, after all, to what and to whom?) but they love the idea of being superior. And this human truth has an especially grinding force here, where identity is almost impossible to achieve and people are perpetually attempting to find their feet on the shifting sands of status.” “We are controlled here by our confusion, far more than we know, and the American dream has therefore become something much more closely resembling a nightmare, on the private, domestic, and international levels. Privately, we cannot stand our lives and dare not examine them; domestically, we take no responsibility for (and no pride in) what goes on in our country; and, internationally, for many millions of people, we are an unmitigated disaster.” “Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.” (makes me think of some of what Camus has to say in Myth of Sisyphus essays which I’m also currently reading) “But renewal becomes impossible if one supposes things to be constant that are not - safety, for example, or money, or power. One clings then to chimeras, by which one can only be betrayed, and the entire hope - the entire possibility - of freedom disappears.” “Rather, the white man is himself in sore need of new standards, which will release him from his confusion and place him once again in fruitful communion with the depths of his own being.” “And there is a limit to the number of people any government can put in prison, and a rigid limit indeed to the practicality of such a course. A bill is coming in that I fear America is not prepared to pay.” “And here we are, at the center of the arc, trapped in the gaudiest, most valuable, and most improbable water wheel the world has ever seen.” ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 08, 2017
|
May 10, 2017
|
Nov 27, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0691147728
| 9780691147727
| 0691147728
| 4.19
| 1,953
| Jan 26, 2016
| Jan 12, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
I was a bit worried in starting this that it might prove boring given this book is the size of a fat brick and has a title that hints at content so po
I was a bit worried in starting this that it might prove boring given this book is the size of a fat brick and has a title that hints at content so potentially boring that it could put a person hopped up on boatload of amphetamines running around the house worried about the murderer at their doorstep to sleep. But nope. I thought this was totally excellent. A great and informative read, well-crafted, beautifully argued. The exploration of history, documentation of technological and economic evolution and analysis was topnotch. Most of the book is documentation of technology and connection to economic growth/standard of living/productivity in the US from 1870 to current times. Told in an accessible historical narrative fashion. I'll reduce Gordon's argument to the bare-bones but this does no justice to his analysis: basically we have nailed a lot of the low-hanging technological fruit and are reaching a point of diminishing returns - ie we are investing higher and higher rates into research and are getting smaller and smaller returns on this investment. You could say he is a bit of a techno-pessimist. I don't 100% agree with it but I think there is a lot of substance there, the counter is that we are pretty early in the digital revolution and it is hard to know how much it will potentially increase productivity. I find myself trending towards Gordon's position but I can't really say, only time will tell. Betting against innovation is usually a losing bet, at least in the last 200 years, but the transformational technologies like electricity, combustion engine, things like that can only be discovered once. And once they are discovered you can refine them and increase efficiencies but after a certain amount of time you can only improve/refine existing technologies so much. Hence the question is how many more paradigm-shifting technological innovations are out there on the impact-level of electricity? and another question is how much resource investment will it take to unlock them? The end part of the book was very good. It showcased Gordon's analysis of contemporary US situation and policy ideas to help improve productivity and standard of living, or at least temper the headwinds our society faces. I align with most of his policy ideas, they strike me as sensible and would likely be tools that would help do damage control. I was very happy that he hit hard on the subject of inequality and how this threatens social fabric and long-term strength of our economy. Not much talk on environmental crisis although it is mentioned. Recognized as a potential huge drain, and instead of pouring resources into building things up we will be pouring resources into containing this problem and damage we are causing. I've said it before but I think if you break the environment, at a large enough scale, you break economies and stoke instability. Maybe that's too simple but that's how I see it. In the end I jibe with a lot of what he has to say and I share a large part of his pessimism in regards to long-term economic outlook. We are facing huge crises but I think we are going to have our hands tied in terms of tackling the problems given that we are in very bad fiscal positions and totally overleveraged at federal, (many, not all) state, city levels coupled with individual debt. Not a good recipe. We would need a lot of productivity increases to be able to grow our way out of these fiscal problems and I do not think this will happen and even if it could be done it would likely prove even more devastating for the environment (which would manifest in its own varying economic costs). Gordon considers the strong economic growth rate in the period of 45-72 an aberration, I'm right there with him. So I think we are locked into a bit of a tricky situation. Plus our government is not thinking long-term, avoiding all hard decisions, and shunning most of the policies (many suggested by Gordon) that I think would help put us in a better position to contain damage and improve the situation. Anyways. A+ book. Regardless of whether you agree with Gordon's conclusions it is worth the read. He makes a strong argument and he is well-grounded in the research and has impressive depth and breadth in knowledge of economy and history. Time will tell if his predictions prove ballpark correct. I'd like to read the work of Gordon's Northwestern econ colleague Joel Mokyr. He is more of a techno-optimist and his position runs counter to Gordon's assessments. But I think reading Mokyr will give me a better sense of the opposing side's argument even if I'm not really on board (who knows maybe I will change my thinking!). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 07, 2017
|
Jun 28, 2017
|
Oct 15, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0143034693
| 9780143034698
| 0143034693
| 4.28
| 10,273
| Feb 05, 2003
| Feb 01, 2005
|
it was amazing
|
I wanted to read this for a variety of reasons, but the main reason was that I wanted to get a clearer picture of how a Western democracy - 1920s Germ
I wanted to read this for a variety of reasons, but the main reason was that I wanted to get a clearer picture of how a Western democracy - 1920s Germany in this instance - could devolve into a violent terroristic regime like the Nazis. I'm worried about some of the parallels I'm seeing today, I get eery feelings that what happened in Germany, the circumstances that allowed for democracy to devolve into violent terroristic regime, is being replicated in today's circumstances facing contemporary Western democracies. The possibility of contemporary democracies falling into more radical governments fueled by hate, anger, and the politics of exclusion is possible in any country, imo. In fact it is already happening, the question is how far we will fall. Of course there are many reasons for the rise of the Nazis and how this could have happened in a developed, educated, Western democracy. The ridiculous crippling vengeful victory terms set out by the Allies was a major factor, helping lead to multiple economic crises for Germany in the 20s. But the biggest thing was that regardless of why these economic crises were taking place, there started to be a trafficking in a narrative of conspiracy theories that angrily blamed specific groups for the suffering, for the political/cultural/economic degradation of Germany. These groups included Jews, the Catholic Church, feminists, homosexuals, liberals, foreigners, global banking elite (run by the Jews, so it was claimed), etc etc. I just can't help but feel we are seeing the same thing today, except instead of Jews it has become Muslims and immigrants who are blamed and targeted. I was relatively familiar with most of the reasons the Nazis came to power. But I'll share the major point I discovered and was struck by: in 20s Germany there was a rise in 3rd rate tabloid newspapers, and the circulation rose astronomically. It was these papers that helped traffic the angry hateful conspiracy theories that blamed and targeted all the groups I mentioned in the previous paragraph. The existence and importance of these tabloid papers fueling conspiracy theories struck me, because it reminded me of today's internet and the rise of 3rd rate internet media sites that traffic in the exact same kind of hateful/angry conspiracy theories targeting and blaming specific groups. It's sad how much sway these kinds of sites have over a large swath of the public. But their lurid, bombastic, emotionally manipulative style of disinformation has proved very easy to digest, just like the tabloid papers in 20s Germany. Also I need to give a nod to a few mainstream media players, their participation in fueling these kind of conspiracy theories is also noted and not ignored. A few other elements that help to lead to a democracy's downfall: a population facing political and economic strife, being primed with ethno-nationalistic grievances... add in a cult of personality figure who steps into this mix (Hitler) who expertly leverages these grievances through riveting powerful speeches and a ruthless cunning political brilliance... and a political class that is so morally and politically cowardly, that they not only capitulate before these powers but they actively enable and champion the leader of the cult (Hitler) and his political movement, a movement which they fully know is dangerous and wrong - although I should note that not all in the political class are selfish cynics, some actually are true believers in the movement. But in the end, broadly speaking the political class is willing to sacrifice their morals for the sake of selfish careerism... Richard Evans does a fantastic job imo. I love the fact that he leaves out moralizing and avoids too much editorializing. It makes for a stronger recounting of the history. And frankly I can judge for myself the terribleness of the actions, I don't need the writer needing to cram their moral outrage down my throat. I'm sufficiently outraged as it is, thank you very much ;) I never could understand how Hitler and the Nazis came to power. But with what I'm seeing in contemporary Western democracies, I get it now. I really do. :( ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 02, 2016
|
Oct 16, 2016
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1600104932
| 9781600104930
| 1600104932
| 4.18
| 7,811
| Jun 01, 2009
| Jul 14, 2009
|
it was amazing
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Sep 16, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1421550644
| 9781421550640
| 1421550644
| 4.75
| 3,272
| 1995
| Nov 06, 2012
|
it was amazing
|
Wow. Just wow. This comic has to be one of the greatest things I've ever read. I don't mean to hype it up too much, but I was personally blown away. I' Wow. Just wow. This comic has to be one of the greatest things I've ever read. I don't mean to hype it up too much, but I was personally blown away. I've seen the Miyazaki Nausicaa movie, and I loved it. But what is great about this comic is that the format allows for the story to go much deeper, a deeper exploration of the themes (humanity, our relation to nature, environmentalism, the lust for power, etc), and a deeper immersion into the world. There is also more nuance and subtlety in regards to the characters and their development. The art is sublime. The story-boarding, lay-outs, are just impeccable. The linework is gorgeous, you can tell the artist put his heart and soul into every panel. The amount of work this 1000+ page comic must have taken is rather mind-boggling. The story-telling and pacing are also excellent. Initially it starts off a bit slow, but after a while you become so immersed in the story and characters that things start zipping along. There is a lot of action, a lot of tension, and a great philosophical bent exploring human nature and the environment (themes which I love). Nausicaa is one of my favorite characters of all time, she is inspiring and yet not perfect (although close to it ha). Of course there is the classic trope of "The Chosen One," which Nausicaa is. But Miyazaki executes it really well without the usual corniness and emotional pastiche that tends to plague that concept. There are also a slew of fabulous secondary characters, each with their own evolutions and arcs that are interesting and well-executed. The villains are lots of fun too, although there were instances where I thought Miyazaki could have milked their villainousness a bit more haha. One thing I will suggest is that it is worth investing in the two-volume hardback edition. It is larger and presents the artwork in all its glory. This is absolute must reading for those who love comics. But the scope of the story reaches beyond comic lovers, this is something that someone who doesn't generally read comics should at least try reading imo. It is the apotheosis of the art form. So much hyperbole, I'm sorry. But damn, this comic was just too good. Shockingly good. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 16, 2016
|
Oct 02, 2016
|
Aug 31, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1506702163
| 9781506702162
| 1506702163
| 4.19
| 2,777
| Jan 2001
| Nov 08, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
Phenomenal work. But I guess there is a soft warning I have to give, I want everyone to love Moebius, or at least hope they can discover appreciation
Phenomenal work. But I guess there is a soft warning I have to give, I want everyone to love Moebius, or at least hope they can discover appreciation of his work, but I don't think Moebius is for everyone (style and taste wise). I think if you are into comics it is easier to dig his work, especially if you appreciate the craft of drawing and illustration. This guy is one of the tops of all time in terms of art. The precision, clarity and surety of line, beautiful perspectives, gorgeous compositions... he does it all. Also enjoy the coloring work. He keeps things simple, yet detailed, and that is because he knows exactly where to place the right mark. Which is incredible, you can analyze each and every panel and marvel at this guy's skill. It is breathtaking. I would def recommend checking out his work, especially if you like comics. Even if you don't end up liking it, his work has been pretty important and influential so it's nice to check out given its place as cultural and comics touchstones. In terms of story and narrative this is a bit out there, like most of Giraud's sci-fi work. I thought it was neat, super imaginative, funky, kept me on my toes and I was very curious to see where the story was going. I wouldn't be surprised though if some readers find the narrative frustrating, obtuse, and a bit too new-agey. I read Moebius comics for the art tbh, but the story here is quite excellent and superbly imaginative. Lots of weird mysteries, great world-building, interesting characters and villains, solid social commentary, interchanges between reality and dreamworlds, good pacing... I can't help but think of Winsor McCay's work (Little Nemo) when I read this. I suspect he had a lot of influence on Moebius. Moebius is kind of in the class of comics like Otomo's Akira, Miyazaki's Nausicaa. Great artists, amazing skill, beautiful lines, compositions. These 3 are probably tops to me, along with Lastman (by Vives, Sanlaville, and Balak) which I just love, has a bit of a looser style but it is actually the one I connect with the most as it has a more contemporary vibe (which makes sense since I'm part of the same generation so it speaks to me a bit more in terms of cultural zeitgeist). The thing I love with all these guys is their art has strong 2-d feel, you can see the hand of the artist, the linework is perfect (to me!) and the artists can't hide behind fancy digital coloring and modeling (even though Lastman is all done digitally from what I understand, it still operates under that older analog style). The linework is the linework and it stands or dies on its own. Some modern comics are super digital in look, and while there is a lot of this work I really really really like, I will never get over the style of work as practiced by Moebius. I like seeing the artist's hand. And I'm so glad Dark Horse is publishing a bunch of Giraud's works. It's frustratingly hard to find. Waiting with impatience for their next Moebius collections! in the meantime am going to read some of his Blueberry comics (western he did), have never read am curious to see what it is like. If nothing else the art will be great and also a wonderful opportunity to see him depicting beautiful landscapes of the southwest :) ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 26, 2017
|
Mar 04, 2017
|
Aug 22, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385350570
| 9780385350570
| 0385350570
| 4.19
| 5,088
| 2004
| Sep 29, 2015
|
it was amazing
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 2016
|
Aug 09, 2016
|
Aug 01, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.52
| 109,674
| Jan 05, 2010
| Jan 05, 2010
|
it was amazing
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 31, 2016
|
Aug 2016
|
Jul 31, 2016
|
Hardcover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.16
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Mar 27, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 3.96
|
it was amazing
|
Mar 11, 2017
|
Mar 05, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.18
|
it was amazing
|
Feb 10, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.16
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.37
|
it was amazing
|
Mar 20, 2017
|
Jan 13, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.22
|
it was amazing
|
Apr 10, 2017
|
Dec 29, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.34
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 18, 2017
|
Dec 27, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.12
|
it was amazing
|
Mar 16, 2017
|
Dec 24, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.29
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 24, 2017
|
Dec 22, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.35
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.24
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 14, 2016
|
Dec 05, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.24
|
it was amazing
|
Jun 08, 2017
|
Dec 03, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.54
|
it was amazing
|
May 10, 2017
|
Nov 27, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.19
|
it was amazing
|
Jun 28, 2017
|
Oct 15, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.28
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 16, 2016
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.18
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Sep 16, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.75
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 02, 2016
|
Aug 31, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.19
|
it was amazing
|
Mar 04, 2017
|
Aug 22, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.19
|
it was amazing
|
Aug 09, 2016
|
Aug 01, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 4.52
|
it was amazing
|
Aug 2016
|
Jul 31, 2016
|
Loading...
