Pocatello, Idaho

Edmund Burke - Prose Stylist

"When all the frauds, impostures, violences, rapines, burnings, murders, confiscations, compulsory paper currencies, and every description of tyranny and cruelty employed to bring about and to uphold this Revolution, have their natural effect, that is, to shock the moral sentiments of all virtuous and sober minds, the abettors of this philosophic system immediately strain their throats in a declamation against the old monarchical government of France. When they have rendered that deposed power sufficiently black, they then proceed in argument, as if all those who disapprove of their new abuses must of course be partisans of the old; that those who reprobate their crude and violent schemes of liberty ought do be treated as advocates for servitude. I admit that their necessities to compel them to this base and contemptible fraud. Nothing can reconcile men to their proceedings and projects, but the supposition that there is no third option between them and some tyranny as odious as can be furnished by the records of history, or by the invention of poets. This prattling of theirs hardly deserves the name of sophistry. It is nothing but plain impudence. Have these gentlemen never heard, in the whole circle of the worlds of theory and practice, of anything between the despotism the monarch and the despotism of the multitude? Have they never heard of a monarchy directed by laws, controlled and balanced by the great hereditary wealth and hereditary dignity of a nation; and both again controlled by a judicious check from the reason and feeling of the people at large, acting by a suitable and permanent organ? Is it then impossible that a man may be found, who, without criminal ill intention, or pitiable absurdity, shall prefer such a mixed and tempered government to either of the extremes; and who may repute that nation to be destitute of all wisdom and of all virtue, which, having in its choice to obtain such a government with ease, or rather to confirm it when actually possessed, thought proper to commit a thousand crimes, and to subject their country to a thousand evils, in order to avoid it? Is it then a truth so universally acknowledged, that a pure democracy is the only tolerable form into which human society can be thrown, that a man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?" - from Reflections on the Revolution in France

Analytical Introverts

You're methodical and systematic in the way you think. You look for meaning in data and are able to break down complex problems into manageable pieces. You see things in terms of recommendations and conclusions and then seek data, concepts and rules to support them. You have a preference for focused, straightforward communication with few digressions. Although you may have learned to work successfully with others, you believe you do your best thinking by yourself. (...sort of intended as a footnote to my prior post on Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney - both analytical introverts.)

President Obama and Candidate Romney - Similar Personality Types?

Candidates Have College, Spicy Chicken and ‘Star Trek’ in Common

By MARK LEIBOVICH

Published: June 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — Points of unity: Mitt Romney and President Obama both like process-driven decisions, iPads, ABC’s “Modern Family” and chicken.

Grilled chicken, not fried, in keeping with the shared body-mindedness of the combatants (Mr. Obama does treadmill and hoops, Mr. Romney elliptical and bike). Spicy, too, as Mr. Romney (who often peels the skin off) has demonstrated with his endorsement of the jalapeño chicken sandwich at Carl’s Jr. and Mr. Obama has praised the grilled chicken tacos made by the White House chef.

While a few shared tastes do not erase the general distaste of this campaign, the candidates do have a surprising amount in common. Granted, little of it concerns how to fix the economy, shrink the deficit or deal with Russia.

But interviews with people from the candidates’ overlapping realms — at Harvard, in the health care policy arena and in politics — yield similar observations about their personalities and their leadership and decision-making styles. Both are analytical introverts operating in a province of extroverts.

“Neither is the epitome of the backslapping pol,” said Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat and former governor of Pennsylvania who knew Mr. Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. “Both of them are almost shy, which is amazing in this business,” said Mr. Rendell, who is a supporter of Mr. Obama.

Neither candidate has much stomach for small talk or idle chatter. They have both been called difficult to know and even aloof at times. But if they were to convene for, say, a chicken barbecue — not likely, but whatever — they could explore some shared affinities and experiences. After-dinner, for instance, maybe over plates of pie (enjoyed by both), Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney could play the “did you know” game from their Harvard days or name-check the policy experts they consulted during their respective health care overhauls.

They could compare counties visited in Iowa, activists fawned over in New Hampshire and the irritations of dealing with blowhard colleagues in state government.

They could exchange trivia about “Star Trek” (liked by both) or complaints about the press (disliked).

Supporters admire them as confident and disciplined leaders. They are described as cautious and deliberative decision makers who distrust gut instinct and the emotional tenor of the modern political debate. In previous jobs, as governor of Massachusetts (Mr. Romney) and senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), both were viewed as short-timers passing through to headier stations. Each served one term in those posts, or less (in Mr. Obama’s case), and spent much of it plotting or actively running for the next.

Mr. Romney “struck me as someone who was more interested in having the job as governor than doing the job,” said Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a Democrat and close friend of Mr. Obama who succeeded Mr. Romney. Mr. Patrick said his predecessor, whom he describes as “a gentleman,” seemed to be someone who said to himself, “O.K., I won that, now I’m going to move onto something else.” Former Senate colleagues of Mr. Obama said the same about the future president.

There is a restless quality to both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, people close to them say. They spent formative periods living abroad and attended several colleges before carving out political careers as above-it-all outsiders. They had their convictions questioned by ideological purists in their parties (and their religions, too, by others).

Each suffered tough losses in early campaigns that might have, in retrospect, been ill-advised: Mr. Romney lost a 1994 Senate race in Massachusetts against the incumbent, Edward M. Kennedy; Mr. Obama was crushed in a 2000 Democratic Congressional primary in Illinois by the incumbent, Bobby L. Rush.

While each was the product of a doting and strong mother, the candidates forged their identities in part through the specters of their fathers - or the absence of one, in the case of Mr. Obama.

- Excerpt from a recent New York Times article (6-2-12)

Ray Allen: My Role Model

Just a few words about #20 on the Boston Celtics... Ray Allen has a great work ethic, is tough, fierce, tenacious, loyal, dutiful, gentlemanly, gets to work early, stays late, plays through pain (ankle spurs hurt wicked bad if you didn't already know),  is even-tempered in the midst of triumph or defeat,  seems like a very nice person, doesn't try to grab the spotlight even though the spotlight seeks him out; is indisputably one of the greatest pure shooters of all time and the greatest 3-point shooter of all time (and did I mention that no one comes around a screen like Ray...), is not averse to repeating drills over and over again until he gets it perfect (and they call that OCD?), is a consummate professional; refuses to let his age get in the way of his greatness...Need I say more about this guy?

What Money Can't Buy

Here's another very relevant, thought-provoking book that I hope will get people talking:

"In What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Michael J. Sandel takes on one of the biggest ethical questions of our time: Is there something wrong with a world in which everything is for sale? If so, how can we prevent market values from reaching into spheres of life where they don’t belong? What are the moral limits of markets? In recent decades, market values have crowded out non market norms in almost every aspect of life - medicine, education, government, law, art, sports, even family life and personal relations. Without realizing it, Sandel argues, we have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. Is this where we want to be? In his New York Times bestseller, Justice, Sandel showed himself to be a master at illuminating, with clarity and verve, the hard moral questions we confront in our everyday lives. Now, in What Money Can't Buy, he provokes an essential discussion that we, in our market-driven age, need to have: What is the proper role of market in a democratic society - and how can we protect the moral and civic goods that markets don't honor and that money can't buy?" - from book descriptor on Amazon.com
 

Beauty... a problem?

Why is beauty so problematic these days, here in America, no less, something that, even while working its spell, ends up making us somewhat uncomfortable, dispirited, insecure, resentful? Should it really be such a problem? Weren't we put on this planet in part to take notice of the pulchritude of natural forms - to be inspired by the excellence of shape and line and symmetry? Is it now suddenly tacky to have a genuine response to someone or something that has power to arrest one's senses?  I know what you're thinking. It's not that simple. Certain pesky instincts keep getting in the way. Beauty too easily becomes a commodity, something to be quantified, amassed, consumed.  It's one thing to admire birds or rocks or ocean vistas, and start a collection or whatever, but human beings are not so easily reified and besides that, they induce ambivalent reactions in their fellow creatures - especially those who take them to be their "superiors" in bodily appearance. Thus, beauty has become a ball and chain of sorts; everybody seeks it, but it sure is a difficult mountain to climb and quite a bear to hold onto (if you'll excuse the not-so-beautiful mixed metaphors here). And to make matters worse, everyone is feeling the pressure. So I ask: should the burdens that women have carried for millennia now be placed upon men's shoulders as well - not to mention the new scrutinies being visited upon the young and old alike? I refer here to the manner in which "beautiful people" are, by turns, fretted over, sought after, hooted at, exalted, celebrated or otherwise mocked, ridiculed, dismissed, disparaged or obsessed over in the media or falsely appreciated by plebeian onlookers. Is it the celebration of beauty as such (over ugliness, say, or mediocrity) that in the midst of generating so much attention from all quarters - simultaneously and surreptitiously makes the multitude respond with scorn, even vitriol? Or is it rather the codification of a certain type of beauty, celebrated only as a lure for advertisers or a snare for consumers, to the exclusion of other possibilities, more exotic, more natural, more idiosyncratic, more casual, but no less striking in their appropriate context, beauty that is not stratified or discriminatory in terms of size, age or color? Sure, there's a problem here, but I just hope we don't give into that urge to think of it as an either/or proposition; it's both/and...in other words there's room for a wider panorama. More is more in this case. No need to pretend that we don't notice beauty; that part of human nature isn't going away any time soon...