~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
The Economist piece makes a lot of the arguments I, and others, have, and is well worth reading. So too does the OpinionJournal piece, which closes with this recommendation:
One alternative that might work is to scrap the Security Council in favor of some larger caucus of democratic nations. No member would have a veto and the body would not presume to be the voice of "international law." Having the U.N. finally distinguish between representative and non-representative governments would itself be an enormous force for peace and security, since many countries might race to qualify for the club and democracies rarely act aggressively.
I donno who to put. Maybe Kofi Annan, for overseeing the biggest scandal in world history (in monetary terms). But that took him more than one year - and lots of us knew it was going on when it was - it's just now that it's starting to get the attention it deserves.
I guess I'll have to ponder on this one. I don't want to make the "obvious" choice - but, then, a "person of the year" is usually always obvious, not obscure, and attempts to reach for some "unusual" or "unique" choice are invariably strained.
A little over a year ago I wrote a piece FOR Sincere Liberalism. Now Peter Beinart has a a TNR piece arguing in favor of a Trumanesque Liberalism.
It's a very candid piece, coming to the same conclusion I do - that modern Liberalism is being pulled to where it is by its radicalized activist base, that their base's attitude is the problem. But it's harder to change that than it would be to simply change leadership. But it's a change that must be done, and I recommend you read Beinart's article if you haven't already.
Weap the Tears of Regret into the Pillow of Remourse
for the last Booknotes has aired featuring Mark Edmundson and his book Why Read?. A very interesting and likable man from the opposite side of the political aisle from me. It ended in a way that forces a political observation. This is a man who had many insightful things to say, but his view on what drove conservatives and conservative rhetoric was the usual caracature. Then at the end Brian Lamb showed a clip of Milton Friedman commenting on Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and Edmundson said he'd have to write that down, he had never heard of it! A book I, by the way, happen to own.
Edmundson said during the interview that academe could use more openness to conservatives, be more welcoming of conservatives who might be inclined to teach but see it as closed to them. His response to Lamb's final question on the final Booknotes illustrates why. Even such an obviously widely-read and legitimately open-minded person, tolerant and inviting of other viewpoints, as Edmundson came across as to me, is not very exposed to "the other side's" viewpoint. It could, in my opinion, be accurately said he is oblivious and ignorant of it - it's hard to comment intelligently on the mindset and perspective of English-speaking (Anglosphere) conservatives having never heard of, much less read, Hayek.
It's an often observed blindspot among the Liberal-Left, as opposed to the conservative Right which tends to be more exposed to the works of "the other side" (while disagreeing with them). It would like having me scratching my head and wondering what this "Port Huron Statement" Edmundson mentioned was, but I've not only heard of it, read it, am aware of who wrote it (SDS, in particular one Tom Hayden), and the movement(s) that sprung from it as well as the intellectual currents from which it grew.
To get back to my regret, though, it is that this is the last Booknotes. Such a simple questions producing such illuminating responses - not just this last question, but throughout the interview (as I said, Edmundson was very likable and bright, but had this one Achilles Heel I would say). Brian Lamb doesn't use pointed questioning such as is so common today, but a certain style that is unavailable anywhere else.
I'm really going to miss Booknotes. For 15 years, whenever I watched it I always learned something, and fairly often discovered books I wanted to go read - if not that of the featured author, then something mentioned during the program. But as I said, even if I didn't react by running out and picking up a book, I always learned more in that hour than in just about any other hour of my life.
There's still BookTV, which is good, but just not quite the same. I can only speak for myself, but I'm going to miss Booknotes.
The New York Son asks why our "Best Ex-President", the heroic James Earl Carter, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, "Mr. Democracy", is not among those supporting democracy in Ukraine. Of course, they welcome his absence from the scene, but it does raise the question of why he's not involved.
The uncharitable might conclude it's because there is no obvious way for him to condemn or disparage the U.S. in doing so, or disparage our foreign policy, so it holds no interest for him. But there must be some reason why he's been delayed. I'm sure he'll weigh in soon, right?
