Obama's First Year: The Economist

I often agree with the analysis and views of the Economist. That's probably because I tend to agree with their general views on the appropriate balance of economic policies and social responsibilities. We share an advocacy of robust open markets intelligently regulated to protect those markets and society from the avaricious side of man's nature, the inclination to rationalize and risk actions that will weaken or destroy those markets, their customers and general economic health in order to advance personal or organizational gain.

We also share a view that it is society's responsibility to provide universal education and health care to it citizens, as well as a reasonable subsistence living for those unable to compete in the marketplace: the aged, infirm and disabled. And yes, this represents the higher sense of social responsibility that an advanced society acknowledges to its citizens--at least in the view of many of us. But it is also justified by the more mercenary and pragmatic concern for strengthening the labor and intellectual capital components of our economy--and ultimately reducing the cost of both. And lastly, we share advocacy for international cooperation on an effective strategy to address climate change, or global warming.

It should surprise no one that The Economist has consistently been open and unbiased about the candidacy, potential and presidency of Barack Obama. They have unerringly supported his views, goals, and policy initiatives that appear wise, needed, or consistent with their own--and they have been unfliching in their criticism of those that are not. But on balance they have been favorably disposed to the potential and goals of the Obama presidency--especially in a time of such economic carnage, polarized domestic political dysfunction, and bruised, sometimes fractured international relations.

Likewise, it should not be surprising that The Economist's assessment of President Obama's first year in office is generous in acknowledging his limited progress and successes, yet direct, scolding, and uncompromising in pointing out his lack of progress and weaknesses. From The Economist:

Barack Obama's first year has been good, but not great—and things are going to get a lot harder

One year on, how well has he done?

Not too badly, by our reckoning (see article). In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush's presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton's first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what's not to like?

--"Time to Get Tough," The Economist (1.1410)

That's the part that addresses progress and successes. Here's the part that, as the article's title suggests, addresses the lack of progress and weaknesses:

[What's not to like?] Only one thing, really; but it is a big one, and it is the reason why most of the achievements listed above must be qualified. Mr Obama has too often remained above the fray, too anxious to be liked, and too ready to do the popular thing now and leave the awkward stuff till later. Far from living up to the bracing rhetoric of his inaugural, he has not been tough enough. In this second year of his presidency, to quote his formerly favourite preacher, his chickens will come home to roost.

It could have been so much better

At home Mr Obama's dangerous diffidence explains why the health bill that now seems likely to pass, while on balance a good thing rather than a bad one, is still a big disappointment. Yes, it makes provision for tens of millions of Americans who lack insurance, and many more who fear being cast into that boat should they lose their jobs. But it is expensive, and it takes only hesitant steps in the crucial direction of cost control. Constantly rising health-care charges threaten the entire federal government with bankruptcy. So it is tragic that the most comprehensive health reform in generations does so little to tackle this problem. Yet that, alas, is exactly what you would expect to happen if a president leaves the details to be written by Democrats in Congress, barely reaches out to the admittedly obstructive Republicans on issues such as tort reform, and remains magisterially aloof from much of the process.

Mr Obama's failure to take on the spend-alls in his own party will cost him politically. His ratings are falling, and in November's mid-term elections he looks likely, at the very least, to lose his supermajority in the Senate. [Of course, Obama lost his supermajority much earlier with the surprising, but now understandable victory of the likeable, politcally appealing Mr. Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat in the special election in Massachusetts. And the healthcare legislation so close to passage is now again very much subject to renegotiation. --GH]

Some critics argue that instead of focusing on health, he should have concentrated on jobs (the unemployment rate is two points higher than the 8% peak he predicted). That seems unfair: health care was the core part of his campaign and something America had to tackle. What has spooked the voters is the sheer cost of the scheme—and the idea that Mr Obama is unable to tackle the deficit.

They are right to be worried. The national debt is set to reach a market-rattling $12 trillion by 2015, more than double what it was when Mr Obama took over. It made sense for the government to pump money into the economy in 2009; but this year Mr Obama must show how he intends to deal with the debt. So far, he has not offered even an outline of how he intends to do so. Because he failed to be harsh with congressional Democrats (whose popularity ratings, incidentally, were a fraction of his), he will now have to do more with Republicans.

Not by carrots alone

His long-drawn-out decision on Afghanistan mirrored that on health care. Yes, by sending more troops, he did more-or-less the right thing eventually. But it seemed as if the number of troops was determined by opinion polls, rather than the mission in hand. And the protracted dithering was damaging to morale. [Of course, another compelling view is that, given the discouraging history of ventures into Afghanistan, and the spare and disputed bases for optimism about ours today, a thorough, public questioning of our direction and strategy in Afghanistan was necessary to assuage the concerns of a skeptical public.--GH]

Mr Obama has been on a goodwill tour of the world, proffering the open hand rather than the fist. Yet he has nothing much to show for it, other than a series of slaps in the face. Israel dismissed his settlement freeze. Going to China with human rights far down the agenda and the Dalai Lama royally snubbed seems to have done Mr Obama no good at all, judging by the fiasco that was the climate-change summit in Copenhagen. Co-operation between the "G2" was supposed to help fulfil Mr Obama's grandiose promise that his presidency would be "the moment when…our planet began to heal". Hitting the reset button on relations with Russia has produced nothing more than a click. Offering engagement with the Iranians was worth a go, but has produced nothing yet. This generosity to America's enemies also sits ill with a more brusque approach to staunch allies, such as Japan (see article), Britain and several east European countries.

Some worry that Mr Obama will always be a community organiser, never a commander-in-chief. In fact he did not get to the White House by merely being nice, but by being bold and often confronting awkward subjects head-on. It is not too late for him to toughen up. Firm talk about the budget in his state-of-the-union message would help. Now that the administration's priority has shifted from engaging Iran to imposing sanctions, Mr Obama may be able to apply the stick and not the carrot. He is due to see the Dalai Lama. He might even, if he can relearn the virtues of bipartisan dealmaking, bully a climate-change bill through Congress. But this will all be a lot more difficult than anything he did in his first year.

No it is not too late. They are correct. One year has passed. One year only. And as was noted, his first year produced more progress, even success, than some earlier presidents. It's just that the challenges have been so important and so many, and the promises...well, so promising. But there is still a lot of road to be traveled over the next three years. And I still find good reasons to believe that the promise and potential of President Obama is quickly coming down the learning curve, and that progress will quicken in many areas, and approaches judged weakness will be reshaped to reflect strength and effectiveness.

This, to some extent, will happen. But the single-minded, defeat-Obama-at-all-costs mission of the Republicans; the undisciplined, self-interested, pork-barrel freelancing of congressional Democrats; and the surpassing ineffectiveness of Democratic congressional leadership is a daunting gauntlet to run to achieve success for any meaningful part of the president's initiatives. So yes, the gloves must come off. It is bare-knuckle time with his own party, the obstructive opposition, and the more dangerous or recalcitrant international players.

And the president apparently must not delegate leadership if the results are to be at all trusted. He will have to carry on his back the full burden of leading in the trenches in every domestic and international venue and on every major issue. But, even the tireless Obama may lack the requisite time and energy to carry off all that. And even if he could, in these most challenging of times, it may not be enough.

www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=15271012

Distaff Dominance: Professional Women's Workplace Moment

Yes, that's what we are told, that's what the evidence now shows. Women are beginning to dominate the workplace at most professisonal levels. But that's not really a surprise, is it? This has been an inevitability in process for decades, hasn't it? From The Economist:

AT A time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world's great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France.

Women's economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children. Today they are running some of the organisations that once treated them as second-class citizens... Societies that try to resist this trend—most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries—will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens.

--"We did it! The rich world's quiet revolution: women are gradually taking over the workplace," The Economist (12.30.09)

But there are and have been some well understood women's issues and challenges that are unique to their workplace experience. Much has improved, much has been accomplished, but those issues and challenges too often remain. The Economist:

Yet even the most positive changes can be incomplete or unsatisfactory. This particular advance comes with two stings. The first is that women are still under-represented at the top of companies. Only 2% of the bosses of America's largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average. The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. Middle-class couples routinely complain that they have too little time for their children. But the biggest losers are poor children—particularly in places like America and Britain that have combined high levels of female participation in the labour force with a reluctance to spend public money on child care....

These two problems are closely related. Many women feel they have to choose between their children and their careers. Women who prosper in high-pressure companies during their 20s drop out in dramatic numbers in their 30s and then find it almost impossible to regain their earlier momentum. Less-skilled women are trapped in poorly paid jobs with hand-to-mouth child-care arrangements. Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: inAmerica, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less. And those mothers' relative poverty also disadvantages their children.

Demand for female brains is helping to alleviate some of these problems....Several trends favour the more educated sex, including the "war for talent" and thegrowing flexibility of the workplace. Law firms, consultancies and banks are rethinking their "up or out" promotion systems because they are losing so many able women. More than 90% of companies in Germany and Sweden allow flexible working. And new technology is making it easier to redesign work in all sorts of family-friendly ways.

The professional ascendency of women has long been a fact of modern life, and cannot be minimized or dismissed. More, the education, talent and performance of women is causing the workplace--employers--to rethink past practices, to adjust, and better accomodate the family and child-rearing demands on women. This trend will likely only continue to the benefit of all concerned. But will more attention now be paid to the resulting professional and social implications for men: research, consulting and training? Or as the article implies, has the professional ascendancy of women been gradual enough, and accepted by men well enough, that the implications for men have been less an issue than some might have expected?

If so, then the last steps in the evolution of women's profession roles--the notable expansion of their presence at the highest levels of professional leadership--will likely proceed without fanfare or notable disruption in the concurrent evolution of gender roles and expectations. So far, so good.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=15174489

The Price of Pills

Is there anything more dispiriting and perplexing than the cost of prescription medications in the United States? Especially if you have no prescription insurance coverage? And we know, of course, that the same presciption drugs can be purchased at much lower prices in Canada--and many travel there to take advantage of the relative bargains. We've also heard it said or reported that many countries offer even lower prices than Canada for the same medications. Some folks take the risk of buying from these places on-line. We also know that the Veterans Administration and many states have negotiated much better rates than those available to average Americans.

This article in The Economist offers a simple example of the range of prices paid for a common prescription antibiotic--ciproflaxin--in various countries around the globe. These are the sober facts:

THE price of a course of ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic used the world over to treat a range of bacterial infections, varies enormously. The cost depends on where the pills are bought, and whether they are sold under a brand name (such as Ciloxan or Cipro) or as a generic version. According to data collected by Health Action International, an NGO, branded pills sell for an average of $101 a course in America, while the generic variant is available for $9.25. In Britain, branded versions cost only about half as much as in America, perhaps reflecting the bargaining power of the country's National Health Service. In India, large drug companies compete to cater to poor consumers, ensuring that even branded ciprofloxacin costs less than $2.50 per course. And Brazilians pay about the same for branded and more for generic ciprofloxacin than even much wealthier Americans. Differences in national health-care systems mean that consumers typically shell out different proportions of the full cost of pills, because many countries subsidise medicine.

--"Drug Money: Who pays the most for branded and generic drugs?" The Economist (1.18.10)

Click on the link to see the schedule of costs for "cipro" in 18 countries. No surprise: the most expensive in the world is the United States at $101, with Britain at $57, Germany $51, Canada $45, France $37, Pakistan $8, India and Nepal at $2. There remain only the questions of why, and why not? But don't hold your breath waiting for satisfying, principled answers.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15320793&fsrc=nwl

Kindness, and some other words

Mary Oliver, in Thirst (2006):

I.
Belief isn't always easy.
But this much I have learned--
if not enough else--
to live with my eyes open.

I know what everyone wants
is a miracle.
This wasn't a miracle.
Unless, of course, kindness--

as now and again
some rare person has suggested--
is a miracle.
As surely it is.

* * *

Hafiz, as rendered by Daniel Ladinsky, in The Gift (1999):

I.

What we speak

Becomes the house we live in...

Think what can happen

When the tongue says to kindness,

"I will be your slave."

* * *

II.
Now, why not consider
a lasting truce between yourself and God.

Now is the time to understand
That all your ideas of right and wrong
Were just training wheels
To be laid aside
When you finally live
With veracity
And love.

* * *

III.
You are
A hole in a flute
That God's breath moves through.
Listen to this music.

Genocide: Never Again?

I've sometimes been loose in my use of the declaration, "Never again." I've used it to underscore our repeated national misjudgments of other cultures and our warring misadventures. But I know the use of those words has been forever conjoined with the inhumanity of genocide since the Holocaust. But it was not my purpose to further dilute its resolve and power, or its association with genocide. I recognize that genocide is the greatest horror of all, clearly. And I recognize that I might, by overuse, be adding to the dilution of the meaning and power of those words. But regrettably, that is unlikely.

You see, it is not as if there are fewer incidents of genocide to be concerned about, as if we have responded consistently and forcefully to stop it wherever it has lifted its shadowed, distorted face. If anything, the declaration, "Never again," is now bereft of power and moral authority primarily because there have been so many occasions to raise the signal call, occasions that have been allowed to run their course or run their course too long. And while the declaration continues, it most often falls impotently on jaded ears, and disipates into a collective sense of resignation.

In all its horror, genocide has continued undeterred since World War II: in the USSR, the killing fields in Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, and too many other places in Africa. So frequent have the incidents of the ultimate inhumanity by man against man become, and so often have they been carried out with impunity, that we have become desensitized, numbed to the horrific accounts of them. Yes, there are international laws making genocide a crime—arguably since 1948, certainly since 1977—but who will enforce them, when and how?

In my more despondent moments, a cynical, resentful view emerges. All the impotent declarations appear more a dark charade of misleading, empty promises and false hopes played out against a cruel and denying reality. They are empty because no assurances are possible; they are false because all reasonable hope has been rendered futile by national and geopolitical realities. And that cruel, denying reality is perpetuated by the exploitive, populist demagoguery of those ultimately bent on the dominating regional power that enables "ethnic cleansing:" hatefully rationalized, unrepentant, ethnic or sectarian mass murder.

And, on the surface, at least, it also appears abided by the self-comforting rationalizations and the non-confrontational dispositions of the world's advanced nations and cultures. We know and express outrage without action, or blinker our eyes to the sinister truth standing boldly at the shadowed periphery of the international community. We all understand how it evolves and works; we've seen it again and again.

But this rant is merely the instinctive flailing of my savaged naivety, the resentment of my flagging hope. Most of the time, my views are more balanced, tempered by the realities and responsibilities of nations in world-wide society, and informed by the more difficult lessons of international relationships and my faith. I have learned that controlling or stopping the principals and agents of genocide is most often a frustratingly, dishearteningly complex matter.

Doubtless, there have been occasions when the world might have more timely, more effectively, limited or stopped the carnage. But more frequent have been the unsatisfying cases where the complexities, barriers to success, and the likely cost in lives lost of intervening forces, dictated caution, going slowly. In those cases, intervention is most often pursued through diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and the use of political or economic sanctions or incentives. Unsatisfying responses, yes, and often with limited effect.

And the underlying analyses are unavoidably cold, clinical critiques of trade-offs, costs and benefits, of national self interest. Inadequate and unresponsive as they may seem to human sensibilities and the humanitarian challenge, these analyses and limited-action approaches may noneltheless be the most responsible choices available. But unsatisfying, yes, and at the very least infused with pain, guilt and a sense of negligence or contributory culpability--sins of omission and the failure to act to defend the innocent.

I've become resigned to the episodic expressions of genocide. Steeped in the details and trade-offs of geopolitical considerations and national realities, passion gives way to practicality. For these horrific challenges seldom admit of resolutions as tidy, honorable and unsullied as our principles and passions. My eyes feel sad, tired when I reflect on the fact that genocide really is part of the human condition, the potential of man—that the ever-present dark side of man is really that dark. And given the continuing depth of ethnic and religious hatred, there will continue to be incidents of genocide in our world. Disheartening as it is likely, genocide may always be with us.

But if we must sometimes concede with resignation that there's just nothing more we can realistically do—however true it may be—we are still painfully and rightly aware that such resignation falls well short of lifting the burden on our individual and collective consciences. And although there are the few, the gifted ones, who are able to see or understand God even in these horrific circumstances, for most everyone else whose lives cross the path of genocide, it seems like hell on earth.

[Condensed and edited from my 2006 essay "Never Again," in my Cassandra's Tears site.]

Wings of Wax

Consider the uneven, often disappointing nature of human authority, leadership, responsibility and accountability. It is based more or less on our strength, intelligence, character and wisdom, our ideas and conceptual constructs, our created institutions. But our best intentions, qualities and ideals--individually and collectively--too often tarnish and disappoint, lights that glow, then dim or fail. And the institutions we have fashioned--both secular and religious--to advance our potential, to encourage our best conduct, have also stumbled or failed. What testament is that to man's nature and potential? Like Icarus, we would fly closer to the sun, but consumed by our virtuosity and vanity, we forget we have but waxen wings to carry us there.

Alas, we are flawed people and flawed organizations of people. We are too taken with our virtuosity, and express to easily, often too naturally, our vanity. We too often fail our ideas and ideals. And even if the best of our institutions, by acclamation, are "better than whatever is in second place," they are not nearly good enough.

Loneliness Can Be Contagious: A New Study

Individuals and society are now more transparent, more honest about problems of loneliness. It is a problem in itself, but is often associated with depression and anxiety, as well. And it's not just the elderly, or those many others who for various reasons live alone. It's more complicated than that. People can feel alone or lonely even when physically, regularly around other people. Part of it reflects the level of connectedness, affirmation, and the substance or expectations of relationships. Part of it--or the results of it--may be related to the personality and temperament of the individual. But I had not heard of the phenomenon of contagious loneliness. Now comes a study confirming that just such a phenomenon exists. From msnbc.com:

We're used to hearing about people spreading colds and flu. But according to a new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, there's another human condition that's equally contagious: loneliness. "Loneliness spreads across time," says John Cacioppo, a neuroscientist and psychologist at the University of Chicago and one of the authors of the study. "It travels through people. Instead of a germ, it's transmitted through our behaviors."

The longitudinal study, conducted by the University of Chicago, the University of California-San Diego and Harvard, interviewed more than 5,000 people over the course of 10 years, tracking their friendship histories and their reports of loneliness...In the study, researchers found that lonely individuals tend to move to the fringes of social networks (and, no, we're not talking about Facebook or Twitter here), where they have fewer and fewer friends. But before they move to the periphery, they "infect" or "transmit" their feelings of loneliness to their remaining friends. With fewer close relationships, these friends then become lonely and eventually move to the fringes of the social network, again passing their loneliness on to others. Thus, the cycle continues.

--"Loneliness can be contageous," by Diane Mapes, msnbc.com (12.1.09)

The article then broadens the scope of it's topic by exploring the source, nature and results of loneliness. From Professor Cacioppo:

"When people get lonely, they're more likely to interact negatively with others they encounter," says Cacioppo. Ironically, loneliness can not only make you feel more socially isolated, it can make you more anxious, more shy and cause you to believe you have poor social skills. Cacioppo says previous research also shows that loneliness can make people less trustful of others and can make the brain more "defensive." "Your brain tells you people are rejecting you," he says. "Loneliness may warp the message that you're hearing." While loneliness can be "contagious," Cacioppo says it's important to note it's not a disease, nor is it a personal weakness. It's actually a biological reaction, much like hunger or thirst or pain.

"Society tends to think of it as an individual characteristic — there are just loners," he says. "But that's the wrong conception of what loneliness is. It's a biological signal motivating us to correct something that we need for genetic survival. We need quality relationships. We don't survive well on our own." Studies, in fact, show loneliness can actually be harmful to both mental and physical health, leading to depression, high blood pressure, increases in the stress hormone cortisol, and compromised immunity. Unfortunately, quality friendships can sometimes be difficult to find or maintain in our busy, BlackBerried society.

But if individuals are not predisposed to loneliness, other research makes clear that some are genetically predisposed to depression, anxiety, high blood pressure and other problems also brought on or exacerbated by loneliness. For those so predisposed, loneliness is clearly a more threatening circumstance.

And to complete its treatment of the general topic, the msnbc.com article also explores professional advice on some ways to deal with loneliness. From the article:

Stephanie Smith, a clinical psychologist with a private practice in Erie, Co., says she tries to encourage her lonely patients — which can range from college students to stay-at-home moms to high-powered CEOs — to find at least one friend in their same situation. But you don't have to have a slew of BFFs. "Sometimes people get overwhelmed and think 'I need to have 15 best friends,'" she says. "But it doesn't need to be that big. One friend, one relationship, can be very powerful."

Facebook and Twitter are no substitute for the real thing, though. "If you're isolated due to a disability or a spouse with Alzheimer's, then Facebook can be a real boon," says Cacioppo. "But if you're spending your time on Facebook rather than face-to-face with friends, it increases your loneliness. It's about quality. Lonely people use social networks as a substitute; non-lonely people use them to synergize the relationships they already have."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34209727/ns/health-behavior/

Beyond Critical Thinking: Distortions of Academe?

From The Chronicle Review:

The antivocational dimension of the humanities has been a source of pride and embarrassment for generations. The persistence of this reputed uselessness is puzzling given the fact that an education in the humanities allows one to develop skills in reading, writing, reflection, and interpretation that are highly prized in our economy and culture. Sure, specific training in a discrete set of skills might prepare you for Day 1 of the worst job you'll ever have (your first), but the humanities teach elements of mind and heart that you will draw upon for decades of innovative and focused work. But we do teach a set of skills, or an attitude, in the humanities that may have more to do with our antipractical reputation than the antivocational notion of freedom embedded in the liberal arts. This is the set of skills that usually goes under the rubric of critical thinking.

--"Beyond Critical Thinking," by Michael S. Roth, President, Wesleyan University, The Chronicle Review (1.07.10)

There are many like me who feel just that way about the value of a liberal arts education, regardless of professional training or vocational pursuits. We are lawyers, CPAs, executives, educators, and a range of other professionals; we are entrepreneurs, small business owners, researchers, politicians, and people in a range of government and public service roles. We recognize the importance and advantage a liberal arts education provides--or should provide. Essential is the ability to read with understanding, to formulate good questions and responsive, helpful answers, and effectively apply what is learned to new situations. Equally important is the ability to write concisely with clarity, while conveying effectively and fully the desired information and understandings. These are qualities that distinguish the effectiveness and relative success of all professionals, regardless of vocation.

But that singular quality nurtured in a liberal arts education, and the sine qua non of the most valued professionals and leaders, has to be "critical thinking." And we all think we know what that means. First, for me, it means fully examining and understanding a body of knowledge, a theory, approach or proposal, then open-mindedly questioning and testing the facts and assumptions, the methodologies, deductions and conclusions. And last, it means establishing the implications, taking what is most defensible and useful from it, and identifying the best, most useful applications for it. The notion and practice of "critical thinking" has been often used, but sometimes abused. Now we are told that the concept has been abused and distorted in academic cultures to the point of making constructive, positive contributions difficult, or at least unlikely. I thought you might want to hear and know more about it. From the Chronicle Review:

[In academia today,] a common way to show that one has sharpened one's critical thinking is to display an ability to see through or undermine statements made by (or beliefs held by) others. Thus, our best students are really good at one aspect of critical thinking­—being critical. For many students today, being smart means being critical... [T]hese are marks of sophistication, signs of one's ability to participate fully in the academic tribe. But this participation, being entirely negative, is not only seriously unsatisfying; it is ultimately counterproductive. 

The skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of self-satisfied debunkers or, to use a currently fashionable word on campuses, people who like to "trouble" ideas. In overdeveloping the capacity to show how texts, institutions, or people fail to accomplish what they set out to do, we may be depriving students of the capacity to learn as much as possible from what they study.  

In a humanities culture in which being smart often means being a critical unmasker, our students may become too good at showing how things don't make sense. That very skill may diminish their capacity to find or create meaning and direction in the books they read and the world in which they live...Perhaps that's why we teach our students that it's cool to say that they are engaged in "troubling" an assumption or a belief. To declare that one wanted to disprove a view would show too much faith in the ability to tell truth from falsehood. And to declare that one was receptive to learning from someone else's view would show too much openness to being persuaded by an idea that might soon be deconstructed (or simply mocked)...

I should not have been surprised by this view and analysis--presented by a university president and esteemed intellectual historian, no less. For a couple decades, I have been reading of the direction of academic criticism--philosophical criticism, literary criticism, cultural criticism--all of which have moved increasingly toward the "deconstruction" of ideas and values to the point of rendering all not just relative, but often meaningless. I have tried to stay connected and current with these trends, and I suppose most everyone has read or heard something of them in newspaper editorials and periodicals, or in television reporting or commentary. It's been out there.

And yet, I was surprised. I viewed--or preferred to view--these academic, intellectual exercises as phenomena unique and contained in academia. That's part of what they do. And I preferred to think that any better thinking on approaches to inquiry and evaluation that emerged would find its way to respect both within and without the academy. But I also trusted--expected, at least--that unconstructive practices, irresponsible or unaccountable thinking, or the evasion of intellectual integrity would be summarily relegated to the intellectual scrap heap. That is an academic and intellectual obligation owed to society and to self.

But upon reflection, I began to consider the many ways this unaccountable, unproductive brand of academic "critical thinking" has insinuated itself into cultural and political life outside the academy. And we are not better off for it. So, if this misdirection of responsible inquiry and analysis started in the colleges of arts and sciences--and especially the humanities--shouldn't they be responsible for offering a corrective, a constructive adjustment in the future teaching of "critical thinking?" Obviously, President Ross thinks so and offers these additional views:

The confident refusal to be affected by those with whom we disagree seems to have infected much of our cultural life: from politics to the press, from siloed academic programs (no matter how multidisciplinary) to warring public intellectuals. As humanities teachers, however, we must find ways for our students to open themselves to the emotional and cognitive power of history and literature that might initially rub them the wrong way, or just seem foreign. Critical thinking is sterile without the capacity for empathy and comprehension that stretches the self. 

One of the crucial tasks of the humanities should be to help students cultivate the willingness and ability to learn from material they might otherwise reject or ignore. This material will often surprise students and sometimes upset them. Students seem to have learned that teaching-evaluation committees take seriously the criticism that "the professor, or the material, made me uncomfortable." This complaint is so toxic because being made uncomfortable may be a necessary component of an education in the humanities. Creating a humanistic culture that values the desire to learn from unexpected and uncomfortable sources as much as it values the critical faculties would be an important contribution to our academic and civic life. 

If we humanities professors saw ourselves more often as explorers of the normative than as critics of normativity, we would have a better chance to reconnect our intellectual work to broader currents in public culture. This does not have to mean an acceptance of the status quo, but it does mean an effort to understand the practices of cultures (including our own) from the point of view of those participating in them.

http://chronicle.com/article/Beyond-Critical-Thinking/63288/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

Nuclear is Part of Climate Change Solution, Even Greensters Say So

There has long been an unhappy relationship, a profoundly distrustful and adversarial relationship, between environmental advocacy groups and advocates of nuclear energy. Places, events, with names like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have been as much the fear-mongering rallying cries of environmentalists as failures in the implementation or management of nuclear energy technology. But that was before climate change, or global warming, if you will. And, as this Washington Post article makes clear, as the climate and times are changing, so are the views of many environmentalists.

LONDON -- Nuclear power -- long considered environmentally hazardous -- is emerging as perhaps the world's most unlikely weapon against climate change, with the backing of even some green activists who once campaigned against it.

It has been 13 years since the last new nuclear power plant opened in the United States. But around the world, nations under pressure to reduce the production of climate-warming gases are turning to low-emission nuclear energy as never before. The Obama administration and leading Democrats, in an effort to win greater support for climate change legislation, are eyeing federal tax incentives and loan guarantees to fund a new crop of nuclear power plants across the United States that could eventually help drive down carbon emissions.

From China to Brazil, 53 plants are now under construction worldwide, with Poland, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia seeking to build their first reactors, according to global watchdog groups and industry associations. The number of plants being built is double the total of just five years ago.

Rather than deride the emphasis on nuclear power, some environmentalists are embracing it. Stephen Tindale typifies the shift. When a brigade of Greenpeace activists stormed a nuclear power plant on the shores of the North Sea a few years ago, scrawling "danger" on its reactor, Tindale was their commander... "It really is a question about the greater evil -- nuclear waste or climate change," Tindale said. "But there is no contest anymore. Climate change is the bigger threat, and nuclear is part of the answer."

--"Nuclear Power Regains Support," by By Anthony Faiola, Washington Post (11.24.09)

Still, there are significant issues to address and problems to overcome. Nuclear proliferation remains a troubling issue, of course, but observers are now paying as much attention to the increasing cost of constructing nuclear power plants. The WP:

Some leading environmental figures, including former vice president Al Gore, remain skeptical of nuclear's promise, largely because of the high cost of building plants and the threat of proliferation, illustrated by Iran's recent attempts to blur the lines between energy production and a weapons program..."I'm assuming the waste and safety problems get resolved, but cost and proliferation still loom as very serious problems" with nuclear energy, Gore told The Washington Post's editorial board this month. "I am not anti-nuclear, but the costs of the present generation of reactors is nearly prohibitive."

...

Two next-generation plants under construction in Finland and France are billions of dollars over budget and seriously behind schedule, raising longer-term questions about the feasibility of new plants without major government support. Costs may be so high that energy companies find financing hard to secure even with government backing.

But there are technological upsides:

[E]xperts also point to a host of improvements in nuclear technology since the Chernobyl accident and the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. Most notable is an 80 percent drop in industrial accidents at the world's 436 nuclear plants since the late 1980s, according to the World Association of Nuclear Operators.

And regardless of the positives and negatives, long-time nuclear energy opponents are now listening with open minds to proposals that offer a role for nuclear energy as part of a larger mosaic of energy solutions. Some old issues, as we have noted, have not disappeared or been solved, but there is more confidence that they can be managed, if not solved--if cost and proliferation can be reasonably, workably contained. The WP:

So far at least, the start of what many are calling "a new nuclear age" is unfolding with only muted opposition -- nothing like the protests and plant invasions that helped define the green movement in the United States and Europe during the 1960s and 1970s. As opposition recedes, even nations that had long vowed never to build another nuclear plant -- such as Sweden, Belgium and Italy --have recently done an about-face as they see the benefits of a nearly zero-emission energy overriding the dangers of radioactive waste disposal and nuclear proliferation.

In the United States, leading environmental groups have backed climate change bills moving through Congress that envision new American nuclear plants. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House, for instance, shows nuclear energy generation more than doubling in the United States by 2050 if the legislation is made law. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing applications for 22 new nuclear plants from coast to coast.

To be sure, many green groups remain opposed to nuclear energy, and some, such as Greenpeace, have refused to back U.S. climate change legislation. Groups that support the bills, such as the Sierra Club, say they are doing so because the legislation would also usher in the increased use of renewable energies like wind and solar as well as billions of dollars in investment for new technologies. They do not say they think nuclear energy is the solution in and of itself.

"Our base is as opposed to nuclear as ever," said David Hamilton, director of the Global Warming and Energy Program for the Sierra Club in Washington. "You have to recognize that nuclear is only one small part of this."

But Steve Cochran, director of the National Climate Campaign at the Environmental Defense Fund -- a group that opposed new nuclear plants in the United States as recently as 2005 -- also described a new and evolving "pragmatic" approach coming from environmental camps. "I guess you could call it 'grudging acceptance,' " he said. "If we are really serious about dealing with climate change, we are going to have to be willing to look at a range of options and not just rule things off the table," he said. "We may not like it, but that's the way it is."

Pragmatism more broadly embraced is a welcome sign. So is broader acceptance--even "grudging acceptance"--of more complicated realities and practical, collaborative approaches. These are the conditions that usher in more comprehensive solutions--solutions more competently and wisely examined, more unselfishly and apolitically supported and implemented. These are the necessary signs and conditions for success in solving big problems. And climate change is a big problem to solve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303966.html

Cold--Even in Paradise

It's really cold--at least for southern Florida. It was 40 when I awoke this morning. The high for the next few days will be 60. Unusual weather. Of course, it's the exceptionally frigid storms that pushed across from Northwest to Northeast that have delivered these cold, blustery conditions to Naples. Last week it even rained a lot. Yes, I understand that those enduring the bitter conditions to the North sniff dismissively at my complaint. For even if vacationers here to escape those harsher conditions have been disappointed, they readily concede that it is better to be here than there.

Excerpts from a Sufi Poem, a Psalm, a Gospel

Brave in That Holy War*

You have done well
In the contest of madness.
You were brave in that holy war.
You have all the honorable wounds

Of one who has tried to find love
Where the Beautiful Bird

Does not drink.

...
Wayfarer,

Why not rest your tired body?

Lean back and close your eyes.
Come morning

God will kneel beside you and feed you.

He will so gently

Let you taste something of

The sacred mind and life.
O, surely there is something wrong

With your ideas of

God

If you think

Our Beloved would not be so
Tender.

Psalm 90
Lord, you have been our dwelling place

in all generations.

Before the mountains were born,

Or You gave birth to

the Earth and the world,

Even from everlasting to everlasting,

You are God.

...
As for the days of our lives,

they contain seventy years,

Or if due to strength, eighty years,

Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;

For soon it is gone and we fly away.
So teach us to number our days,

That we may [gain and ] present to you

a heart of wisdom.

...
And let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us...
 
Matthew 11:28-35

Come to me

all who are weary and heavy laden,

and I will give you rest.
Take My yoke upon you

and learn from Me,

for I am gentle and humble in heart.

And you shall find rest for your soul,

for My yoke is easy and My load is light.

* from The Gift, Poems by Hafiz, as rendered by Daniel Ladinsky (1999)

Christians & the Poor, Sick and Unable

Why is it that so many Christians fail to understand their relationship and obligation to the poor, sick and unable? And what of those who indulge the notion that opposing government social programs and paying taxes—especially taxes that finance programs to help the poor, sick and unable—is somehow consistent with the teaching of Jesus on living the Christian life, when it is more likely just rationalized selfishness. I do understand, in part, for there was a time when I lived half in and half out of that faith-life contradiction. But it has been clear to me for a long time that there is no reconciling those views with the Biblical example, teaching and life of Jesus--nor with the Jesus that abides in us.

[Posted also to Facebook]