"When I get new evidence I change my mind. What do you do?" John Maynard Keynes
- Teaching Cartoons: On Context
- Paolo Freire – Last Interview
- Complex World
- Visual Experiment: Real Voodoo #1
- Kamelmauz Update
- The Ark
- Strip Teases
- Thinking About Libraries
- Awesome Photos from the Library of Congress on Flickr
- Stephen Brookfield & the Incremental Rhythm of Learning
- Another Ladybug Moment
- Teaching Cartoon: Living At Home
- Context in Two Shakes
- Just Go For It
Tagsa-ha! adult learning analytic psychology anthropology art biology charlatanry civic intelligence cognitive psychology consciousness critical culture critical thinking culture current events economics education experiential learning Freeplay Softball fun as a value humor irrationality management music my casual art new paradigms organizational development phenomenology philosophy poetry politics pseudo-science psychology quotes religion resources science social psychology speculations sports sufism teaching cartoons teaching story transformative learning urbanology web media
- "It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious." - Alfred North Whitehead
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
- If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite variety in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection. [Charles Darwin (1859) On the Origin of Species]
- “It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” James Madison
- All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. -Benjamin Franklin
Thinking Outside the Agora
- It's what all the cyborgs are wearing this season March 8, 2014All the cyberkiddies are wearing 3D-printed 18th century military styles this season. They sew LEDs into strips of soft spikes, turn them into epaulets, and power them with their nuke batteries. Read more... […]
- National Geographic recently sat down with McKenzie Funk – author of the new book Windfall: The Boom March 8, 2014National Geographic recently sat down with McKenzie Funk – author of the new book Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming – to learn about how businesses hope to make money from climate change. "Basically," says Funk, "the more north you are, the more likely some of the effects are going to be positive." Read the full interview h […]
- What kind of kaiju would attack Paris? How about a giant pigeon? March 8, 2014A quiet Paris day is interrupted by the sudden appearance of a massive feather that floats down into the streets. But that's just the herald of a greater threat: an enormous pigeon strong enough to topple the city's most famous landmarks.Read more... […]
- It takes 13 minutes to explain everything wrong with Indiana Jones 4 March 8, 2014Hell, I'm surprised that CinemaSins managed to get their assessment of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in under 20. I figured they'd need to spend at least six minutes on Shia LeBoeuf turning into the King of the Monkeys alone.Read more... […]
- Texans get set to kill thousands of rattlesnakes in annual festival March 8, 2014Thousands of snakes will be killed in the 56th Rattlesnake RoundUp this coming weekend in Sweetwater, Texas. It's a barbaric and environmentally reckless festival that's also startlingly reminiscent of a classic Simpson's episode.Read more... […]
- It's what all the cyborgs are wearing this season March 8, 2014
- George Crowdsourcington: Distributing Large Scale 3D Print Jobs March 8, 2014
- Federal Court Rules in Favor of Civilian Drone Use March 8, 2014
- Makers Wanted March 7, 2014
- Baby Gwar or Brony-Punk? Fabulous Flexible Cyberpunk Spikes March 7, 2014
- Calling all Spies, Sneaks, and Secret Agents March 7, 2014
Tag Archives: David Brooks
The milquetoast, kinder-and-gentler conservative NYT editorialist David Brooks delivered another brightly burning ideational bulb today. Man, I wish he had had the time to show it to the missus first!
It is all downhill after this tipping point, reached in the piece’s fourth sentence:
Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.The Populist Addiction – NYT – 1/26:2010
Brooks wants to bracket his main point with, as it turns out, a nonsensical treatment of populism. He’s made this main point previously in a review Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton. This review, titled Creating Capitalism, was published in April 2004 in the NYT.
From the review,
But Hamilton dreamed of a vibrant economy that would allow aspiring meritocrats like himself to rise and realize their full capacities. He sought to smash the aristocratic fiefs enjoyed by Southern landowners like Jefferson and to replace them with a diversified marketplace that would be open to immigrants and the lowborn. Their vigor, he felt, would drive the nation to greatness. ”Every new scene, which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is the addition of a new energy to the general stock of effort,” he wrote.
He started a political tradition, dormant in our own day, in which energetic government doesn’t oppose market dynamism but is organized to enhance it. Today our liberal/conservative debates tend to pit the advocates of government against the advocates of the market. Today our politics is dominated by rival strands of populism: the anticorporate populism of the Democrats and the anti-Washington populism of the Republicans. But Hamilton thought in entirely different categories. He argued that ”liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power.” He wanted a limited but energetic government that would open fields of enterprise and give new directions to popular passions.
His editorial is a recycle job.
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.
And what was the status and stature of the industrial revolution in the first decade of the 19th century in the U.S.? (Hamilton died in 1804.) What, at the time, was the normal range of ambitions for the average man? ‘open field’ indeed!
Then, having raced downhill, Brooks writes one of the most astonishing sentences of his career:
If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth.
I’m going to offer an opposing idea: people are certain about the current state of the economy. Many people are certain about who got bent over and who did the bending too.
Ironically, Brooks offers implicit advice, advice perhaps dear to the capitalist’s heart. Last implied by Phil Graham, remember?
Yup, suck it up you whiners–you’re the real problem. ‘Just let us make some more dough now that we’ve managed to eke out a bit more productivity from our lucky surviving workforce.’ After all, Al Hamilton says so, and, let’s face it, we’re really a country about the faction-less dynamism of marching capital.