Posted by A.C. Douglas on 07 December 2011 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 03 September 2011 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 26 August 2011 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 23 August 2011 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 12 July 2011 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 05 July 2011 | Permalink
On a much-too-regular basis, the disease serves me up with a teasing special of the day, or a flavor of the month. It might be random sores and ulcers, on the tongue or in the mouth. Or why not a touch of peripheral neuropathy, involving numb and chilly feet? [...] On the less good days, I feel like that wooden-legged piglet belonging to a sadistically sentimental family that could bear to eat him only a chunk at a time. Except that cancer isn’t so...considerate. Most despond-inducing and alarming of all, so far, was the moment when my voice suddenly rose to a childish (or perhaps piglet-like) piping squeak. It then began to register all over the place, from a gruff and husky whisper to a papery, plaintive bleat. And at times it threatened, and now threatens daily, to disappear altogether. I had just returned from giving a couple of speeches in California, where with the help of morphine and adrenaline I could still successfully “project” my utterances, when I made an attempt to hail a taxi outside my home — and nothing happened. I stood, frozen, like a silly cat that had abruptly lost its meow.Again thoroughly irrationally, and this time almost embarrassingly, we were thunderstruck and could not keep from hearing, over and over again in our innermost ear, the musical excerpt we quoted in our last entry;viz., We can think of nothing consoling to say at this point, either to Mr. Hitchens or to ourself. Would that we believed God and miracles possible.
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 10 May 2011 | Permalink
Climbing a tree [or running, I would add] makes sense to me only if behind you there are Nazis. —Fran Lebowitz (quoted in The New York Times)
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 22 November 2010 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 04 July 2010 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 01 July 2010 | Permalink
The bottom line is that the iPad has been designed and built by a bunch of perfectionists. If you like the concept, you’ll love the machine. The only question is: Do you like the concept?To which our response is: What concept? From what we can see, the iPad is nothing more or other than a monster-sized iPhone display on which one can select and run "apps" just like on the iPhone. The notion that the iPad could in any way act as a stand-in for or even replace a full-featured laptop computer is simply prima facie absurd. The iPad has, of course, all that sexy touchscreen stuff going for it, but, for us, far from being sexy, touchscreens are a huge turnoff. We hate touchscreens. They seem to us almost perverse. We, for instance, could have had the display of our new Dell laptop be a fully functioning touchscreen and didn't even consider the option, inexpensive though it is. The last thing one should do with a computer display is touch it with one's fingertips (or anything else, for that matter). The proper function of a computer display is to do one thing and one thing only: display text and images with the utmost in detail, accuracy, and clarity. Period. Full stop. For us, the thought of touching a computer display with one's fingertips is as repugnant a thought as, say, the thought of a surgeon operating on a patient without first donning sterile surgical gloves. So, what's the point of an iPad? No point at all that we can discern other than to be a slick new toy for those with too much disposable income on hand (the entry price of the bloody thing is on the order of some $500, for which money one could buy a fairly decent, full-function Windows laptop), or for those who are Apple devotees or cultists (which latter abound for reasons which elude us entirely). Will the iPad turn out to be a commercial success? If one subscribes, as we do, to Mencken's (in)famous, barbed, but spot-on dictum that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public, and broaden its reach to publics beyond America, it almost surely will. Score another victory for the aesthetic brilliance of Apple's designers, the genius of mass marketing, and the
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 04 April 2010 | Permalink
Met up with an old friend of yours. You might want to stop by and say hello.I clicked on the URL provided, and was greeted by the sight of these images. Fuzzy and amateurish though they are, their subject is unmistakable. There she was, #48, looking just as gorgeous as when I last saw her, and now up for sale through the aegis of Australian harpsichord maker and dealer Carey Beebe for a mere $20,000 AUD ($17,630 USD). Oh!, that I now had available the money and the room!
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 22 December 2009 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 20 October 2009 | Permalink
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 15 October 2009 | Permalink
We've several times made known here on S&F the fact that we're an economics moron and, further, couldn't care less about this "science" and our ignorance of its principles.
That notwithstanding, we every once in a long while come across an article about the field that's so inherently interesting we can't help but want to share it with our readers. This article written for The Boston Globe by history professor and author Stephen Mihm is just such an article. Writes Dr. Mihm:
Since the global financial system started unraveling in dramatic fashion two years ago, distinguished economists have suffered a crisis of their own. Ivy League professors who had trumpeted the dawn of a new era of stability have scrambled to explain how, exactly, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression had ambushed their entire profession.Amid the hand-wringing and the self-flagellation, a few more cerebral commentators started to speak about the arrival of a “Minsky moment,” and a growing number of insiders began to warn of a coming “Minsky meltdown.”
“Minsky” was shorthand for Hyman Minsky, a hitherto obscure macroeconomist who died over a decade ago. Many economists had never heard of him when the crisis struck, and he remains a shadowy figure in the profession. But lately he has begun emerging as perhaps the most prescient big-picture thinker about what, exactly, we are going through. A contrarian amid the conformity of postwar America, an expert in the then-unfashionable subfields of finance and crisis, Minsky was one economist who saw what was coming. He predicted, decades ago, almost exactly the kind of meltdown that recently hammered the global economy.
[...]
Modern finance, he argued, was far from the stabilizing force that mainstream economics portrayed: rather, it was a system that created the illusion of stability while simultaneously creating the conditions for an inevitable and dramatic collapse.
In other words, the one person who foresaw the crisis also believed that our whole financial system contains the seeds of its own destruction. “Instability,” he wrote, “is an inherent and inescapable flaw of capitalism.”
[...]
[Unlike the simplistic lessons drawn by most economists of the time,] Minsky drew his own, far darker, lessons from [economist John Maynard] Keynes’s landmark writings, which dealt not only with the problem of unemployment, but with money and banking. Although Keynes had never stated this explicitly, Minsky argued that Keynes’s collective work amounted to a powerful argument that capitalism was by its very nature unstable and prone to collapse. Far from trending toward some magical state of equilibrium, capitalism would inevitably do the opposite. It would lurch over a cliff.
[...]
Minsky called his idea the “Financial Instability Hypothesis.” In the wake of a depression, he noted, financial institutions are extraordinarily conservative, as are businesses. With the borrowers and the lenders who fuel the economy all steering clear of high-risk deals, things go smoothly: loans are almost always paid on time, businesses generally succeed, and everyone does well. That success, however, inevitably encourages borrowers and lenders to take on more risk in the reasonable hope of making more money. As Minsky observed, “Success breeds a disregard of the possibility of failure.”
RTWT here.
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 14 September 2009 | Permalink
[Note: This post has been updated (1) as of 1:21 AM Eastern on 14 Aug. See below.]
It will come as no revelation to anyone to say that the problem of the affordability of quality health care for citizens of this country is a problem urgently in need of a viable solution. President Obama's vow to pass legislation this year that will be at very least a strong beginning of the implementation of such a viable solution is laudable, but to our way of thinking is off on the wrong track in conceptual principle, and that does not bode well for its operative success even were it enacted into law just as Mr. Obama envisioned it.
Why off on the wrong track in conceptual principle? In short, because it focuses on and is primarily concerned with making health insurance affordable for all U.S. citizens, and that means centrally involving private sector insurance companies, all of which are for-profit businesses. When the matter is health care, that's a concept that's fundamentally perverse, even lunatic. No one in his right mind, if he could possibly avoid it, would willingly put into the hands of businesses and businessmen the securing of his access to those persons and institutions on which depend his physical and mental wellbeing. Businesses and businessmen in the insurance industry are concerned not one whit with your physical and mental wellbeing beyond their actuarial implications. That's not why they're in business. Like all businesses and businessmen, insurance companies are in business for one reason and one reason alone: to make a profit. Whatever increases profit is therefore ipso facto to be desired; whatever decreases it, ipso facto to be avoided. Whenever an insurance company pays out a benefit, it decreases its profit. Whenever it denies a benefit, its profit is increased. One need not be an Einstein to understand and appreciate how that calculus translates when applied to the health care of the insured.
No, we've no magic-bullet solution to the at-critical-mass quality health care affordability problem in this country. All we can say, and say with absolute certainty, is that the involvement of private sector insurance companies in any capacity whatsoever is a central part of the problem, and no part of the solution.
Mini-rant over.
As you were.
Update (1:21 AM Eastern on 14 Aug): For a more temperate and hugely more well-reasoned piece on the issue of health care in this country, see the article, "How American Health Care Killed My Father", online in this month's Atlantic. By recommending this piece, we don't mean to suggest we agree with all the author's points. It's rather that even those points with which we disagree are so well researched and thought through that one simply can't dismiss them out of hand.
A thoroughly worthwhile read.
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 11 August 2009 | Permalink
We Americans have special reason to be proud this July 4th as we, by democratic process, have elected as our president a genuine modern-day philosopher who, in the words of Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle Review and literary critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer, has shown himself to be our "philosopher in chief" as well as our chief executive.
The first part of Obama's Cairo teach-in combined the best of rhetoric and philosophy. In the shrewd tradition of Isocrates and Aristotle, the president softened up his audience in Cairo University's ornate auditorium by quoting the Koran and dispensing rich praise. He related how Islamic culture had given us "the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed."[...]
[H]e imparted rules for philosophical discourse: "We must say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground." At its core, his teaching was ethical and political, using the intellectual tools of logic to illuminate hypocrisy and contradiction: "None of us should tolerate these extremists," he said. "They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the right of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind."
Without weighing the pros and cons of American egalitarianism, Obama simply affirmed that "a woman who is denied an education is denied equality." Countering Machiavelli without mentioning Madison, he spoke straight to the prince: "You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party." Weaving the ethical, political, and pragmatic together, Obama told Palestinians that if they forswear violence and take the high road, à la Gandhi and King, they will get their state.
RTWT here.
(Our thanks to the always indispensable Arts & Letters Daily for the link.)
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 04 July 2009 | Permalink
Here's an irreverent — and hilarious — mini-drama the subject of which is President Obama's economic recovery strategy. Much of it rings true to us, but, then, we're an economics dummy, so what do we know.
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 13 April 2009 | Permalink
It's The Music, Stupid!
Peggy

And Speaking Of Being As Mad As Hell... (An Off-Message Rant)
Posted by A.C. Douglas on 19 March 2010 | Permalink