I draw your attention to two items which are available now, and which should be required reading for anyone caring about freedom. Both come from Naomi Klein (http://www.naomiklein.org/main). Ms. Klein is a brilliant Canadian who has written several astonishing books detailing the bad news which comes about when governments use technology to invade an individual’s freedom.

To listen to some of her ideas, please go to  HERE and click on the link “listen to the programme”. It’s a short BBC program, well produced and clearly recorded, and worth your time.

The second is Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is available in paperback. The shock doctrine may be the finest non-fiction I’ve read in ten years. You owe it to yourself to take a look.

– Maui Curmudgeon

By the Maui Curmudgeon (4th in a 43-part series)

How do the U.S. Presidents stack up? I thought I’d find ou by reading biographies of all 43 presidents, in the order of their administrations. Here are briefly the pros and cons of my discoveries, the interesting bits, and how I’d rank him. For comparison, I give you the 1982 Murrary-Blessing ranking, a survey of hundreds of leading historians who ranked each president by number. This survey is the gold standard of presidential rankings and is most cited when this kind of thing needs bringing up in media.

JAMES MADISON: 1809-1817~ 4th U.S. President

Without question, James Madison was the smallest person ever to be president - about 5 foot tall and 100 pounds. He distinguished himself in battle during the Revolutionary War. He was a great writer - penning many of the Federalist papers (numbers 10 and 11 are considered works of political genius). In many ways, Madison grew to be a carbon copy of Jefferson, both good and ill.

Madison was Jefferson’s secretary of state for eight years. The culmination of that effort was a treaty that Madison bargained for in Europe. It was so embarrassingly bad that Jefferson refused to present it to the Senate for consideration.

While Jefferson was a hypocrite, writing one philosophy and practicing another, Madison was a turncoat. At first, he was indeed a Federalist and loyal Washington supporter in the 1780’s, which is why he worked closely with the uber-federalist Alexander Hamilton, to produce the Federalist papers. By the time he served Jefferson 20 years later, and became president himself, he was the ultimate Republican, writing screeds against centralized excutive power, power he abused during his presidency. And, like Jefferson, he died deeply in debt.

Read the rest…

By the Maui Curmudgeon (3rd in a 43-part series)

How do the U.S. Presidents stack up? I thought I’d find ou by reading biographies of all 43 presidents, in the order of their administrations. Here are briefly the pros and cons of my discoveries, the interesting bits, and how I’d rank him. For comparison, I give you the 1982 Murrary-Blessing ranking, a survey of hundreds of leading historians who ranked each president by number. This survey is the gold standard of presidential rankings and is most cited when this kind of thing needs bringing up in media.

THOMAS JEFFERSON: 1801-1809
~ 3rd U.S. President

Perhaps the most well-known (at least among school children) of our “founding fathers,” Thomas Jefferson stood over six feet tall, and like Washington cut an imposing figure in his times. He is lauded as the writer of our Declaration of Independence, the founder of the Republican Party, the Library of Congress; the man who gave the U.S. a geographic jewel - the Louisiana Terrirory - and the former president who died on the same day as his sometime enemy, former president John Adams. That day was July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Read the rest…

By the Maui Curmudgeon (2nd  in a 43-part series)

How do the U.S. Presidents stack up? I thought I’d find ou by reading biographies of all 43 presidents, in the order of their administrations. Here are briefly the pros and cons of my discoveries, the interesting bits, and how I’d rank him. For comparison, I give you the 1982 Murrary-Blessing ranking, a survey of hundreds of leading historians who ranked each president by number. This survey is the gold standard of presidential rankings and is most cited when this kind of thing needs bringing up in the media.

JOHN ADAMS: 1797-1801
~ 2nd U.S. President

From an early age he was somewhat dumpy looking, short, with a doughy middle, but there was no one either for or against him in his lifetime that did not respect John Adam’s intelligence and fortitude, and perhaps not until the recent HBO mini-series did modern America understand what a pivotal role he played in the nation’s early history.

Read the rest…

By the Maui Curmudgeon (1ST IN A 43-PART SERIES)

So, we’re close. It appears it’s going to be Barack Obama versus John McCain running to be the 44th President of the U.S.

How do they stack up? I thought I’d find out. I’m reading biographies of all 43 presidents, in the order of their administrations, and it’s an enlightening task.

For example, for reasons I can’t much explain, George Washington has always been a bit of a murky figure to me. Perhaps it’s because in our nation’s brief history, he was a long time ago. We tend to know more about the more recent presidents. Reading abut him, I was astounded by the quality of the man, and his unique abilities. It turns out the stories weren’t just good PR. To counterpose: in reading about Thomas Jefferson, I was underwhelmed - considerably. I don’t undertand what all the fuss is about with him. In fact, frankly, he seems to be a bit of a prissy, whining pain in the ass hypocrite, but then, I get ahead of myself.

Well, let’s get to it. For each man (a word that sadly appears to remain unerringly accurate even during this election), I’ll tell you briefly the pros and cons of my discoveries, the interesting bits, and how I’d rank him. For comparison, I’ll give you the 1982 Murrary-Blessing ranking, a survey of hundreds of leading historians who ranked each president by number. This survey is the gold standard of presidential rankings and is most cited when this kind of thing needs bringing up in media.

GEORGE WASHINGTON  (1789-1797)

THE BAD:

1. Would not have won the Revolutionary War without the French. In fact, we didn’t win the war, the French won it for us.
2. Trusted two men in his cabinet he should not have: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Chaos ensued.
3. All the bad things you’ve heard and read about his teeth were true.

THE GOOD:

1. Didn’t lose the Revolutionary War - which is not as prissy as it sounds. The colonies faced overwhelming odds, British manpower and training and supplies. It was without a doubt Washington alone who kept the army alive, moving and occasionally successful.
2. Was President of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and as such, framed, with James Madison, our current constitution. His importance here cannot be overestimated. Our constitution is shaped the way it is because Washington wanted it that way.
3. Set the gold standard for presidential action. He was keenly aware that everything he did would set a precedent, and he kept a strong historical eye on all his work. His refusal to run for a third term (the presidency was his until his death if he wanted it) set the bar: no man who won the office until 1940 dared run for a third term, because if two were good enough for Washington, they were damn good enough for everyone else too.
4. Evolved, like every great person. The revolution, the constitution, the presidency, all changed Washington, and in many respects made him a more enlightened man. He freed his slaves eventually. In fact, his wife Martha made sure they had clothes and some money when they were sent free into the world.

INTERESTING FACTS:

• He was a strong and huge man, sometimes towering over his contemporaries by more than a foot.
• Despite above, and his being an enormous target on the field of battle, he was never injured, though he was often in the middle of the battlefield.
• He was bled to death, and some historians feel he was tired, and wanted to die, far earlier than he might have.

MURRAY-BLESSING RANKING: #3 (!)

MY RANKING: 100%. No one else comes close.

Recommended Reading: Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Thomas Flexner

BOOK REVIEW: The Last Lecture, by Randy Pausch.

 “Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life.”
– Omar Khayyam (born 1048) 

There’s not much more to be said for the courage of a man facing death, with three children under the age of six and a wife who is standing by his side. Further, to share his wisdom with the world via a book - The Last Lecture - -now the country’s no. 1 bestseller — as well as a lecture which was videoed and posted on You Tube, and has gone viral. I don’t touch the man, his courage, his hard work, his pain or his fortitude.

The book, however, basically stinks. It is presented haphazardly, and to be straightforward, the advice is - what is the best way to put this? - lacking in inspiration or enlightenment.

Randy Pausch loves Disney, and as a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon, one can understand why. He even got to cross off a line on his Bucket List - that of being an Imagineer at Disney, you know, one of those people who use computers to make some of the magic visitors see at the parks. That’s fine, and while I haven’t counted words, I will say if he gave me a buck very time he told a story about Disney, why, I’d be able to afford a very nice dinner someplace, maybe even Dinseyworld.

My point is the reader doesn’t walk away with any feeling of, oh yeah, I need to live my life that way, whether we’re walking away from Disney stories or tidbits from his classroom. Pausch has set himself up - as all writers of such books do - as a guru of sorts to dispense knowledge gleaned from a life well led and a death courageously faced. This of itself is a fine goal, and in fact one a reader of such books seeks.

Sadly, he fails.

In fact, I was surprised to read some advice which I would have expected contrary to the lessons we all need to remind ourselves of. Pausch touts himself as a master of the multitasker, the time cruncher, the man who can get lots of things done all at once and in record time (he even got his tenure earlier than anyone else has at Carnegie Mellon).

Frankly, so what?

Many writers of such books will advise you that the key lesson of dying is to live in the moment, savoring the time one has. Juggling three tasks at once doesn’t really help with that, does it?

The advice which seems agreeable enough is generally unexciting. “No job is beneath you.” “Tell the truth.” These are fine aphorisms, but really, one doesn’t need to face death to realize them. Readers want the unique perspective which such clarity of existence lends while we aren’t facing the same pain or time limits.  Pausch can’t help us.

I haven’t seen the video. Perhaps he comes across more effectively in person. Still, books need to stand on their own, and this one doesn’t.

But I’ll close again, I wish him and his family well, and I dearly hope he becomes one of the “one in a million” who survive his cancer.

– Maui Curmudegeon

YES!  Next Question

The Templeton Organization (http://www.templeton.org/belief/) has begun a series of full page advertisements in newspapers such as the New York Times which publish a debate centering around this question:

“Does science make belief in God obsolete?”

Here are the quick answers given by the recent writers (the full answers can be found on the website):

• “Yes.” - Steve Pinker, Harvard University Psychology Department, author of The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (P.S.).
• “No, and yes.” - Christoph Cardinal Shonborn, Dominican Friar.
• “Absolutely not.” - William Phillips, Nobel Laureate, Physics.
• “Of course not.” Mary Midgley, authoer of Evolution as a Religion(Routledge Classics).
• “No, but it should.” Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
• “No.” - Keith Ward, Church of Englad Priest, author of The Big Questions in Science and Religion.
• “Yes.” - Victor Stenger, Professor, University of Hawaii, author of God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
• “Not at all.” - Jerome Groopman, Professor of medicine, Harvard, author of How Doctors Think.
• “It depends.” - Michael Shermer, author of How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God.
• “Of course not.” - Kenneth Miller, professor of biology, Brown University, author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.).
• “No, but only if we continue to develop new notions of God” - Stuart Kauffman, author of Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion.

Excepting Pinker’s The Language Instinct, I’ve read the books mentioned. As always, we can learn something by what is NOT mentioned. For example, none of the writers, whether or not they believe in a god, mentioned strict texts such as the Bible or Koran or Torah. It is as if the debate has moved beyond these minor issues. The participants recognize that the fairy tales can’t be supported anymore. The idea of a god has to be redefined (as Kauffman posits).

Yet, those like Kauffman miss the point. Either there is a god with certain characteristics, or there isn’t. Whether or not humans adjust their concept of this god is immaterial to and ineffectual on, this idea of omniscience. It is, however, understandable that many fall into the trap laid by the question.

To illustrate the trap, let’s take a simpler example. Let’s say there’s a word, we’ll call it Gynyx. We know that there is no such word in the English language, nor any other language which can then be translated into English. Thus, the object, creature, motion or hypothetical which every word must represent, does not, in this case, exist. There is no such a thing as a Gynyx.

Now, let’s ask the question: “Do you believe in Gynyx?”

The first understanding the answerer has to come to is what is a Gynyx? And when the word cannot be defined, then the question becomes moot. It is so with the notion of a god.

NOT ONE of the responders to the question examine how to define a concept of god as put forth by the questioner, and so cannot really answer the question. As an English construct the question is illogical, makes no sense, and so the answers can’t illuminate the issue very clearly.

Not many people know that Christians invented the word “atheist”. The classic definition - one who does not believe in god - neatly makes its point. The person the word refers to chooses not to believe in god - it says nothing to the issue of god not existing. So it is with the question put forth by Templeton.

But still, to take a crack, using the broad definition of science - rational thought applied to an experience to explain it - the answer is immediate and easy. No one of rational thought and moderate intelligence thinks any god exists as defined by any religion yet fabricated from man’s mind.

And yes, the antithesis of the last sentence is also true.

– Mauiu Curmudgeon