Life's passage

Name:
Location: United States

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Divided We Stand - Business Week book review

Divided We Stand
Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein's new book Going to Extremes explains how solutions can arise from the messy marketplace of ideas
By John Carey

Going To Extremes:
How Like Minds Unite and Divide
By Cass R. Sunstein
Oxford University Press; 199 pp.; $21.95

Cass R. Sunstein is an amazingly prolific and influential legal scholar. The subjects of his hundreds of articles and more than 15 books range from constitutional law to animal rights. "If you look at what he's written and done, he should be 900 years old," says Scott H. Segal, partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, a law and lobbying firm. In fact, the longtime University of Chicago law professor (who moved to Harvard in 2008) is an affable 54-year-old with a killer drop shot on the tennis court.

But the biggest reason to hang on Sunstein's words is his new post in the Obama Administration. When confirmed as director of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management & Budget, Sunstein will sit in judgment of government regulations. That turns his latest book, Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide, from a mere thought-provoking (if occasionally turgid) academic treatise into a glimpse into the mind and philosophy of the nation's new regulatory czar.

What jumps out from the book is Sunstein's mistrust of human judgment in everything from politics to business, especially when people band together. There's little wisdom of crowds here—and not many knowledgeable individuals, either. In many cases, "people suffer from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the sense that they know very few things, and what they know is wrong," Sunstein laments.

This wrongheadedness just gets worse when people put their heads together. Like-minded folk tend to aggregate into groups, causing their views to grow more extreme, Sunstein argues. Think Rush Limbaugh's most rabid dittoheads. "Very bad things can happen," Sunstein warns. This "group polarization" helps explain Islamic terrorism, the Enron fiasco, even U.S. governments gone astray, he writes. "In the presidency of George W. Bush, many failures occurred because of an unfortunate culture that encouraged, rather than combated, group polarization."

Don't flatter yourself that you're immune to the pernicious power of the group. Among the evidence Sunstein cites (which includes some of his own research) is the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. A number of students randomly chosen to be "guards" ended up brutalizing those who were their "prisoners." "Perhaps all of us, under certain circumstances, could commit atrocities," concludes Sunstein. Certainly, he suggests, all of us are capable of being irrational. Even direct appeals to reason can be a waste of time. In what Sunstein calls "an especially disturbing finding," people's false beliefs can actually be strengthened when they're shown the error of their ways.

It's a pretty grim view, one that helps explain why dictators so often make colossally bad decisions, why hysterias and crazes spread, why markets don't work as well in practice as in theory, and why companies stumble. Yet Going to Extremes shows Sunstein's optimistic side, too. For one thing, the extreme views of groups aren't always bad or wrong. "When people are seeking their rights, group polarization can be highly desirable," Sunstein points out. "It helped the abolitionist movement in the U.S. It also helped lead to the downfall of both apartheid and communism."

Sunstein also believes wrongheaded views can be kept in check. Part of the answer is putting people with humility, curiosity, and openness in power. Another part lies in the facts about costs and benefits. The "bitter debates over occupational safety, disability rights, national security, and affirmative action...might well be rendered somewhat less hot with a better understanding of the consequences of one approach or other," he argues.

So as regulatory czar, Sunstein will likely adopt a disciplined approach grounded in cost-benefit analysis instead of an ideological aversion to—or fondness for—regulation. Take climate change, "where so many questions remain open," he writes. A dispassionate consideration of what's known "suggests, for example, that global inaction is quite indefensible, and also that there are limits to how aggressively we should cut emissions in the near future."

For society at large, Sunstein has a touching faith in democracy and diversity. In other words, the U.S. benefits both from its Bill O'Reillys and from its Keith Olbermanns. "Extremism will enrich society's 'argument pool' and thus promote sensible solutions," writes Sunstein.

There's a whiff of elitism in Sunstein's apparent call for enlightened experts (like himself) to gently correct the cockeyed masses. "Liberal paternalism" is the term he has used for his governing philosophy elsewhere. There's also a boiling debate over whether the cost-benefit approach (Sunstein's favorite) is able to assess either costs, which often drop once new regulations spur innovations, or the risks of complex threats. But unless Sunstein willfully ignores his own prescriptions from Going to Extremes, the nation's regulatory makeup is going to get a serious makeover.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/this-i-believe/?apage=19#comment-80279

Judith, the confusion and the angst of the mixed religions is a familiar story with our generation

As a Hindu and an immigrant, and a parent of two teenage boys I struggle with the concept of religion and the religious legacy I am leaving behind for my children and other progeny of our generation

In India you are a Hindu by osmosis and the rituals while comforting have no express meaning. I am not sure if the rituals are based on fear or faith.

Our parents sent us to catholic schools, and while religious, also attended Mass on Wednesdays at a local church.

My kids are enrolled in Sunday school at a local Hindu Mission - an attempt by my wife and I to teach and give them a religious foundation and moral values.

But my generation teaches the kids based on what we know and how we perceive Hinduism based on our experience growing up in India

I worry those teachings have no relevance in our children’s lives here in the US - unless we learn to adapt our religious education to embrace the philosophical values so eloquently espoused in religious texts and focus less on rituals it is inevitable that the next generation will belong to an hyphenated religion - call it a amalgam of Hindu-Buddhist-Moslem-Jewish- Christian faiths

maybe the world will be better place when that happens

after all if all gods are the same then the hyphenation makes perfect sense and is probably the dawn of a unified world religious order where all faiths are intermixed

What will the terrorists do for a living then?

— Mahesh Shetty

Labels: ,

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Faith, Proof and Relics

Excerpt from Peter Manseau's article in the Wall Street Journal on the mystery behind the shroud of Turin (April 11, 2009)

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940218130209621.html)

This is not to say the puzzle has been solved. Even if it was created by an artist or charlatan several hundred years ago, as of yet there has been no explanation how such an ingenious rendering could have been created with the technologies of the day.

But maybe so much focus on explanation misses the point. Belief -- any belief, whether in God, the Resurrection, even the Force -- requires a partial abandonment of the rational. This does not mean that faith is irrational, only that it involves a recognition that there are some things that can be explained only through acknowledgment that proof is not always the highest good.

Faith fashions itself as a challenge to our assumptions, our expectations -- and relics are an embodiment of that challenge. As the early Christian author Tertullian said in defense of his belief that Jesus rose from the dead, "it is certain because it is impossible."


As much as it is a tradition passed down through the generations, an inherited vocabulary for describing the inexplicable, belief is also an act of the will. Despite scientific investigations, the beliefs that make phenomena like the Shroud relevant are not something required by the rules of logic. There is no rational need to write a poem or to paint a picture, and there is no rational need to believe, which is to search for something meaningful in the enigmatic markings that define our lives.

Yet the tension remains: the will to believe, the need for proof. Perhaps this is what the Shroud is really about: our divine aspirations bound up with our mortal concerns.

Labels:

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Einstein & Faith By WALTER ISAACSON

April 07, 2007


Einstein & Faith
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007 By WALTER ISAACSON

Everything you need to know about the smartest man of the 20th century.

He was slow in learning how to talk. "My parents were so worried," he later recalled, "that they consulted a doctor." Even after he had begun using words, sometime after the age of 2, he developed a quirk that prompted the family maid to dub him "der Depperte," the dopey one. Whenever he had something to say, he would try it out on himself, whispering it softly until it sounded good enough to pronounce aloud. "Every sentence he uttered," his worshipful younger sister recalled, "no matter how routine, he repeated to himself softly, moving his lips." It was all very worrying, she said. "He had such difficulty with language that those around him feared he would never learn."

His slow development was combined with a cheeky rebelliousness toward authority, which led one schoolmaster to send him packing and another to declare that he would never amount to much. These traits made Albert Einstein the patron saint of distracted schoolkids everywhere. But they also helped make him, or so he later surmised, the most creative scientific genius of modern times.

His cocky contempt for authority led him to question received wisdom in ways that well-trained acolytes in the academy never contemplated. And as for his slow verbal development, he thought that it allowed him to observe with wonder the everyday phenomena that others took for granted. Instead of puzzling over mysterious things, he puzzled over the commonplace. "When I ask myself how it happened that I in particular discovered the relativity theory, it seemed to lie in the following circumstance," Einstein once explained. "The ordinary adult never bothers his head about the problems of space and time. These are things he has thought of as a child. But I developed so slowly that I began to wonder about space and time only when I was already grown up. Consequently, I probed more deeply into the problem than an ordinary child would have."

It may seem logical, in retrospect, that a combination of awe and rebellion made Einstein exceptional as a scientist. But what is less well known is that those two traits also combined to shape his spiritual journey and determine the nature of his faith. The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of his life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists."

Einstein was descended, on both parents' sides, from Jewish tradesmen and peddlers who had, for at least two centuries, made modest livings in the rural villages of Swabia in southwestern Germany. With each generation they had become increasingly assimilated into the German culture they loved--or so they thought. Although Jewish by cultural designation and kindred instinct, they had little interest in the religion itself.

In his later years, Einstein would tell an old joke about an agnostic uncle who was the only member of his family who went to synagogue. When asked why he did so, the uncle would respond, "Ah, but you never know." Einstein's parents, on the other hand, were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative.

Consequently, when Albert turned 6 and had to go to school, his parents did not care that there was no Jewish one near their home. Instead he went to the large Catholic school in their neighborhood. As the only Jew among the 70 students in his class, he took the standard course in Catholic religion and ended up enjoying it immensely.

Despite his parents' secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein rather suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism. "He was so fervent in his feelings that, on his own, he observed Jewish religious strictures in every detail," his sister recalled. He ate no pork, kept kosher and obeyed the strictures of the Sabbath. He even composed his own hymns, which he sang to himself as he walked home from school.

Einstein's greatest intellectual stimulation came from a poor student who dined with his family once a week. It was an old Jewish custom to take in a needy religious scholar to share the Sabbath meal; the Einsteins modified the tradition by hosting instead a medical student on Thursdays. His name was Max Talmud, and he began his weekly visits when he was 21 and Einstein was 10.

Talmud brought Einstein science books, including a popular illustrated series called People's Books on Natural Science, "a work which I read with breathless attention," said Einstein. The 21 volumes were written by Aaron Bernstein, who stressed the interrelations between biology and physics, and reported in great detail the experiments being done at the time, especially in Germany.

Talmud also helped Einstein explore the wonders of mathematics by giving him a textbook on geometry two years before he was scheduled to learn that subject in school. When Talmud arrived each Thursday, Einstein delighted in showing him the problems he had solved that week. Initially, Talmud was able to help him, but he was soon surpassed by his pupil. "After a short time, a few months, he had worked through the whole book," Talmud recalled. "Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high that I could no longer follow."

Einstein's exposure to science and math produced a sudden transformation at age 12, just as he would have been readying for a bar mitzvah. He suddenly gave up Judaism. That decision does not appear to have been drawn from Bernstein's books because the author made clear he saw no contradiction between science and religion. As he put it, "The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence."

Einstein would later come close to these sentiments. But at the time, his leap away from faith was a radical one. "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression."

Einstein did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase a profound faith in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one. One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein's middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.
Everything you need to know about the smartest man of the 20th century

At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs. "It isn't possible!" the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious. "Yes, you can call it that," Einstein replied calmly. "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck, who had been born in Germany, moved to America as a child and then spent his life writing gaudily erotic poetry, interviewing great men and expressing his complex love for his fatherland. Einstein assumed Viereck was Jewish. In fact, Viereck proudly traced his lineage to the family of the Kaiser, and he would later become a Nazi sympathizer who was jailed in America during World War II for being a German propagandist.

Viereck began by asking Einstein whether he considered himself a German or a Jew. "It's possible to be both," replied Einstein. "Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind."

Should Jews try to assimilate? "We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform."

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

People found the piece evocative, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. "The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism," Boston's Cardinal William Henry O'Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Some religious Jews reacted by pointing out that Spinoza had been excommunicated from Amsterdam's Jewish community for holding these beliefs, and that he had also been condemned by the Catholic Church. "Cardinal O'Connell would have done well had he not attacked the Einstein theory," said one Bronx rabbi. "Einstein would have done better had he not proclaimed his nonbelief in a God who is concerned with fates and actions of individuals. Both have handed down dicta outside their jurisdiction."

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will. Jewish as well as Christian theologians have generally believed that people are responsible for their actions. They are even free to choose, as happens in the Bible, to disobey God's commandments, despite the fact that this seems to conflict with a belief that God is all knowing and all powerful.

Einstein, on the other hand, believed--as did Spinoza--that a person's actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. "Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions," Einstein declared in a statement to a Spinoza Society in 1932. It was a concept he drew also from his reading of Schopenhauer. "Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity," he wrote in his famous credo. "Schopenhauer's saying, 'A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills,' has been a real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance."

This determinism appalled some friends such as Max Born, who thought it completely undermined the foundations of human morality. "I cannot understand how you can combine an entirely mechanistic universe with the freedom of the ethical individual," he wrote Einstein. "To me a deterministic world is quite abhorrent. Maybe you are right, and the world is that way, as you say. But at the moment it does not really look like it in physics--and even less so in the rest of the world."

For Born, quantum uncertainty provided an escape from this dilemma. Like some philosophers of the time, he latched onto the indeterminacy that was inherent in quantum mechanics to resolve "the discrepancy between ethical freedom and strict natural laws."

Born explained the issue to his wife Hedwig, who was always eager to debate Einstein. She told Einstein that, like him, she was "unable to believe in a 'dice-playing' God." In other words, unlike her husband, she rejected quantum mechanics' view that the universe was based on uncertainties and probabilities. But, she added, "nor am I able to imagine that you believe--as Max has told me--that your 'complete rule of law' means that everything is predetermined, for example whether I am going to have my child inoculated." It would mean, she pointed out, the end of all moral behavior.

But Einstein's answer was to look upon free will as something that was useful, indeed necessary, for a civilized society, because it caused people to take responsibility for their own actions. "I am compelled to act as if free will existed," he explained, "because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly." He could even hold people responsible for their good or evil, since that was both a pragmatic and sensible approach to life, while still believing intellectually that everyone's actions were predetermined. "I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime," he said, "but I prefer not to take tea with him."

The foundation of morality, he believed, was rising above the "merely personal" to live in a way that benefited humanity. He dedicated himself to the cause of world peace and, after encouraging the U.S. to build the atom bomb to defeat Hitler, worked diligently to find ways to control such weapons. He raised money to help fellow refugees, spoke out for racial justice and publicly stood up for those who were victims of McCarthyism. And he tried to live with a humor, humility, simplicity and geniality even as he became one of the most famous faces on the planet.

For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.

From Einstein by Walter Isaacson. © 2007 by Walter Isaacson. To be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Labels:

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

In the words of Martin Luther King,Jr

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole
staircase, just take the first step. --Martin Luther King Jr.

I have the audacity to believe that people everywhere can have three
meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds,
and dignity, quality, and freedom for their spirits. I believe that
what self-centered men have torn down, other-centered men can build
up. --Martin Luther King Jr

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night
have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but
we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate
to our limited vision, but we must speak. For we are deeply in need of
a new way beyond the darkness ... let us rededicate ourselves in the
long and bitter, but beautiful struggle for a new world. --Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr.

I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.
This is the interrelated structure of reality. --Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions
of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence
without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for
all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and
retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. --Martin Luther
King Jr., December 11, 1964

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the
starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace
and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed
truth and unconditional love will have the final word. --Martin Luther
King, Jr.

All of life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable
network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny. Whatever
affects one directly affects all indirectly --Martin Luther King

Every person must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative
altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the
judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you
doing for others? --Martin Luther King Jr.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as
fools. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

Imagine walking down a darkened street in the middle of a city at
night. No one is around you. As you step off a curb into an alley, you
notice across the street another man stepping off the curb also. But
as he stepped off the curb, somebody jumped from the alley and began
beating him and the man yells for help. There are two things that go
through your mind. One, if you go over and help the man, what's going
to happen to you? What we should be asking is, if I don't go over and
help that man, what's going to happen to him? --Martin Luther King Jr.

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the
final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is
stronger than evil triumphant. --Martin Luther King Jr., in Nobel
Prize Acceptance Speech

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends. --Martin Luther King Jr.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist
to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make
philanthropy necessary. --Martin Luther King Jr.

We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite
hope. --Martin Luther King Jr.

If you want to be important -- wonderful. If you want to be recognized
-- wonderful. If you want to be great -- wonderful. But recognize that
he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. That's a new
definition of greatness.

And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that
definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, because
everybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve.
You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You
don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have
to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to
know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only
need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be
that servant. --Martin Luther King Jr.

In the final analysis, the rich must not ignore the poor because both
rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny. All life is
interrelated, and all men are interdependent. --Martin Luther King Jr.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method, which rejects
revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method
is love. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reconsider your definitions. We are prone to judge success by the
index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles rather than by
the quality of our service and relationship to mankind. --Martin
Luther King, Jr.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which
we arrive at that goal. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

Everybody can be great, because everybody can serve. --Martin Luther King Jr.

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful
words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of
the good people. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

Monday, January 01, 2007

2007 - The Hope of a Fresh Start - NYT editorial

January 1, 2007
Editorial

The Hope of a Fresh Start
New Year’s Day is the simplest holiday in the calendar, a Champagne cork of a day after all the effervescence of the evening before. There is no civic agenda, no liturgical content, only the sense of something ended, something begun. It is a good day to clean the ashes out of the wood stove, to consider the possibilities of next summer’s garden, to wonder how many weeks into the new year you will be before you marvel at how quickly 2007 is going. “This will be the year ...,” you find yourself thinking, but before you can finish the thought you remember what all the previous years have taught you — that there’s just no telling.

We are supposed to believe in the fresh start of a new year, and who doesn’t love the thought of it? But we are just as likely to feel the pull of the old ways on this holiday, to acknowledge the solid comfort — like it or not — of the self we happen to have become over the years. We may not say, like Charles Lamb in 1820, that we would no more alter the shape of our lives “than the incidents of some well-contrived novel.” But we know what he means.

No one has faced the prospect of New Year’s time more honestly than Lamb. He knew that its real theme was what he called “an intolerable disinclination to dying,” something he felt especially sharply in the dead of winter, awaiting the peal of bells ringing in the new year. It was an inescapable syllogism for him — New Year, the passing of time, the certainty of death.

What it forced from him was the very thing it should force from all of us — a renewal of our pleasure in life itself. “I am in love,” he wrote, “with this green earth; the face of town and country; the unspeakable rural solitudes, and the sweet security of streets.”

Friday, December 29, 2006

Middle School Girls Gone Wild - NYT editorial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 29, 2006
Editorial Observer
Middle School Girls Gone Wild
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
It’s hard to write this without sounding like a prig. But it’s just as hard to erase the images that planted the idea for this essay, so here goes. The scene is a middle school auditorium, where girls in teams of three or four are bopping to pop songs at a student talent show. Not bopping, actually, but doing elaborately choreographed re-creations of music videos, in tiny skirts or tight shorts, with bare bellies, rouged cheeks and glittery eyes.

They writhe and strut, shake their bottoms, splay their legs, thrust their chests out and in and out again. Some straddle empty chairs, like lap dancers without laps. They don’t smile much. Their faces are locked from grim exertion, from all that leaping up and lying down without poles to hold onto. “Don’t stop don’t stop,” sings Janet Jackson, all whispery. “Jerk it like you’re making it choke. ...Ohh. I’m so stimulated. Feel so X-rated.” The girls spend a lot of time lying on the floor. They are in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades.

As each routine ends, parents and siblings cheer, whistle and applaud. I just sit there, not fully comprehending. It’s my first suburban Long Island middle school talent show. I’m with my daughter, who is 10 and hadn’t warned me. I’m not sure what I had expected, but it wasn’t this. It was something different. Something younger. Something that didn’t make the girls look so ... one-dimensional.

It would be easy to chalk it up to adolescent rebellion, an ancient and necessary phenomenon, except these girls were barely adolescents and they had nothing to rebel against. This was an official function at a public school, a milieu that in another time or universe might have seen children singing folk ballads, say, or reciting the Gettysburg Address.

It is news to no one, not even me, that eroticism in popular culture is a 24-hour, all-you-can-eat buffet, and that many children in their early teens are filling up. The latest debate centers on whether simulated intercourse is an appropriate dance style for the high school gym.

What surprised me, though, was how completely parents of even younger girls seem to have gotten in step with society’s march toward eroticized adolescence — either willingly or through abject surrender. And if parents give up, what can a school do? A teacher at the middle school later told me she had stopped chaperoning dances because she was put off by the boy-girl pelvic thrusting and had no way to stop it — the children wouldn’t listen to her and she had no authority to send anyone home. She guessed that if the school had tried to ban the sexy talent-show routines, parents would have been the first to complain, having shelled out for costumes and private dance lessons for their Little Miss Sunshines.

I’m sure that many parents see these routines as healthy fun, an exercise in self-esteem harmlessly heightened by glitter makeup and teeny skirts. Our girls are bratz, not slutz, they would argue, comfortable in the existence of a distinction.

But my parental brain rebels. Suburban parents dote on and hover over their children, micromanaging their appointments and shielding them in helmets, kneepads and thick layers of S.U.V. steel. But they allow the culture of boy-toy sexuality to bore unchecked into their little ones’ ears and eyeballs, displacing their nimble and growing brains and impoverishing the sense of wider possibilities in life.

There is no reason adulthood should be a low plateau we all clamber onto around age 10. And it’s a cramped vision of girlhood that enshrines sexual allure as the best or only form of power and esteem. It’s as if there were now Three Ages of Woman: first Mary-Kate, then Britney, then Courtney. Boys don’t seem to have such constricted horizons. They wouldn’t stand for it — much less waggle their butts and roll around for applause on the floor of a school auditorium.