Words by Woods

Archive for the ‘Books’ Category

I know nearly nothing about autism.  While not impacted by the condition within my immediate family, I have worked with an very capable autistic man in the past.  Given reports that autism is being diagnosed more frequently, the future may hold more such interactions.

In one of its plot-lines, the new TV show “Parenthood” dramatizes a family’s experience becoming aware of their son’s autism, and learning how to adapt and support their son’s development.  While it is a learning experience for me, I can see this dramatization aiding extended families who are going through or have already been through actual experience with an autistic child.

On her blog “The Playful Spirit,” Lady Baker shares her own experience with an autistic son.  I was fascinated by how she used books to leverage her son’s abilities.

I have seen an interesting interview with Temple Grandin, where she discusses her book Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism.  It was very informative to me as she described in detail her own thinking process and how she understands it to be different from others.

Although I do not have the experience to evaluate the material, on their YouTube channel, in the past week, Yale University has posted a series of lectures from a seminar on autism and related disorders:

Treatments for Autism: Overview of Model Programs, Fred Volkmar [41:50 min]

Overview of Autism, Prof. Fred Volkmar [31:58 min]

Behavioral Treatments, Dr. Michael Powers [? min]

Parental Perspectives and Supporting Families, Alison Singer [53:49 min]

Communication in Autism, Dr. Rhea Paul [1:50:50]

Autism in Infants and Young Children, Dr. Kasia Chawarska [1:14:23]

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” — Frederic Bastiat  [HT:   Dr. Hurd]

Dr. Paul Hsieh considers the unlikely prospects of ObamaCare repeal based upon Mark Steyn’s analysis that the Dems will commit short term political suicide by passing health care “reform” as it will lead to the establishment of a long term patronage machine that will guarantee them future power.  As an alternative to Steyn’s analysis, Democratic passage of health care could destroy the party politically by creating an equivalent of the 1800 election.  This would require the Republicans to have the austerity of Jefferson’s Sec. of Treasury Albert Gallatin to overthrow the current budgetary spoils system and patronage schemes by eliminating specific programs, positions, and taxes in an effort to reduce the federal debt.  Come the next Congress, the choice could be the Republicans.  Realistically, they lack the integrity of Jefferson and Gallatin needed to take the necessary action.  Related to this lack of integrity, Amit Ghate makes the additional point that Republicans fail to rollback such statist programs, because they agree with their moral premise.

Robert J. Samuelson asks, “Will Millennials Become the Chump Generation?” He notes, “As baby boomers retire, higher federal spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may boost Millennials’ taxes and squeeze other government programs. It will be harder to start and raise families.”  In addition, I note that they fail to recognize that health care “reform” is really a tax program to force the Millennials to pay more to cover shortfalls in Medicare financing.  Having bought into political indoctrination in school, the Millennials have supported expansive Dem lead government, which will rob the Millennials of their future…Suckers!

Virginia has become the first state to enact legal protections for its citizens from the proposed federal mandate that all individuals much purchase health insurance [HT:  The Lucidicus Project].  This is equivalent to the Kentucy and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in that a state interposed itself in defense of individual rights against an unconstitutional federal law.  Historically, these resolves were significant as the first significant steps of the impotent minority Democratic-Republican party becoming the dominant national party in 1800.  Note:  I am not being a Republican cheerleader here.  Since the 2008 election with its Dem stranglehold on power, I have been concerned about developing parallels to 1800 as a harbinger of a fundamental power shift from the brain dead left to the religious right.

Artist Sylvia Bokor has recently read David Horowitz’s Rules for Revolution and reports how Saul Alinksy tactics are employ by the Obama Administration.  As description of the tactics, she writes, “…never say what you mean, always evade the entire context, never identify your actual goals…The truth does not matter. Facts do not matter. The only thing that matters is how much you can get away with…The goal is to destroy trust, to undermine cooperation, to confuse those who like you and to obliterate those who do not.”

Diana Hsieh gives an excellent short identification of the misuse of language to obscure intentions of violating individual rights and the proper reflexive reaction to such code words.

Anthony Daniels (a.k.a. Theodore Dalrymple) attempted to commit character assassination upon the pages of the The New Criterion, but failed.  While I consider writing an analysis of his errors, I see that four excellent and distinctly valuable pieces have been written by Objectivists:

• Mtnrunner2 at Fun with Gravity:  “Ayn Rand in the New Criterion”
• Edward Cline in Rule of Reason:  “Defending Ayn Rand”
• Paul Marshall in NoodleFood:  “A Critical Account of Anthony Daniels on Ayn Rand”
• Jim May in The New Clarion:  “Wide as an Ocean, Shallow as a Puddle: Epistemological Primitivism IV”

WarVideo on YouTube suggested that I Google for videos of C. Bradley Thompson as there were a couple of interviews available on-line.

Related to Thompson’s excellent book on John Adams, I watched the following interview produced by Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship:

CEE Interview with C. Bradley Thompson on John Adams, Part I

CEE Interview with C. Bradley Thompson on John Adams, Part II

RationalJenn has asked, “Which 15 books that you have read will always stick with you?”  The rules specify that you think about the issue for no more than 15 minutes and that you list the first 15 that come to mind.

My answer is below, with a video citing features of each.  I added a condition that I would not repeat authors.

What are your 15?  Answer in comments.

** My 15 Books **

1. For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Signet) by Ayn Rand.
2. The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics) by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
3. The Autobiography and Other Writings by Benjamin Franklin.
4. Washington by Douglas Southall Freeman.
5. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t by Jim Collins.
6. First Things First by Covey, Merrill, and Merrill.
7. John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson.
8. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement by Goldratt and Cox.
9. Sparrowhawk One: Jack Frake by Edward Cline.
10. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando de Soto.
11. Discourses by Machiavelli.
12. A History of Warfare by John Keegan.
13. A Turn for DeWurst by Sydney Kendall.
14. Tecumseh: A Life by John Sugden.
15. Macbeth (Folger Shakespeare Library)by Shakespeare.

I have been talking to an artist about doing a draft concept for a book cover.  Unfortunately, my jargoned brief summary was full of terms that did not effectively communicate what the book was about.

Rousseau this…General Will that…Dewey the other…and it starts to sound like “blah, blah, blah.”

Here is a break down of the idea behind the book:

• Obama sucks.  Gingrich will be the brain and megaphone for Republican ideas; he will become the new change.
• Because Bush sucked, people choose Obama and they are starting to learn that Obama sucks too.
• Our politics change from suck to different suck to another different suck.
• Recently, each President is worse than the one before.  The last time that downward pattern continued there was a civil war.
• The environment for the release of the book is that people will by then know that Obama sucks and so Gingrich’s ideas will look better.  The book is to broadcast that Gingrichism (through his 21st Century Contract with America platform) does not really represent a fundamental change from Obama.
• The book is to explain what a real alternative would be to the unthinking blind pragmatism (do and try anything that feels right without reference to principles based in reality) shared by the Dems and Reps.  It will do this by defining the follow terms, explaining how they relate hierarchically (think step pyramid), and demonstrating how they relate to current political reform:  Reason, Justice, Freedom, Production, and Achievement.

As an example of a visual concept to give a flavor of the criticism within the book:

• Gingrich sits in the posture of Rodin’s “The Thinker,” except his features and body are not concentration embodied; instead Gingrich is slack, slouched, and puffy.
• His eyes are out of focus and crazy to represent his disconnect from reality.
• He has the manner of a dirty savage Neanderthal in a soiled American flag loin cloth.  On his bicep is an “I Heart God” tattoo, or something upon that theme.
• He is larger than life and sitting upon the House wing of the Capitol (south wing), as a representation of his demagoguery (panderer to popular opinion; Gingrich is an admitted and proud poll follower).
• Beneath his bare and muddy feet is a parchment of the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights prominent and particularly soiled by Gingrich.
• Several groups of small bipedal elephants in suits are on the hill below.  They would be doing, as a symbolic representation, what Republicans at their worst do:  crucifying somebody, burning books, abusing a pregnant woman, beating a gay couple, wastefully burning piles of money, marching school children in regimented obedient conforming order, holding a gun to someone’s head to make them pray, breaking scientific equipment, etc.

I think that picture illustrates the working title of the book, Conceding the Future:  Gingrich Republicans and the Evasion of Individual Rights.

Rodin’s The Thinker

Image Source: WikiMedia Commons, copyright 2006 David Monniaux

U.S. Capitol, West Front view (House wing to the right side of image)

Image Source: The Architect of the Capitol

Cross posted from Conceding The Future

Noodlefood’s Diana Hsieh posts about Leonard Peikoff’s recent podcast, when he answered a question about scope of parents’ authority to physically alter a child (circumcision, piercing, tattoos, etc.); her comments reminded me of something that I had read yesterday.

In his book Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass, English psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple has an interesting chapter–Uncouth Chic–in which he examines the correlation between tattoos and odd piercing with the pathologies of the underclass that he services. He goes further to tie the spread of these adornments in the culture beyond the underclass to a degeneration of values in which the unsuccessful instead of the successful become the trend setters.

A general caveat, Dalrymple has a conservative bias for tradition and societal obligations; however, it is readily apparent when he is inducing from observation, and where he inserts traditionalism without foundation.

Historian Peter Henriques presents an interesting examination of the anachronism of attributing George Washington as the source for appending ’So help me God’ to the presidential oath of office. As Henriques reports, it was Chester A. Arthur, in 1881, who made the first documented utterance.

Interesting to me, as evidence contrary to Newt Gingrich’s assertion of a modern liberal attack on God in public life, Henriques cites Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story from a publication in 1833 on the constitutional prohibition of religious tests for office.

Having found the relevant statements from Story on page 307 in my edition of Story‘s A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of the United States, let me provide a fuller context, which supports Henriques points:

The remaining part of the clause declares, that “no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This clause is recommended by its tendency to satisfy the minds of many delicate and scrupulous persons, who entertain great repugnance to religious tests, as a qualification for civil power or honor. But it has a higher aim in the Constitution. It is designed to cut off every pretence of an alliance between the Church and the State, in the administration of the National Government. The American people were too well read in the history of other countries, and had suffered too much in their colonial state, not to dread the abuses of authority resulting from religious bigotry, intolerance, and persecution. They knew but too well, that no sect could be safely trusted with power on such a subject; for all had in turns wielded it to the injury, and sometimes to the destruction, of their inoffensive, but, in their judgement, erring neighbors. And we shall presently see, that, by an amendment to the Constitution [the First Amendment], evils of this sort in the National Government are still more effectively guarded against.

Ironically, my edition of Story’s work was published by the same company that published Newt Gingrich’s unchristian and unrepublican attack on secular authority found in his book Winning the Future.

Are Americans still so well read in history as to obstruct the ascension of faith-based power-lusters, who in the name of their God would restrain our liberty?

Although I have purchased four Ipods for my kids, I have never had an MP3 player. As part of my choices to increase my productivity this year, I purchased a Creative Zen 2 GB player, as it was compatible with the NetLibrary on-line audio book service offered by my local library.

Although I’m still having some trouble working out issues with permissions related to the library files, I just filled my player with lots of good stuff.

Since November, I have been accumulating audio files through my RSS feed that I have not had time to enjoy yet. Now, I have started copying these files to my player so that I can consume them during unproductive time driving Ms. Daisy, or multitask while doing things around the house like chores or painting.

What kinds of good things have I added to the player and will be adding to my life?

* Art lectures from the National Gallery of Art.
* Author interviews from C-SPAN.
* Interviews and commentary related to business from Wharton
* Philosophic answers from Leonard Peikoff’s weekly pod cast
* Interviews by Prodos on SolidVox

The player was like $50, but the increased access to great ideas is priceless.

I have begun to work on a refutation of Newt Gingrich’s Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.

My preliminary title is Conceding the Future: Gingrich Republicans and the Evasion of Individual Rights. Below is a draft introduction:

As the proclaimed Age of Obama begins, why write or read a book refuting Newt Gingrich’s agenda for America?

To borrow Gingrich’s title, my book is concerned with winning the future and the ideas that will make that happen. The current intellectual vacuum on political issues has resulted in the ephemeral cult of personality enjoyed by Obama. As we enter into yet another weak Democratic presidency to be dominated by Congress, an affirmative agenda needs to be advanced to replace the unprincipled pragmatic flailing and failing that dominates our current debate.

Following Obama’s election and Democratic advances on the Hill, I often heard the historical precedent of Gingrich’s Contract with America hopefully asserted as a paradigm for checking the Democratic ambition to dictate the terms of American life. During the election season, Gingrich’s organization, American Solutions, provided one of the few jolts to Senator McCain’s campaign, when Republicans became animated with the chant of ‘Drill Here! Drill Now!’

Gingrich’s track record of success in setting the political agenda establishes him in a leading position to define the alternative to the Democrats‘ program. In the House, he led the building of a majority, ending 40 years of Democratic dominance. Upon becoming Speaker, he set the policy agenda and effectively leashed President Clinton’s policy ambitions. In the 2008 election, he demonstrated the ability to advance a single issue to dominate the agenda and compel the Democratic Congress to end a long standing ban on offshore oil drilling. Further, unrestrained by congressional ethics rules, Gingrich has established and is growing an influential grassroots organization dedicated to developing and implementing new government policies.

In contrast to that demonstration of ability, Gingrich’s history is also filled with failures to actually implement lasting change. The Republican congressional majorities are gone, as Democratic out-of-control spending and scandals were followed by Republican out-of-control spending and scandals. The opportunities to restructure federal liabilities offered by the short term revenue windfall from the capital gains tax cut were squandered. Despite the legislative promise, welfare-as-we-knew-it remains. His policy successes lack a lasting positive legacy in reality.

Why does Gingrich suffer a disconnect between rhetoric and results? Simply, it is his ideas; his reputed strength is actually his weakness. Should his agenda, the so called “21st Century Contract with America,” become America’s agenda, then his ideas will also become America’s weakness.

Following tradition in political writing, this book is written and organized as an examination and refutation of Gingrich’s. My purpose is to identify Gingrich’s principles, where any can be found, and then identify the correct principles to be applied, based upon the concept that the purpose of a proper government is the protection of individual rights. Finally, I will integrate and organize these correct ideas using a paradigm, which I call Francisco’s Hierarchy.

I invite you to share this journey with me as we grapple with Gingrich’s ideas, squeezing from them the unspoken premises that identify his errors so that we will avoid being handicapped by them. This is our opportunity to break the cycle of failure defining our politics and return America to the advancement of Reason, Justice, Freedom, Production, and Achievement.