Never thought I'd see this in the Economist....
The agritainment business: Hedge-fun managers | The Economist
1 year ago
Showing posts with label Economist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economist. Show all posts
15 July 2009
27 April 2009
A Beautiful Revolution
Dr. Mark Taylor neatly sums up problems with graduate education across America's universities and poses a revolutionary--but necessary--solution:
Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We Know It - NYTimes.com
On a related note, check out an article from this week's Economist about European universities: Bolognese Sauce
Op-Ed Contributor - End the University as We Know It - NYTimes.com
On a related note, check out an article from this week's Economist about European universities: Bolognese Sauce
13 April 2009
A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Andrew Sullivan
ANDREW SULLIVAN: THINKING. OUT. LOUD. | More Intelligent Life
A great introduction/interview with influential and controversial blogger Andrew Sullivan. Two passages that particularly jumped out at me:
It was at this time that Sullivan discovered the philosopher who was to provide the timber of his conservatism—and the road map to many of his apparent contradictions. Michael Oakeshott was then a relatively obscure English philosopher in his 80s. Sullivan characterises his thought as “an anti-ideology, a nonprogramme, a way of looking at the world whose most perfect expression might be called inactivism”.
At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know. As Sullivan puts it: “While not denying that the truth exists, the [Oakeshottian] conservative is content to say merely that his grasp on it is always provisional. He begins with the assumption that the human mind is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes, or see only so far ahead.” In light of this extreme fallibility, human beings should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty—in religion, or political ideology—are invariably hubristic. We have to build our politics on “the radical acceptance of what we cannot know for sure”.
"He believes his greatest future conflicts will centre on religion—the topic of his next book. He learned his Catholicism as an altar boy in East Grinstead. For him it is a sacramental religion, all about smell and sight and touch. Ritual is at its core, because “ritual has no point beyond itself. Only ritual can approximate the ineffability of the divine, enact its truth while not purporting to explain or capture it.”
Sullivan feels that this model of religion—filled with a sense of the mysterious, and the unknowability of God—has been replaced in both America and the Vatican by outright fundamentalism... “I remember feeling that without the structure of my faith, without my knowledge of its infallible truth, I might have been completely overwhelmed,” he says. Fundamentalism “was a way of sealing myself off from the world”. He sees American Christians turning to fundamentalism as a panicked response to change and doubt too. They have ended up pining for a theocracy that is contrary to his beloved US constitution and basic liberties for gay people.
He says his next battle is to “turn Christianity against the fundamentalists”. For him, “their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him.” In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.
A great introduction/interview with influential and controversial blogger Andrew Sullivan. Two passages that particularly jumped out at me:
It was at this time that Sullivan discovered the philosopher who was to provide the timber of his conservatism—and the road map to many of his apparent contradictions. Michael Oakeshott was then a relatively obscure English philosopher in his 80s. Sullivan characterises his thought as “an anti-ideology, a nonprogramme, a way of looking at the world whose most perfect expression might be called inactivism”.
At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know. As Sullivan puts it: “While not denying that the truth exists, the [Oakeshottian] conservative is content to say merely that his grasp on it is always provisional. He begins with the assumption that the human mind is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes, or see only so far ahead.” In light of this extreme fallibility, human beings should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty—in religion, or political ideology—are invariably hubristic. We have to build our politics on “the radical acceptance of what we cannot know for sure”.
"He believes his greatest future conflicts will centre on religion—the topic of his next book. He learned his Catholicism as an altar boy in East Grinstead. For him it is a sacramental religion, all about smell and sight and touch. Ritual is at its core, because “ritual has no point beyond itself. Only ritual can approximate the ineffability of the divine, enact its truth while not purporting to explain or capture it.”
Sullivan feels that this model of religion—filled with a sense of the mysterious, and the unknowability of God—has been replaced in both America and the Vatican by outright fundamentalism... “I remember feeling that without the structure of my faith, without my knowledge of its infallible truth, I might have been completely overwhelmed,” he says. Fundamentalism “was a way of sealing myself off from the world”. He sees American Christians turning to fundamentalism as a panicked response to change and doubt too. They have ended up pining for a theocracy that is contrary to his beloved US constitution and basic liberties for gay people.
He says his next battle is to “turn Christianity against the fundamentalists”. For him, “their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him.” In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.
24 November 2008
Debating the Bailout
Paul Krugman's Bailout Dissent - Media Column - Howell Raines - Portfolio.com
An interesting piece from Portfolio that looks at Krugman's prescience in arguing for real nationalization through the treasury's acquisition of equity stakes in struggling institutions. Makes a LOT more sense to me than much of the activity in the last 2 months. It worked in Sweden once before, as well as elsewhere.
An interesting piece from Portfolio that looks at Krugman's prescience in arguing for real nationalization through the treasury's acquisition of equity stakes in struggling institutions. Makes a LOT more sense to me than much of the activity in the last 2 months. It worked in Sweden once before, as well as elsewhere.
12 November 2008
Morales Update
Bolivia and the United States | Non grata | The Economist
O Evo! What are you doing?! Chavez is no true friend to your people!
O Evo! What are you doing?! Chavez is no true friend to your people!
Post-Analysis
John McCain's election | The unhappy warrior | The Economist
A fine assessment and summary of Arizona's senator after his failed bid.
A fine assessment and summary of Arizona's senator after his failed bid.
06 November 2008
Books Online
Google's book deal | A new chapter | The Economist
An interesting new development in online information availability...with some significant repercussions for key players in this segment.
An interesting new development in online information availability...with some significant repercussions for key players in this segment.
05 August 2007
The Economist Does NYC
A bit dated, but here's an excerpt and link to a weekly feature from a week or so back:
"New York is certainly more protean than most European cities, but I wonder whether Mr Whitehead didn’t capture something larger here, something of the wistfulness inherent in urban life. To live in a city is to live in a teeming, hectic present amidst the burnished memories and unblemished hopes of millions of other citizens. Things were great before you got here, and they’ll be wonderful after you leave, but while you are here you are always just the same old you. It’s a horrible fate, I know, and no less horrible for being universal, but I will always be grateful to have suffered it in Brooklyn, if only for a while."
Link to coverage on Economist.com
"New York is certainly more protean than most European cities, but I wonder whether Mr Whitehead didn’t capture something larger here, something of the wistfulness inherent in urban life. To live in a city is to live in a teeming, hectic present amidst the burnished memories and unblemished hopes of millions of other citizens. Things were great before you got here, and they’ll be wonderful after you leave, but while you are here you are always just the same old you. It’s a horrible fate, I know, and no less horrible for being universal, but I will always be grateful to have suffered it in Brooklyn, if only for a while."
Link to coverage on Economist.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
