Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Michio Kaku demonstrates through scientifically valid (so he says) "science-fiction"-like ways that the human race could try to save ourselves (in the uber-long term). Anyone wanting to hear the current fringes of applied cosmological theory or just read about applications of advanced physics (or enjoys Star Trek type possibilities) will enjoy this article. As always, it is extremely well written.

Mr Bush's budgetary plans concern many. The largest budget ever (a paltry $2.57 trillion) is commented on in many newspapers. Drudge reports that this may shift the tax burden to the rich (I haven't seen any numbers yet). The Economist reminds one of the good, bad, and ugly. And speaking of economics, more on Galbraith and Friedman...defining the state of opposing economic thought. And for those politics-watchers, here's a nice article on Leftist duality.

Cheers! Don't be too excited, but appreciate the attempt. Meanwhile, Feldman writes a subtly insightful article reviewing books on the rather popularized topic: Policy/History of Islam. He rightfully beats up Horowitz. But as a small critique, I believe, out of an unconscious desire towards optimism he focuses on the movement of "techniques and ideologies" and less on a psychological analysis of Islam. After all, why has this movement spread to Islam but not to other religious groups "displaced". Is it a matter of opportunity? a confluence of technological access? effects of globalization? These are the questions that I would like to hear answered (in a reasonably more academic/balanced/not-stupid way than is approached in many accusatory books describing the nature of Islam. But as I said, this is a small critique. The article is good. But I don't think quite as useful as Clarke's policy prescience -- "we will have to look to nongovernmental organizations and other nations to lead the battle of ideas. "

And more annoying things about Summers making the mistake of actually trying to think outloud.

Also...Clifford Geertz's anthropological understanding of American influence (although semantically I think I disagree, his analysis is certainly interesting).

No comments:

Post a Comment