Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

“There Will Be New Celebrities, Thousands Of Them”

January 24, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

The excellent Paleofuture blog at the Smithsonian found a 1997 article in which Garrison Keillor made predictions about the future of different aspects of American life, including the media. Here’s a couple of passages: the first accurately predicts the rise of reality TV while the second wrongly believed that people would mourn the demise of newspapers:

1.

“People will feel nostalgia for celebrities, real ones, like there used to be back when there were three TV networks and Americans watched the same shows at the same time and talked about them the next day at work. Television was common currency. Sunday afternoons you watched the NFL game with your dad on the couch and then you went to the table and ate pot roast and mashed potatoes. Everybody else did the same thing.

Every American knew Sinatra by sight and by voice, but when you scattered the audience among 200 cable-TV channels and 1,000 movies you could watch on the Internet and 10,000 CDs you could down-load, there weren’t many true celebrities anymore. People will miss them.

There will be new celebrities, thousands of them, but not many people will know who they are.”

2.

“People are not going to dress up as us or stage re-enactments of our wars or collect our cellular phones, our books on healing and empowerment, our CDs of Old Age music, our pepper grinders, our billions of T-shirts. They will resent what we did to the country, and we will go down in their history as the age of effluvia, with the simple moral: If you love trash too much, you will make yourself stupid.

By ‘trash’ I don’t mean a publication such as The New York Times. People are going to miss it a lot – they’ll think: What a wonderful thing a newspaper was! You opened it and there it was, you didn’t have to wait three minutes for the art to download, and when your wife said, ‘Give me a section,’ you did.”

Tags:

“Haggis Held On Through Every Moment Of Doubt And Twist In The Story”

January 24, 2013 in Books, Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

There’s always this odd little question mark attached to Michael Kinsley’s distinguished journalism career because of the cloudy circumstances of how he came to miss out on the New Yorker editor slot that subsequently went to David Remnick, but I always stop and read anything attached to his byline. You’ve probably already read his New York Times Book Review piece about Lawrence Wright’s just-released Scientology exposé, Going Clear, but in case you missed it here’s a segment that takes aim at the long-delayed apostasy of filmmaker Paul Haggis, whom Kinsley doesn’t completely absolve:

“The fish that got away, Scientologists believed, was Steven Spielberg. He told Haggis that Scientologists ‘seem like the nicest people,’ and Haggis responded that ‘we keep all the evil ones in the closet,’ which was close enough to being true that Haggis was in hot water with the Scientology powers-that-be. But he didn’t quit.

Haggis joined Scientology in 1975, when he was 21. Wright assures us that Haggis ‘never lost his skepticism,’ but he must have misplaced it for a few decades. He remained a member and rose to be a top thetan among Scientologists through the death of L. Ron Hubbard and the rise of his successor, David Miscavige, who has often been described as sadistic. Then he read on the Internet about children ’10, 12 years old, signing billion-year contracts, . . . and they work morning, noon and night. . . . Scrubbing pots, manual labor — that so deeply touched me. My God, it horrified me.’ Still, he didn’t quit. Once again like American Communists on the eve of World War II, a few ‘useful idiots’ like Haggis held on through every moment of doubt and twist in the story. What finally pushed him over the edge, away from Scientology and out into the real world, was the church’s refusal to endorse gay marriage. Now, I’m for gay marriage. And Haggis has two gay daughters, so it’s understandable that he should feel particularly strongly about this issue. But some perspective, please: it’s like hanging on through the Moscow trials and then quitting the Communist Party because it won’t endorse . . . oh, I dunno — well, gay marriage.”

Tags: , ,

“We Can Clone All Kinds Of Mammals, So It’s Very Likely That We Could Clone A Human”

January 23, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech | Permalink

From a really good recent Spiegel interview with synthetic biology pioneer George Church, a passage about cloning Neanderthals, which would allow us to finally end our shortage of stupid people:

“Spiegel:

Mr. Church, you predict that it will soon be possible to clone Neanderthals. What do you mean by ‘soon’? Will you witness the birth of a Neanderthal baby in your lifetime?

George Church:

That depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think so. The reason I would consider it a possibility is that a bunch of technologies are developing faster than ever before. In particular, reading and writing DNA is now about a million times faster than seven or eight years ago. Another technology that the de-extinction of a Neanderthal would require is human cloning. We can clone all kinds of mammals, so it’s very likely that we could clone a human. Why shouldn’t we be able to do so?

Spiegel:

Perhaps because it is banned?

George Church:

That may be true in Germany, but it’s not banned all over the world. And laws can change, by the way.

Spiegel:

Would cloning a Neanderthal be a desirable thing to do?

George Church:

Well, that’s another thing. I tend to decide on what is desirable based on societal consensus. My role is to determine what’s technologically feasible. All I can do is reduce the risk and increase the benefits.”

Tags:

“The Library Of Congress Is Now Stockpiling The Entire Twitterverse”

January 23, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

Kim Kardashian Kim Kardashian‏@KimsThoughts_

Do ants have dicks?

______________________

From James Gleick’s New York Review of Books article about the Library of Congress collecting the whole of Twitter, no matter how stupid the tweets, a historical antecedent for such a massive information-collecting undertaking:

“For a brief time in the 1850s the telegraph companies of England and the United States thought that they could (and should) preserve every message that passed through their wires. Millions of telegrams—in fireproof safes. Imagine the possibilities for history!

‘Fancy some future Macaulay rummaging among such a store, and painting therefrom the salient features of the social and commercial life of England in the nineteenth century,’wrote Andrew Wynter in 1854. (Wynter was what we would now call a popular-science writer; in his day job he practiced medicine, specializing in ‘lunatics.’) ‘What might not be gathered some day in the twenty-first century from a record of the correspondence of an entire people?’

Remind you of anything?

Here in the twenty-first century, the Library of Congress is now stockpiling the entire Twitterverse, or Tweetosphere, or whatever we’ll end up calling it—anyway, the corpus of all public tweets. There are a lot.”

Tags: ,

“If Aliens Came Here And Were Determined To Treat Us The Way That Vegan Humans Treat Animals, We’d Still Be In Serious Trouble”

January 22, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

Nature is a necessary evil, so I try to do my part: I’m a vegetarian bordering on vegan. But I use a cell phone and do you know how many birds are killed each year by cell towers? Animals are also done in by radio towers and logging and commercial development, and I enjoy products that those industries create. Essentially, for anyone who really cares about animals being treated ethically, diet isn’t enough. So asserts Rhys Southan in his new Aeon essay, “The Vegans Have Landed.” An excerpt about the speculative scenario in which a superior alien race that takes over Earth happens to be vegan–and still ruins us:

“My objection to the alien invasion scenario is more sweeping. If we want to take the interests of animals seriously, then the biggest failure of the analogy is that it underestimates just how malign we are. Sure, if we were replaced as the dominant animals on the planet, we’d probably prefer the new ruling species to be vegan. But if aliens with superior technology and minds came here and were determined to treat us the way that vegan humans treat animals on this planet, we’d still be in serious trouble. Veganism would hardly figure as a safeguard of our wellbeing.

Universal veganism wouldn’t stop the road-building, logging, urban and suburban development, pollution, resource consumption, and other forms of land transformation that kills animals by the billions. So what does veganism do exactly? Theoretically, it ends the raising, capture and exploitation of living animals, and it stops a particular kind of killing that many vegans claim is the worst and least excusable: the intentional killing of animals in order to use their bodies as material goods.

Veganism, as a whole, requires us to stop using animals for entertainment, food, pharmaceutical testing, and clothing. If it were to become universal, factory farming and animal testing would end, which would be excellent news for all the animals that we capture or raise for these purposes. But it would accomplish next to nothing for free-roaming wild animals except to stop hunting, which is the least of their problems.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature in Switzerland, the world’s first global environmental organisation, says:

Analyses of the data on threats to bird, mammal and amphibian species… show that the most pervasive threat that they face is habitat destruction and degradation driven by agricultural and forestry activities.”

Tags:

“It Sounded Like Boris Karloff Welcoming Us To His Castle”

January 22, 2013 in Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

In 1979, a year after the People’s Temple, the American cult that relocated to Guyana, was torn asunder by homicide and mass suicide, People reexamined the jaw-dropping descent of Rev. Jim Jones, a charismatic, paranoid man who could not hide his haunting eyes behind even the darkest glasses, and his disciples. From “The Legacy of Jonestown,” a passage about a couple who escaped the self-imposed slaughter:

With uncanny timing, Richard Clark launched his long-planned escape from Jonestown on the morning of the massacre. “I can’t say I’m psychic, but I can always feel danger,” says Clark, 43, now a presser for a San Francisco dry cleaner. Quietly he told his companion, Diane Louie, that ‘something definite is going to happen, and I want to be out of here when it does.’ Diane passed the word to seven others. Hacking through the jungle with a machete, the little group—including four children—found the path to the railroad. Then, by foot and train, they made their way to Matthew’s Ridge some 30 miles away. That was where they learned of the tragedy they had so narrowly escaped. 

Before they came to Guyana, Clark and Louie had envisioned Jonestown as a tropical paradise. Their disillusionment began during the 24-hour boat trip from Georgetown to the Peoples Temple community in May 1978. Hot and overcrowded, the fishing boat was crawling with “huge roaches with eyes as big as mine,” Clark remembers. Adds Louie, 26: “It was the first time I had an idea of what a slave ship must have been like.” Both were chilled to hear Jones’ voice greeting them on the loudspeaker when they arrived. “It sounded like Boris Karloff welcoming us to his castle,” Clark recalls. “There was no longer the love.”

Even today Clark, who joined the Temple in San Francisco in 1972 and left his wife at the leader’s order, believes Jones had supernatural healing and mind-reading powers. But the grim reality of Jonestown shook his faith. “You could see people starving, hungry, sick,” he says. “But they couldn’t face the fact that Jones was doing it.” Soon after his arrival, Clark began to plan his departure. To shield himself from Jones’ propaganda, he took a job on the pig farm, out of earshot of the maniacal broadcasts—then volunteered to clear the jungle so he could hunt for escape routes. And he prepared himself mentally. “I began to program myself to hate Jones,’ he says, ‘because this was the only way that you could fight him.”

Still together, Clark and Louie are troubled by memories of lost friends. Clark also grieves for two stepchildren who refused to accompany him and died in Jonestown. Although the couple and other survivors entered group therapy back in the U.S., they soon gave it up. “The tape-recorded sessions reminded me of the Peoples Temple,’ Louie says. ‘I got more help and sympathy talking to my family and friends.” She is once again working as a surgical technician, but failed in an attempt to study nursing. ‘I couldn’t concentrate,” she says. Clark is bothered by high blood pressure and bad dreams. “I feel like I’m getting better,” he says. “But I don’t think anyone who’s been in a concentration camp will ever get over it.”•

Tags: , ,

“We Wanted Flying Cars, Instead We Got 140 Characters”

January 22, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

It’s arrogant for any particular group of humans at any moment to think that they are the beginning, that what came before them was merely prelude. But the same type of hubris may attend the thought that we’ve exhausted all intellectual possibility, that we are at the end. I accept that output and incomes have stagnated in America for most of the last four decades and that transformational technologies are hard to come by, but I don’t think we’ve reached an endgame of ingenuity. From the recent Economist cover story about the seeming diminishing returns of human effort:

“To those fortunate enough to benefit from the best that the world has to offer, the fact that it offers no more can disappoint. As Mr [Peter] Thiel and his colleagues at the Founders Fund, a venture-capital company, put it: ‘We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.’ A world where all can use Twitter but hardly any can commute by air is less impressive than the futures dreamed of in the past.

The first thing to point out about this appeal to experience and expectation is that the science fiction of the mid-20th century, important as it may have been to people who became entrepreneurs or economists with a taste for the big picture, constituted neither serious technological forecasting nor a binding commitment. It was a celebration through extrapolation of then current progress in speed, power and distance. For cars read flying cars; for battlecruisers read space cruisers.

Technological progress does not require all technologies to move forward in lock step, merely that some important technologies are always moving forward. Passenger aeroplanes have not improved much over the past 40 years in terms of their speed. Computers have sped up immeasurably. Unless you can show that planes matter more, to stress the stasis over the progress is simply a matter of taste.”

Tags:

“I Like Technology. I Just Think It’s Complicated And Funny.”

January 22, 2013 in Books, Excerpts | Permalink

From Casey Burchby’s recent Los Angeles Review of Books interview with George Saunders about the satirist’s new short-story collection, a passage about his characters interacting with technology:

“Casey Burchby: 

In a number of these (and your previous) stories, characters find themselves grappling with strange technological ‘innovations.’ Does technology disturb you? Do you avoid computers and gadgets?

George Saunders:

No, not at all. I like technology. I just think it’s complicated and funny, I guess — the way our basic neuroses are always seeking a home, and whenever we invent something new, our neuroses rush over there and get writ large. Before there were cellphones and Twitter and Facebook were people narcissistic? Ha. But those are beautiful ways of heightening our narcissism and putting a big old spotlight on it. And really — as above — my experience has been that I don’t choose a topic or theme or anything like that, but just sort of wade in and see if I can get any magic going on the sentence level — and then ‘story’ comes out of that, as do ‘meaning’and ‘theme’ and all of that, and occasionally a weird new technology. The main job is to make some forward momentum and language-level engagement, I think — and then the rest of the stuff, meaning, theme, etc., has to — and will – take care of itself.

Or to put it another way: if the writer comes up with some strange device, and then lets people play with it, we are going to find out about people. If we have a device that lets us look into other people’s thoughts, we are going to find out about, say, humans’ need for attention and their pride and so on. ‘What does she think when she first catches sight of me? What? A big nose? I do not have a big nose!’ So that story isn’t really about that device, or about technology — but about, say, pride, or self-regard. So the technology or sci-fi aspects are, I guess, means to an (old, classic, traditional) end: hold a mirror up to human foibles and tendencies.

Casey Burchby: 

Several stories in the book — ‘The Semplica Girl Diaries’and ‘Escape from Spiderhead’ particularly — revolve around forms of technology that characters aren’t able or willing to engage because of moral or other ramifications. Does technological gimmickry start to endanger people beyond a certain point?

George Saunders: 

That’s a big question, and I guess I’d just have to say sure it does, sometimes. (Witness the atom bomb or that 1970s craze of ‘Asbestos Underwear.’) But as I mentioned above — the devices used in those stories are there mostly as tools — tools to get the moral-ethical wheels turning a bit and turn up the volume. And to be a degree more honest — on ‘The Semplica Girl Diaries,’ the whole thing came out of a dream I had. And when I woke up the dream didn’t seem insane, but weirdly charged — and I felt excited to try and flesh that world out. And the basic weird tech idea in the story was in the dream. So whatever was happening, it was my sub-conscious supplying the root material. And the only thing I ‘decided’was to go ahead and try it and see if I could make it stand up on its feet as a story. Very mysterious, really — I think sometimes we forget that art is really coming from somewhere other than our intention or decisions — it’s a gift from somewhere kind of unknown to us, except in glimpses…”

Tags: ,

“A Dutch Architect Is Interested In 3D Printing A Home”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Urban Studies, Videos | Permalink

A Moebius strip of a home is to be wholly created by a 3D printer in 2014. From Techcrunch:

“A Dutch architect is interested in 3D printing a home, with the hopes that it’ll be ready by 2014.

The architect’s name is Janjaap Ruijssenaars of Universe Architecture, and his project is a part of the Europan competition, which lets architects in over 15 different countries build projects over the course of two years.

Ruijssenaars will work with Italian inventor Enrico Dini, founder of the D-Shape 3D printer. The plan is to print out 6×9 chunks of frame, comprised of sand and inorganic binder. From there, they’ll fill the frame with fiber-reinforced concrete.

The final product will be a single flowing design, a two-story building.”

••••••••••

Janjaap Ruijssenaars also designed the Floating Bed:

Tags:

“Did You Prep For Zombies?”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

The end of the world is a giant pain in the ass, especially when it doesn’t arrive as promised. A Mississippi man, who prepared in earnest for the Mayan apocalypse he was sure would occur, just took to Reddit for an Ask Me Anything about his not-so-near-death experience. A few exchanges follow.

_______________________

Question:

What’s your IQ? 

Answer:

Not sure, but I am a pretty intelligent person, I maintained a 4.0 GPA throughout high school. Like I said, it was mainly just something to do, in fact I’m gonna keep preparing in case something ever happens.

_______________________

Question:

WHY?????????

Answer:

Well for a couple of reasons really, with the main one being it was just something to do, I am a redneck, ‘Murica, and the way things were going, it just seemed like it would happen.

Question:

The way things were going??? What state do you live in??

Answer:

Mississippi, and what I mean by that is, the global political situation, the tension in the Middle East, and our economy.

_______________________

Question:

What preparations did you make? Also, how did you expect it to end?

Answer:

Well lets see here, a few years ago I built a bunker on my property, for said reason, and it has actually proved to be extremely useful, my family and I use it as a storm shelter. I also bought tons of bottled water, weapons, ammunition, reinforced my house, bought lots of camping and general survival supplies.How I expected it to end? I honestly wasn’t sure, I just made a general survival plan that could apply to a huge variety of situations.

_______________________

Question:

Did you prep for zombies?

Answer:

My plan would apply to zombies, yes.

_______________________

Question:

Were you disappointed that nothing happened? 

Answer:

I was kind of disappointed, but not too much.

“A Few Individuals Could, Via Error Or Terror, Trigger A Societal Breakdown”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

When he was creating the online salon Edge, John Brockman wanted collect the greatest minds in the world. One of the people he chose was David Brooks. Go figure.

Still, there’s a lot of amazing stuff on the site (including one of my favorite essays from 2012), and no exception is the new feature, “What *Should* We Be Worried About?” It poses that question to a slew of thinkers. Here’s the opening of scientist Martin Rees’ answer:

“Those of us fortunate enough to live in the developed world fret too much about minor hazards of everyday life: improbable air crashes, carcinogens in food, and so forth. But we are less secure than we think. We should worry far more about scenarios that have thankfully not yet happened—but which, if they occurred, could cause such world-wide devastation that even once would be too often.

Much has been written about possible ecological shocks triggered by the collective impact of a growing and more demanding world population on the biosphere, and about the social and political tensions stemming from scarcity of resources or climate change. But even more worrying are the downsides of powerful new technologies: cyber-, bio-, and nano-. We’re entering an era when a few individuals could, via error or terror, trigger a societal breakdown with such extreme suddenness that palliative government actions would be overwhelmed.

Some would dismiss these concerns as an exaggerated Jeremiad: after all, human societies have survived for millennia, despite storms, earthquakes and pestilence. But these human-induced threats are different: they are newly emergent, so we have a limited timebase for exposure to them and can’t be so sanguine that we would survive them for long – nor about the ability of governments to cope if disaster strikes. And of course we have zero grounds for confidence that we can survive the worst that even more powerful future technologies could do.”

Tags:

“Don’t Force The Issue When You Don’t Have The Power”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

I think when history is written, it will be considered that Barack Obama came of age as President during the payroll-tax extension struggle of 2011, when the Republican-controlled House was backed into a corner and had to return, crawling, to the center. Among the far-right pundits who’ve driven the GOP almost off the map–the electoral map, at least–Charles Krauthammer at least seems to have a unique understanding that a more-seasoned Obama is likely to manhandle his political opponents during his second term if they don’t put strategy before severity. From the right-wing writer’s recent column:

“The Gingrich Revolution ran aground when it tried to govern from Congress, losing badly to President Clinton over government shutdowns. Nor did the modern insurgents do any better in the 2011 debt-ceiling and 2012 fiscal-cliff showdowns with Obama.

Obama’s postelection arrogance and intransigence can put you in a fighting mood. I sympathize. But I’m tending toward the realist view: Don’t force the issue when you don’t have the power.

The debt-ceiling deadline is coming up. You can demand commensurate spending cuts, the usual, reasonable Republican offer. But you won’t get them. Obama will hold out. And, at the eleventh hour, you will have to give in as you get universally blamed for market gyrations and threatened credit downgrades.”

Tags: ,

“We Must Do These Things Together, As One Nation, And One People”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

“Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.”

Tags:

“Here In America, We’ve Got To Live Together”

January 21, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

From Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1965 Playboy interview:

“PLAYBOY: You categorically reject violence as a tactical technique for social change. Can it not be argued, however, that violence, historically, has effected massive and sometimes constructive social change in some countries?

MARTIN LUTHER KING: I’d be the first to say that some historical victories have been won by violence; the U.S. Revolution is certainly one of the foremost. But the Negro revolution is seeking integration, not independence. Those fighting for independence have the purpose to drive out the oppressors. But here in America, we’ve got to live together. We’ve got to find a way to reconcile ourselves to living in community, one group with the other. The struggle of the Negro in America, to be successful, must be waged with resolute efforts, but efforts that are kept strictly within the framework of our democratic society. This means reaching, educating and moving large enough groups of people of both races to stir the conscience of the nation.”

Tags:

“He Is Taught About In Schools As A Righteous American Who Helped Build Chinese Communism”

January 13, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics, Urban Studies | Permalink

The opening of Jonathan Margolis’ new Finanical Times profile of nonagenarian Sidney Rittenberg, who has done a whole lot more during his insane career than just carrying pictures of Chairman Mao:

“There is a not inconsiderable history among the children of successful, prominent Jewish families of getting involved in leftwing politics. From the Marxes to the Milibands, it’s a well-trodden path. Few have taken this tradition quite as far, however, as Sidney Rittenberg, scion of a prominent Jewish family in Charleston, South Carolina.

It was in the 1930s that Rittenberg rejected a career as a lawyer and became a trade union and civil rights activist. He then went a little further. He became a communist, learnt Chinese, went to China, joined Mao Zedong’s guerrillas fighting Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists, emerged after the communist victory as a senior party member close to Mao, ran Radio Peking, translated Mao’s thoughts into English, became a leading rabble rouser in the Cultural Revolution – and, by the by, was imprisoned for 16 years in solitary confinement, accused of being a US spy. Then he came back to the US and made a fortune advising American companies on how to get into China.

I first heard of this historical revolutionary figure in China, where he is known as Li Dunbai (it sounds a little like Rittenberg to Chinese ears). To this day, he is taught about in schools as a righteous American who helped build Chinese communism.

Now 91, Rittenberg is not only alive, but living in Arizona – quite unusual for one honoured by Mao as an international communist fighter – and still running his company and teaching at a university. He is also on Facebook. The answer to an interview request came in five minutes. From his iPad. “You’re welcome,” he said.

 

Tags: ,

“Would You Rather Fight One Horse-Sized Silvio Berlusconi Or 100 Duck-Sized Silvio Berlusconis?”

January 13, 2013 in Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

Tom Standage, the Digital Editor at the Economist just did an Ask Me Anything on Reddit about that singular publication. A few exchanges about the company culture and hiring practices.

_____________________________

Question:

Who are your articles geared towards with regard to audience – professionals or academics?

Answer:

They are geared towards a curious alien who has just landed and speaks English. This is why we say things like “Ford, a carmaker.”

_____________________________

Question:

I was the Richard Casement intern at the Economist last year. I saw that journalists at the paper worked normal hours (9 to 6ish). But there was no one keeping time. People came in and left whenever they wanted. The office was open 24 hours.

I know many who worked from home many times. My boss (science & tech editor) works from home 2 days every week (not counting the weekend of course).

Answer:

Thanks, Akshat! Yes, there isn’t really a culture of presenteeism here. Nobody really minds where you are, as long as you do your job.

_____________________________

Question:

I’ve always found that The Economist has a clear, effective, straight-to-the-point writing style, which is very enjoyable (to me at least).

I was wondering: is that something that’s explicitly asked of staff writers? If so, how do you (or someone else) help your colleagues achieve that? 

Answer:

When we hire people, we basically ignore the CVs and just look at the sample articles they send in. (We ask people to submit “an article they think would be suitable for publication”, or somesuch.) If the article contains a brilliant idea, or is written perfectly to our style, or ideally both, then that person goes on the shortlist. The great thing about our style, from the perspective of being a writer, is that it’s pretty clear what the target is that you’re supposed to hit. If you can hit it, then your copy will hardly be edited at all as it goes up the editorial chain. If you can’t, then it will be edited ruthlessly, which encourages you to try harder next time. This seems to work.

_____________________________

Question:

I know that the editorial staff at the Economist hates Silvio Berlusconi, so I have to ask…

Would you rather fight one horse sized Silvio Berlusconi or 100 duck sized Silvio Berlusconis?

Answer:

I’ve always seen this question from the perspective of a gamer. Do I prefer fighting lots of small enemies while crawling a dungeon, or fighting the boss at the end? I generally find boss fights quite tedious, because they either involve exploiting the boss’s unusual vulnerability, usually heavily signposted, using a recently acquired item (I’m looking at you, Zelda games), or it’s simply a matter of grinding the enemy down (as with a dragon in Skyrim). We could speculate about what the amusing weak spot of a horze-sized Berlusconi might be, but I think I’d prefer to pick off the 100 duck-sized ones.

Tags:

“Cars Could Become A Self-Organizing Entity”

January 10, 2013 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

In the future, small caravans of cars could wirelessly become insta-social networks on the highway, sharing information, preventing crashes. From ArsTechnica:

“But what if getting on the highway also meant joining a wireless mesh network consisting of all the cars around you? Cars could become a self-organizing entity, avoiding collisions and minimizing traffic congestion. The cars themselves would be smart enough to cooperate with each other.

‘You can imagine in the future, you could enter the highway, mesh with five or six other vehicles around you and you caravan together,’ said Dan Rabinovitsj, senior VP of chipmaker Qualcomm Atheros’s networking business unit. ‘You’re essentially making sure you’re not just keeping proper distance from the front and back, which a number of vehicles do today, but literally in 360 degrees. And of course passing along messages: there’s a policeman up ahead, there’s an accident up ahead, or there’s a stoplight. All of these things are starting to intersect.'”

Tags:

“The Purpose Of This Discussion Is Not To Impugn The Character Of Billionaires”

January 10, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics, Science/Tech | Permalink

Gawker writer Hamilton Nolan thinks that everything is terrible and everybody is horrible. He’s probably right. In his post “Do the ‘Good Rich’ Exist?” Nolan references a great 2006 essay by philosopher Peter Singer and a new book by historian Robert F. Dalzell to consider if the super-rich who give away great wealth while still in possession of even greater wealth are actually deserving of our praise. An excerpt:

“The purpose of this discussion is not to impugn the character of billionaires. It is to ask: What is the cost to society of the perception that we should be grateful to these wealthy men for their generosity? The assumptions implicit in that view are A) that the wealthy are fully entitled to their money because they earned it on the basis of their own talents, and B) that the need for society and its laws to protect the entitlement of the rich to their own wealth outweighs the aggregate societal needs that could be cured or ameliorated by that wealth (poverty, disease, etc.). Gratitude towards the great philanthropists is based on the assumption that they are not and should not be expected to give their wealth back to the world; it is based on the assumption that the normal, default, acceptable behavior for the very wealthy is to hoard most of their wealth and put it solely to their own use. It is a view in which society grovels at the feet of great men who have succeeded where the rest of us have failed.

Warren Buffett himself has attributed most of his success to the society he lives in—its governmental protections, its rule of law, its fair and transparent markets, its educational system, and so on. The wise rich (and anyone realistic about the role of chance in the outcomes of all of our lives) recognize that personal talent is but one minor ingredient of vast success. If society is responsible for the vast majority of the success of the rich, then returning the vast majority of that wealth back to society is the least that the rich can do. (Really, it’s the least, considering the fact that they would still be left incredibly wealthy.) This level of giving back to the society that spawned them should be expected of the rich. Yes, society owes them its gratitude—the same gratitude that it owes you for paying your taxes, and volunteering, and making your annual donation to UNICEF. The same gratitude, regardless of the number of zeroes on the check. The gratitude that comes when someone does a good thing that they are expected to do. The gratitude you get for fulfilling your role as a responsible member of society.

To the extent that we should be grateful to the great philanthropists, we should be grateful to them for fulfilling a duty. And to the extent that that duty is to be truly generous, it is a duty that none of them have fulfilled.”

Tags: , ,

“Someone Once Ate 26 Pancakes”

January 10, 2013 in Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

IHOP night-shift waitress does an Ask Me Anything at Reddit and discussion of sex, drunkenness and gluttony ensues. A few exchanges follow.

_______________________________

Question:

Why is my steak purple? Also, can I get a refill?

Answer:

Because I said so, and no.

_______________________________

Question:

Do any of your coworkers have one leg?

Answer:

Hahaha……..No.

_______________________________

Question:

The most pancakes you’ve ever seen consumed?

Answer:

Someone once ate 26 pancakes from our All You Can Eat Pancakes.

_______________________________

Question:

How obvious is it when we’re drunk?

Answer:

Extremely.

_______________________________

Question:

Do you think it would be better for drunks to puke in an inconspicuous spot outside (where it won’t be seen) or in a more visible location where it can be cleaned up before it rots and attracts animals?

Answer:

As long as we don’t have to clean it up, I don’t care.

_______________________________

Question:

Have you ever slept with a customer?

Answer:

No.

“Here’s My Conjecture…He Seems To Like The Tension”

January 9, 2013 in Excerpts, Politics | Permalink

Peggy Noonan, an astrologer of politics, is always reading the tea leaves or some such bullshit. Luckily for her, she’s employed in an industry that doesn’t penalize for a lack of accuracy or modest writing talents.

You see, Noonan, that armchair generalizer, thinks that President Obama is divisive. It’s not that the recent vintage of her party disqualifies as all-but-traitorous anyone who deigns to lead the opposition party (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.) or that a large wing of the GOP is extremist and/or racist. The Republicans are desperate to be led by our first African-American President, to come up with sensible bargains and compromises. The current Congress is made up of just such moderates. But that bad Obama guy refuses their largesse and chooses instead to outwit them and create drama.

From a recent Wall Street Journal column in which Noonan interrupts her love of pronouns for, oh fuck, some fantasy-land conjecture:

“After the past week it seems clear Mr. Obama doesn’t really want to work well with the other side. He doesn’t want big bipartisan victories that let everyone crow a little and move forward and make progress. He wants his opponents in disarray, fighting without and within. He wants them incapable. He wants them confused.

I worried the other day that amid all the rancor the president would poison his future relations with Congress, which in turn would poison the chances of progress in, say, immigration reform. But I doubt now he has any intention of working with them on big reforms, of battling out a compromise at a conference table, of having long walks and long talks and making offers that are serious, that won’t be changed overnight to something else. The president intends to consistently beat his opponents and leave them looking bad, or, failing that, to lose to them sometimes and then make them look bad. That’s how he does politics.

Why? Here’s my conjecture: In part it’s because he seems to like the tension. He likes cliffs, which is why it’s always a cliff with him and never a deal. He likes the high-stakes, tottering air of crisis. Maybe it makes him feel his mastery and reminds him how cool he is, unrattled while he rattles others. He can take it. Can they?

He is a uniquely polarizing figure. A moderate U.S. senator said the other day: ‘One thing not said enough is he is the most divisive president in modern history. He doesn’t just divide the Congress, he divides the country.'”

Tags:

“Social Standards Inherited From The Days Of Cheap Servant Labor Dictate Much More Cleanliness Than Is Required For Hygiene”

December 27, 2012 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

From “Housework in Utopia,” a post about domestic drudgery by economist John Quiggin, a passage about how we struggle to keep up appearances that were established under a long-abandoned societal model:

“The household appliances that first came into widespread use in the 1950s  (washing machines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers and so on), eliminated a huge amount of drudgery, but technological progress for the next forty years or so was pretty limited. The only truly significant innovation I can date to this period is the microwave oven.

At the same time, the great decline in inequality freed lots of working class women from doing the chores of others, as well as maintaining their own homes. Those same tasks, eased by technology but still burdensome, were shifted onto middle-class women who would previously have employed servants.

How likely is it that new appliances will resolve the remaining problems of household labor? We just acquired a vacuum cleaning robot which is a real boon, and there are versions that are supposed to clean tiled floors as well.

In other cases, there are less direct solutions. Technological progress in the clothing industry means that it no longer makes economic sense to sew your own clothes, or even to mend them. So, these are now jobs that fit into category (2) – to the extent that we do them it’s because we enjoy them. Similarly, while the bugs still need to be ironed out of online shopping, particularly for groceries, it won’t be long before no one needs to visit a physical shop unless they enjoy the experience (once every three months is about optimal for me!).

That still leaves a number of inescapably physical and essentially crappy jobs, for which technology has yet to offer a solution. The obvious examples for me are cleaning (surfaces, baths, toilets etc) and ironing (not such a problem if, unlike me, you can do it while watching a video/TV). Something these tasks share, and which is true of a lot of crappy jobs, is that we do a lot more than is actually necessary.  Social standards inherited from the days of cheap servant labour dictate much more cleanliness than is required for hygiene, and practices like ironing for which there is no need at all.

So, a final part of my idea of utopia would be the institution of social norms that frown on unnecessary crap-work. In my utopia, a freshly ironed shirt would attract the same kind of response that is now elicited by a fur coat or an ivory brooch – a mixture of anachronistic admiration with disapproval of the process by which it was produced, with the latter element predominating over time.

I haven’t done the numbers yet, but it seems to me that with a bit of technological progress and a sensible attitude, we could get the requirement for household crapwork below an hour a day, which even utopians should be willing to live with.”

Tags:

“Many Of Those Technologies May End Up Restricted”

December 27, 2012 in Excerpts, Science/Tech, Urban Studies | Permalink

Brad Plumer at the Washington Post reports on a question I’ve wondered about: In the future, what are we going to smuggle? He collects info from Wikistrat’s crowdsourcing project to predict what will be desired contraband in 2050. I don’t agree with most of the list, but it is fun. Two entries:

“– Experimental health enhancers. The future could bring a whole host of new technologies, from ‘software to create pleasurable sensory overloads’ to ‘biotechnology allowing the creation of (truly) perfect babies,’ says Wikistrat. Many of those technologies may end up restricted. For instance, schools and communities may decide to bar cognition-enhancing drugs because they give certain students unfair advantages. In that case, they may thrive on the black market, much as steroids do.

– Rare species. Scientists are already warning that millions of species could become extinct by 2050 because of human activity and climate change. Some useful species that are already dying out — those mysteriously vanishing honeybees, perhaps? — could be a hot black market commodity by mid-century.”

Tags:

“They Had More Staff In Florida Than We Had In The Country”

December 27, 2012 in Excerpts, Politics, Science/Tech | Permalink

Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe exhaustively analyzes why President Obama beat Mitt Romney, giving credit, yes, to a more information-rich campaign, but also stressing the importance of marrying big data to retail politics. An excerpt:

“Tagg Romney could not figure it out. Why had Obama spent so heavily during the primaries when he had no primary opponent? Only later did Tagg realize this was a key to Obama’s victory.

‘We were looking at all the money they were spending in the primary and we were thinking ‘what are they spending all their money on? They’re wasting a lot of money.’ They weren’t. They were paying staffers in Florida’ and elsewhere.

If Romney’s Manhattan Project had been debate preparation, then Obama’s was the ground game.

Building on its 2008 field organ­ization, Obama’s campaign had far more people on the ground, for longer periods, and backed by better data. In Florida, for example, the ­Romney campaign said it had fewer than 200 staff members on the ground, a huge commitment of its total of 500 nationwide. But the Obama campaign had 770 staff in Florida out of 3,000 or so nationwide.

‘They had more staff in Florida than we had in the country, and for longer,’ said Romney adviser Ron Kaufman.

Indeed, in swing state after swing state, the Obama field team was much bigger than the Romney troops. Obama had 123 offices in Ohio, compared with Romney’s 40. Obama had 59 offices in Colorado, compared with Romney’s 15, accord­ing to statistics compiled by the Obama campaign.

Stevens said he expressed alarm about the Democrat’s early advantage in money and staff. He said Obama’s decision to reject public financing for the fall campaign (a move Romney followed) worked to Obama’s advantage ­because Obama used primary funds to prepare for the general election, and it meant there was no ceiling on how much could be spent.

‘It is like sitting in the ­Alamo,’ Stevens said in the postelection interview, comparing the siege by Mexican troops in 1836 to competing against the superior forces of the Obama campaign. ‘Yes, it is alarming. There are a lot of Santa Anna’s soldiers out there.'” (Thanks Browser.)

Tags: , ,

“We’re Ceding Control Of That History To The Cold Precision Of The Computer”

December 27, 2012 in Excerpts, Science/Tech | Permalink

Precision has always been the goal of the cartographer, but does the increasing exactness of computer-generated navigation (Apple Maps aside) reduce the quest in some essential way? I vote “no” but Simon Garfield makes intelligent points on the subject in “The End of the Map” in the Wall Street Journal. An excerpt:

“As some may recall, it was not so long ago that we got around by using maps that folded. Occasionally, if we wanted a truly global picture of our place in the world, we would pull shoulder-dislocating atlases from shelves. The world was bigger back then. Experience and cheaper travel have rendered it small, but nothing has shrunk the world more than digital mapping.

There is something valuable about getting lost occasionally, even in our pixilated, endlessly interconnected world.

In medieval Christian Europe, Jerusalem was the center of the world, the ultimate end of a religious pilgrimage. If we lived in China, that focal point was Youzhou. Later, in the days of European empire, it might be Britain or France. Today, by contrast, each of us now stands as an individual at the center of our own map worlds. On our computers and phones, we plot a route not from A to B but from ourselves (‘Allow current location’) to anywhere of our choosing. Technology has enabled us to forget all about way-finding and geography. This is some change, and some loss.

Maps have always related and realigned our history; increasingly, we’re ceding control of that history to the cold precision of the computer. With this comes great responsibility. Leading mapmakers used to be scattered around the world, all lending their distinctive talents and interpretations. These days by far the most influential are concentrated in one place—Mountain View, Calif., home of the Googleplex.

There is something disappointing about the austere potential perfection of the new maps. The satellites above us have seen all there is to see of the world; technically, they have mapped it all. But satellites know nothing of the beauty of hand-drawn maps, with their Spanish galleons and sea monsters, and they cannot comprehend wanderlust and the desire for discovery. Today we can locate the smallest hamlet in sub-Saharan Africa or the Yukon, but can we claim that we know them any better? Do the irregular and unpredictable fancies of the older maps more accurately reflect the strangeness of the world?”

Tags:

“Until November, Ivan F. Boesky Was A Glittering Success”

December 26, 2012 in Excerpts, Urban Studies | Permalink

Before Bernie Madoff, there was Ivan Boesky, the stock trader who used insider information to amass more money than he could never hope to spend but still enjoyed counting. In May of 1986, Boesky gave a speech in which he said, “I think greed is healthy,” and perhaps Oliver Stone should have given him a screenwriting credit for Wall Street. Only months after that address, Boesky was ruined, the cover boy of outraged articles about Wall Street’s brazen malfeasance. If there was a lesson learned, it was soon forgotten. From People in 1986:

“The unmasking of Ivan Boesky—a man who has come to symbolize unbounded avarice—has unsettled the financial community because no one knows who else may be under investigation. It has also led to some belated soul-searching about the ethics of Wall Street. In a commencement speech last year at the School of Business Administration at Berkeley, this is what Boesky had to say about greed: ‘I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.’ 

Even at the end, when the Securities and Exchange Commission scuttled Boesky’s operation, he still managed to cut himself a deal. It is widely believed that he agreed to record his phone conversations and thus implicate an unknown number of unscrupulous traders. He was allowed to unload an estimated $1.6 billion worth of stocks before the announcement of the government’s charges against him could drive prices down. 

Until November, Ivan F. Boesky was a glittering success. He had an ideal family—a handsome wife and four children—and lived in a $3.3 million mansion in New York’s affluent Westchester County. He gave lavishly to charity; he supported both the Republican and Democratic establishments—in short, he appeared the perfect gentleman from sole to crown. 

If there was an unresolved mystery about him, it was the quirky drive of someone who had wealth like water, yet who still lived as though he worked in a sweatshop. He slept a mere two hours a night. ‘The machine doesn’t like to stop,’ he explained to an interviewer two years ago. 

The son of a Russian immigrant delicatessen owner in Detroit, Boesky had a restless, floundering youth, dropping in and out of college, unable to land a satisfying job even after he graduated from the Detroit College of Law at 27. But he married well. Seema Silberstein was the daughter of real estate tycoon Ben Silberstein. Muriel Slatkin, Seema’s sister, has said her father had a low opinion of Boesky, who he said had ‘the hide of a rhinoceros and the nerve of a burglar.'”

Tags:

« Older entries § Newer entries »