A great profile in the New Yorker:

This is the insight that makes Arendt a thinker for our time, when failed states have again and again become the settings for mass murder. She reveals with remorseless logic why emotional appeals to “human rights” or “the international community” so often prove impotent in the face of a humanitarian crisis. “The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as ‘inalienable’ because they were supposed to be independent of all governments,” she writes in “Origins,” “but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them.” This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and what is happening now in Darfur. Genocide is a political problem, Arendt insists, and it can be solved only politically.

Yet the supreme value that Arendt places on individual pride and aristocratic distance, on intellect and excellence, also sharply restricts the human understanding that must be the basis for any confrontation with political evil, especially the evil of the Holocaust. Too much of life and too many kinds of people are excluded from Arendt’s sympathy, which she could freely give only to those as strong as she was. If, as she wrote, “it is the desire to excel which makes men love the world,” then our love for the world actually makes it harder for us to love the people who inhabit it. This is the dilemma that runs through all Arendt’s writing, demonstrating that what she observed about Marx is true of her as well: “Such fundamental and flagrant contradictions rarely occur in second-rate writers; in the work of the great authors they lead into the very center of their work.”

and other cool ideas from a dude who is ridiculously smart (He recited pi to the 22,514th digit!)

The bell curve distribution for IQ scores tells us that two thirds of the world’s population have an IQ somewhere between 85 and 115. This means that some four and a half billion people around the globe share just 31 numerical values (“He’s a 94,” “You’re a 110,” ”I’m a 103”), equivalent to 150 million people worldwide sharing the same IQ score. This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of twelve signs of the zodiac.

Even if we cannot measure and assign precise values to it in any “scientific” way, I do very much think that “intelligence” exists and that it varies in the actions of each person. The concept is a useful and important one, for scientists and educators alike. My objection is to thinking that any ‘test’ of a person’s intelligence is up to the task. Rather we should focus on ensuring that the fundamentals (literacy, etc.) are well taught, and that each child’s diverse talents are encouraged and nourished.

From Bill James at Slate:

The problems with the BCS are:

1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;
2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches’ and sportswriters’ vote;
3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution; and
4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.

In truth, my objections to the system are a little different than Stern’s. His biggest objection, I think, is No. 4 above—that the BCS system is used to justify something that should not be justified. To me, the deal-breaker is No. 3—the imposition on the computer rankings of irrational rules that essentially guarantee the failure of the process.

An important thinker, a devoted priest, a passionate Catholic, a good man has died.  Fr. Neuhaus–and his family and his friends and the many people he has touched–are all in our prayers.  A note from First Things:

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus slipped away today, January 8, shortly before 10 o’clock, at the age of seventy-two. He never recovered from the weakness that sent him to the hospital the day after Christmas, caused by a series of side effects from the cancer he was suffering. He lost consciousness Tuesday evening after a collapse in his heart rate, and the next day, in the company of friends, he died.

My tears are not for him—for he knew, all his life, that his Redeemer lives, and he has now been gathered by the Lord in whom he trusted.

I weep, rather for all the rest of us. As a priest, as a writer, as a public leader in so many struggles, and as a friend, no one can take his place. The fabric of life has been torn by his death, and it will not be repaired, for those of us who knew him, until that time when everything is mended and all our tears are wiped away.

Funeral arrangements are still being planned; information about the funeral will be made public shortly. Please accept our thanks for all your prayers and good wishes.

In Deepest Sorrow,

Joseph Bottum
Editor
First Things

Keep this region in your prayers.  It’s not too far from war.

Pakistan had insisted it had seen no evidence linking the government—or indeed any Pakistani citizens—to an attack it blamed on “stateless actors”. And it suggests that India might be planning military reprisals. India has denied this, but Pakistan has moved troops from the Afghan border in readiness. Indian diplomats say the talk of a military threat from India is simply a smokescreen to divert attention from Pakistan’s failure to tackle the real issue: its nurturing of terrorists.

A lot of folks have been suggesting this, and I think it’s the best solution:

we propose a variable oil security charge that’s phased in gradually over four years. The charge would rise when oil prices go down and decline when they go up. The precise formula could be negotiated, but we suggest a 40-40-40 approach: a charge of $40 per barrel (roughly $1/gallon at the pump) if the price of oil goes $40 per barrel or less, which declines by 40 cents for each dollar increase in the price of oil until the market price reaches $140 per barrel (just shy of last summer’s record price). After that, the charge would be zero.

A sliding security charge provides several benefits. Once it is phased in, the variable approach mitigates the economic pain of an oil security charge by rising only as oil prices go down. (Research into what economists call “loss aversion” shows that the pain of foregoing a dollar’s gain is significantly less than the pain of giving up a dollar.) A variable oil security charge would also act as an automatic stabilizer for the economy. Rising oil prices tend to slow economic growth, while falling prices act as a stimulant to the economy. Our oil security charge declines when prices rise and so acts as a fiscal stimulus to offset the negative impacts of oil price increases. And the oil security charge increases as oil prices fall, preventing the sharp increase in oil consumption that can contribute to an overheated economy.

Sure, he’s from TV.  Yes, he has less experience than other health professionals in the policy world.  But what our nation needs right now is much less good policy (we basically know why we’re so unhealthy) and more somebody who can tell people how to do that and who they can trust.  Gupta is already a well known brand, he’s trusted, he’s smart, he’s certainly not a talking head, and he–more than anyone else in America–is in a position to talk to Americans about what absolutely needs to happen to make us healthier.

More here and here:

As Surgeon General, Gupta would oversee the 6,000-member commissioned corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Traditionally, the office, which was established in 1871, has served as a soapbox for promoting healthy living goals: C. Everett Koop launched an antismoking campaign in the 1980s; Joycelyn Elders, under President Clinton, pushed for stronger sex education in schools (she was later forced to resign, following the program’s controversy); and Richard Carmona focused on controlling drug abuse under President George W. Bush. With Gupta, that soapbox has the potential to become a podium for convincing the American public as well as legislators that the health of the U.S. cannot be fixed until we stop focusing only on health care and get serious about health.

Check them out.

A discussion at America.  Look at the main post but mostly read the conversation beneath.

and not just rich folks:

“Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people,” Jones told me. “That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off. The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack—Joe the Plumber—becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun.”