28 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 28th, 2009 @ 11:37:55 am, using 502 words, 43 views
Of the many head-thumpingly stupid, unreality-based policies we’ve wasted untold dollars on in recent years in order to let powerful people live out their hero fantasies, the War on (Some) Drugs and all its generals have been among the most determinedly destructive of everything this country was supposed to stand for. In its name, we’ve trashed the Bill of Rights, ruined lives, and reconstituted a good portion of Jim Crow. At least we’ve won it by now, after all those dollars, right?
(is that chirping?)
The real tragedy continues to be that pharmaceutical, and soon bioengineered, remedies for the addictions that drive so much of criminal drug activity (as opposed to the benign alcohol and nicotine addictions that we cheerfully tax and clean up after) have been out there for some time and keep dropping into possibilities at far less cost and more productivity. The book reviewed here, by a recovering physician, is a nice intro to that world of possibilities if you want more info, and the review itself opens up a host of other interesting questions and thought-provokers. Here’s a taste:
Addiction people will never say that someone is cured. Anyone is, at best, “recovering". People are alcoholics or crack heads even if it’s been years or decades since they had their last dose. This is because they are merely abstinent. A single dose of that drug, or even a visit to places where they previously let the good times roll can spark off a huge craving that can trigger the entire cycle again, something a recovering addict must always be on the watch for.
But what if you could cure it? What if you could just take a pill and make it all go away?
————————–
Since Ameisen published his cure, several other case studies have been done, and a couple of preliminary clinical trials. Most have seen at least some success. The book ends in bafflement that more studies are not taking advantage of what could be the cure addiction researchers have been looking for for years.
————————–
I don’t know whether society is ready, but I think that drug addicts and alcoholics have suffered enough. And society is suffering along with them. And on a completely pragmatic level, what harm could a clinical trial do? If it works, we have a cure. If it doesn’t, money wasted, but baclofen is a safe drug, and bad side effects are unlikely. I’m not willing to hang my addiction theory hat on a case study, or a series of case studies. A series of anecdotes, however convincing, are not data. But give me a large scale clinical trial, or a series of animal studies (there are already some out there), and then I’ll let you know. It may not be a cure, but considering what we have available right now, I think it’s certainly worth a try.
The whole thing will obviously fill in the blanks above, and be sure not to miss the comments following it (at least the non-moronic ones).
25 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 25th, 2009 @ 07:03:44 pm, using 820 words, 35 views
I’m not really a Luddite when it comes to the new technologies. That I blog in my mid-50s is a little proof of that, but I do get grumpy with the changing tech world and its intrusions into what I want my life to be. (What’s with no more cassettes, anyway?) I have yet to be convinced of the wonderfulness of the new reality, favoring the more leisurely pace of the my younger days. Younger types, not knowing those days, don’t know the difference so they don’t see the problems or the dangers.
I recommend they get acquainted with Maggie Jackson, interviewed in NeuroNarrative about her new book, Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age. Every major mode of communication made some skills more important than others, worked the brain differently, and made more or less possible. I’m a fan of the book, the long engagement, not the short-term, truncated, always tuned in communication system we’ve developed now. Jackson explains a few of the reasons why this world may not be as good as the one we’re leaving. Here’s one:
We’re plainly awash in digital technologies, with new ones being unveiled all the time -each vying for scarce pieces of our attention. Is it possible that the human brain is adapting to manage this onslaught?
Yes, we are awash in digital technologies that prey on our attention - from ads on screens in public places to the beeping, pinging communications gadgetry that is crucial for today’s work. Let’s look at this as an environmental issue first.
In one sense, we are not adapting well to this new environment, nor is this new environment conducive to the kind of in-depth thought and innovation that we need badly in the “information age.” Attention is our ticket to the world, our key to staying in tune with our environment. We are born to react to the new, the different or dangerous in our surroundings. That’s why we’re interrupt-driven. But there is a tension within attention, for this crucial system also gives us the ability to plan for the long-term, pursue our goals, and understand intangibles like the passage of time. When we’re constantly jumping to answer every beep or ping, we’re off-balance, overly depending on certain attentional skills, but overlooking our human need to plan or to tackle big-picture, messy, complex problems. Today, this is one reason why so many people feel frustrated that they do little more than “put out fires” and try to keep up with email all day at work.
Second, we are superficially adapting to managing the daily onslaught, yet in reality we’re undercutting our deeper abilities to think and relate deeply, and innovate. We seem to be so productive, speedily clicking through emails and ticking items off our never-ending to-do lists. By rampant multitasking and by fragmenting work into smaller and layered chunks, we can busily and efficiently seem to keep up with the tsunamis of communications data and information pummeling us. But consider that a third of workers say they’re often too busy and interrupted to process or reflect on the work they do, according to the Families and Work Institute.
As well, the average worker now switches tasks every three minutes throughout the day, and yet high levels of interruptions are related to stress, frustration, even lowered creativity, studies show. Most multitasking is actually task-switching, which is often linked to higher rates of errors and more shallow learning. Are we adapting to the demands of a so-called knowledge economy, or are we too often just more frenetically busy than ever before?
I worry that if we don’t change our path, we may collectively nurture new forms of ignorance, born not from a dearth of information as in the past, but from an inability or an unwillingness to do the difficult work of forging knowledge from the data flooding our world. In-depth analysis, reflective judgment and critical thinking begin with discomfort, a willingness to doubt, and discipline.
Finally, I do agree in part with the philosopher Andy Clark, who believes that technologies are truly a part of the power of the human mind. In other words, “thinking” doesn’t stop with what’s inside our skull. And I also believe that we can and will create technologies that become more sensitive to our need for focused, reflective thought and uninterrupted, unmediated human connection. (For more on this, check out my article in BusinessWeek on such research here.)
But I firmly believe that we can’t adapt to a complex, overload, digital world if we become overly dependent on our machinery to manage the info-onslaught for us. And we certainly are mistaken if we believe that a steady diet of multitasking and split-focus will give us the cognitive booster rockets needed to progress in this new age.
Whole lot more like that. Head on over.
24 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 24th, 2009 @ 07:19:54 pm, using 73 words, 36 views
What’s that, you say? You want to teach your kids about the human brain, just like every parent naturally does, and the websites aren’t getting it done? You might just have to turn to, huh, books? Well, you’re in luck. Over at Neuroanthropology, they got a cute post up on some books to look for, complete with Amazon links and brief summaries. (And don’t worry. We know the books are really for you.)
18 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 18th, 2009 @ 06:48:08 pm, using 398 words, 76 views
As we begin to contemplate Abe’s tricentennial, thought we should point out a couple of interesting series of posts on Abe at other blogs–one familiar, the other less so. At A Lincoln Blog, the familiar one, Brian Dirck is looking at what might be called the mistakes of Abe Lincoln (unwisely, I believe, giving credence to that idiot William Safire review a few days back, but Dirck’s won our forebearance). So far, he’s counted Abe’s bankruptcy with his New Salem business and his “Bloody Spot” speech as lapses of Abe’s judgment. Agree that the first is something that happens to young, ambitious, and POOR guys yet today, a mistake but not necessarily bad judgment. Disagree completely with the “Spot” speech being a mistake. Dirck suffers here from our contemporary “don’t be strident” culture and claims Abe got it under control better later. Well, there were no more “Spot” speeches but he got called out for what others called imprudent statements in speeches plenty of times later. I think Brian’s stretching here, but he’s trying to come up with 10 examples, and so the latter ones are naturally going to be weak. I’ll hold out giving the series a grade until I see the next ones.
The odder site for a series on Abe is Climate Progress, where uber-warming expert Joseph Romm is displaying both his and Abe’s understanding of the power and uses of rhetoric. Really interesting stuff with real applications for our leaders [sic] today. Here’s just a bit to get you interested:
A 2005 study on “Presidential Leadership and Charisma: The Effects of Metaphor” examined the use of metaphors in the first-term inaugural addresses of three dozen presidents who had been independently rated for charisma. The remarkable conclusion:
Charismatic presidents used nearly twice as many metaphors (adjusted for speech length) than non-charismatic presidents.
Additionally, when students were asked to read a random group of inaugural addresses and highlight the passages they viewed as most inspiring, “even those presidents who did not appear to be charismatic were still perceived to be more inspiring when they used metaphors.”
Given their power, metaphors have naturally become a weapon wielded by all great political speechmakers. Lincoln, a devout student of the two great rhetoric texts, the Bible and Shakespeare, understood that power more than any other president.
Go catch up on the rest. You’ll feel a lot smarter when you’re done.
10 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 10th, 2009 @ 06:42:09 pm, using 548 words, 44 views
Final part of the four on books about Abe’s speeches and speeching. These two deal with his last great one, the Second Inaugural. There is much good here, although I think too many writers today, trying too hard to find Abe’s new-found religion, make too much of the references in it. (One of the safest predictions about the profession of American History 20 years from now is the number of Abe books refuting this new surge of “religious Abe.") These weren’t new to the speech and Abe also had an audience to reach that, in that day, was most likely to be invoking God in less temperate and wise ways. The best part of the speech is, in fact, the invocation of humility in a time when, as later years showed, vengeance and self-righteousness on both sides could keep things from being brought to an acceptable close. There’s no doubt Lincoln felt it deeply and saw things more profoundly and spiritually at the end of the War than at the start. But that coincided with the explicit and conspicuous POLITICAL purpose of the speech, which had its desired effects and one tragic one, which was to piss Booth off so much that he decided no to kidnapping and yes to murder. The eloquence and wisdom and judgment and sensitivity to what had to be said and the way to say it were all phenomenal and unseen before or since, no matter how many times Obama reads “Team of Rivals.” Gettysburg is rightly the speech we as a culture need to memorize, but the Second Inaugural is the one that should be required reading for anyone before they decide they should be President.
Here are the summaries from the fly-leaves of two of the more recent books, both good, both worth your time. Read and learn.
James Tackach, Lincoln’s Moral Vision: The Second Inaugural Address
. . . during the political turbulence of the 1850s and during Lincoln’s presidency, his positions on [slavery, race, and religion] shifted dramatically. The profound changes in Lincoln’s thinking are evident in the Second Inaugural Address, in which he condemns slavery as a grievous national sin that prompted a just God to deliver upon the United States a fierce punishment in the form of a devastating civil war.
This book argues that the Second Inaugural Address was Lincoln’s resolution of the key moral and political issues of his time and is the key document in Lincoln’s entire literary canon.
Ronald C. White, Jr., Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural
After four years of unspeakable horror and sacrifice on both sides, the Civil War was about to end. On March 4, 1865, at his Second Inaugural, President Lincoln did not offer the North the victory speech it yearned for, nor did he blame the South solely for the sin of slavery. Calling the whole nation to account, Lincoln offered a moral framework for peace and reconciliation. The speech was greeted with indifference, misunderstanding, and hostility by many in the Union. But it was a great work, the victorious culmination of Lincoln’s own lifelong struggle with the issue of slavery, and he well understood it to be his most profound speech. Eventually this “with malice toward none” address would be accepted and revered as one of the greatest in the nation’s history.
07 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 7th, 2009 @ 07:05:29 am, using 630 words, 39 views
That loud wail that woke you, at least briefly, this morning was me seeing that the NY Times, finally deciding to focus on Abe books the weekend before his bicentennial, had gotten that overrated right-wing pundit William Safire to do the review. But then the wail toned down to a surprised mutter as I got through the first-half of the review talking about Abe and some of the books we’ve mentioned here without much to raise volume about. The second half, though? Well, here’s where he started wobbling badly:
But what of books not being written about our 16th president? I’d like to see an anthology of “Lincoln’s Greatest Mistakes — or Were They?”
He then proceeds to suggest topics for such a work that have already been done as books or put in anthologies. Now, given the wealth of Abe material, I wouldn’t want to be held responsible for knowing everything that’s been written about him either, but the self-assurance of the suggestion without any sign that he had checked to see if such books existed is part of that lazy “I’m the NY Times and you’re not” that has made the recent prospect of the paper and/or at least the Book Review so pleasant.
But here’s the real problem with Safire’s take. He proclaims that Abe’s overriding ideal, the end that justified his means, was maintenance of majority rule. I would take exception. Majority rule was a means for Abe itself. You could have just as easily said his ideal was the rule of law, which has as much or more evidence for it, but it too was only a means. The true end? The preservation of the structure that allowed individual Americans like Abe (and like me) to rise above circumstance to make the most of their lives, a structure, including majority rule, rule of law, and much more, that had been shakily constructed with the birth of this nation and was then, as now, under internal threat. IOW, Abe was committed to what will be called by future historians, pondering its life and current death, the American Legacy to future generations and to people across the globe wanting to rise above circumstance. That required maintaining the Union, the Declaration, and the Constitution, even if it meant in the short-term accepting contradictory goals that would long-term undermine the Legacy, such as keeping slavery intact but restricted to the South.
Having incorrectly set up Abe’s principles and commitment, Safire then goes on to postulate how an Abe who placed majority rule above all would react to other and/or contemporary (and frankly some fantasy) scenarios had he lived or lived today. Which, of course, gives him the chance to whip in a bit of the warped worldview of a man who could faithfully and in good conscience work for Richard Nixon. So, while not as conspicuously mendacious as the usual assignment of important books to hack but Beltway-popular reviewers, the Book Review editor does again manage to turn something valuable into conservative cant.
But, let’s give Safire this: a good ending. If he had only written his last paragraph, he could have been given credit for something worth reading. So here it is:
Let us, then (he liked that construction), not wallow in worship of a statue looking gravely down on multitudes from a marble monument engraved with famous lines. The way to honor the hero who did most to force us [my emphasis, think of all the ways that could have been said to put the onus on the Confederacy and you’ll see my point] to stay united is to absorb the ever-better histories that illuminate Lincoln’s character, his humanity, his genius in expression and, above all, his sure grasp of high political purpose.
06 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 6th, 2009 @ 07:21:57 pm, using 310 words, 38 views
Part two of four focusing on guiding you to some books about Abe and what, really, is he most distinctive for among our presidents (okay, we’ll argue that, but at least ONE of the most distinctive). These two books look at a couple of speeches the non-Lincolnite might not be as aware of but that laid the foundation for what was to come as President. So check them out before we get to the two speeches he’ll be remembered for hundreds of years from now.
Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President
Lincoln at Cooper Union explores Lincoln’s most influential and widely reported pre-presidential address–an extraordinary appeal by the western politician to the eastern elite that propelled him toward the Republican nomination for president. Delivered in New York in February 1860, the Cooper Union speech dispelled doubts about Lincoln’s suitability for the presidency, and reassured conservatives of his moderation while reaffirming his opposition to slavery to Republican progressives.
Award-winning Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer places Lincoln and his speech in the context of the times–an era of racism, politicized journalism, and public oratory as entertainment–shows how the candidate framed the speech as an opportunity to continue his famous “debates” with his archrival Democrat Stephen A. Douglas on the question of slavery.
Lewis E. Lehrman, Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point
To understand President Abraham Lincoln, one must understand the extraordinary antislavery speech Lincoln delivered at Peoria on October 16, 1854. The three-hour address marked the turning point in Lincoln’s political pilgrimage, dramatically altering his political career and, as a result, the history of America.
In Lincoln at Peoria author Lewis E. Lehrman examines the seminal speech and its historical context. Lehrman argues that the great divide between the statecraft of Lincoln’s presidential years and his early legislative years originates with the speech at Peoria in 1854.
05 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 5th, 2009 @ 08:04:22 pm, using 169 words, 49 views
I’m sure you’re waiting eagerly for more of the last series of Abe book notices we’ve promised on works about his speeches, but USA Today decided to offer its version of what we do here, a quick review of 4 books that you might want to check out. Here’s what they have to say about one of them (just ignore that it ends up screwing up the author in the text). You’ll have to find out about the other 3 yourself. (Back to the series tomorrow, I promise.)
“They Have Killed Papa Dead!”
By Anthony Pitch
Steerforth Press, 493 pp., $29.95
Nineteenth-century Washington teemed with boarding houses, brothels, bars that served “liquid opiates” — and with Confederate sympathizers. Drawing on primary sources from the Library of Congress and the National Archives, Papa delves into the fevered world of John Wilkes Booth. Possessing the looks of a matinee idol, Lincoln’s assassin exerted a Charles Manson-like grip on his co-conspirators. Papa races along through the manhunt, the trials, the executions. A treat for the Lincoln fanatic.
03 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 3rd, 2009 @ 06:48:54 pm, using 192 words, 45 views
We’d like to be able to claim the most incisive analysis and info on Abe a week away from his bicentennial, but that accolade actually has to go to, no surprise, A Lincoln Blog, and its author, Lincoln scholar Brian Dirck. What to know why? Go check out this current post explaining the nuances of the interconnection of politics AND morality that underlay Abe’s decision on when and why to do the Emancipation. Far more understanding than the usual surface-level displays we get from less, uh, capable students. Here’s a brief bit to convince you:
. . . but I will argue that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation not because of abolitionist and runaway slave pressure, but in direct (and in my judgment courageous) contradiction to enormous countervailing political pressure to leave slavery intact. There is in fact little evidence that Lincoln was receiving really urgent signals from Union army officers in the field that freeing the slaves was necessary to relieve them of the problems caused by the “contraband” population–in fact, he received many more political signals that freeing those slaves would cause him and the Republican Party innumerable political and legal headaches.
01 February 2009
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on February 1st, 2009 @ 05:17:31 pm, using 368 words, 24 views
As we close in on Abe’s bicentennial next week, we’re going to wind down our series on Abe and books about him by focusing on enduring legacy of his speeches, which refined and made new the promise of the Revolution and the American Legacy we have trashed over the last several years. We’ll provide you info from the flaps of a couple of books at a time for a few days that either treat his speeching or particular speeches. The examinations of his thinking and the productions and meanings of his speeches are timely and worthy of our final thoughts about the man before his big day arrives. Look for more this week.
Waldo W. Braden, Abraham Lincoln, Public Speaker
Abraham Lincoln has been called a literary artist, a master of words, and the most gifted writer among American statesmen. Yet many of the same admirers and scholars who praise Lincoln as a prose stylist consider him to have been a second-rate public speaker. In Abraham Lincoln, Public Speaker, Waldo W. Braden disagrees with this viewpoint and argues persuasively that Lincoln’s abilities as an orator were considerable. In his discussion of Lincoln’s speaking practices from 1854 through 1865, Braden draws extensively on Lincoln’s papers and the reports of those who knew him and heard him speak. Braden presents Lincoln as he appeared on the hustings in mid-nineteenth century frontier America, as a campaigner on the public platform, and in his formal speeches as president.
John Channing Briggs, Lincoln’s Speeches Reconsidered
Throughout the fractious years of the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln’s speeches imparted reason and guidance to a troubled country. Lincoln’s words were never universally praised. But they resonated with fellow legislators and more and more with the public as he spoke on such volatile subjects as mob rule, temperance, the Mexican War, slavery and its expansion, and the justice of a war for black freedom and American union.
John Channing Briggs [!!!!!] reveals how the process of studying, writing, and delivering speeches helped Lincoln develop the ideas that have so profoundly changed history. Briggs follows Lincoln’s thought processes and careful attention to oratory, beginning with the Illinoisan’s [!!!!!!!] speech to the Springfield Lyceum in 1838 and ranging to the incomparable Second Inaugural Address.
Permanent Link