May 22, 2013

What are your favorite books? Do you have them, still?

Anyone who knows me even a little knows that I’m a lifelong bibliophile (yes, it’s a word).  Whether it’s a mental disorder, a bad habit, or a pleasant pastime, I like books, and I like to buy them. Naturally, when I saw Joe Queenan’s column in the Wall Street Journal, I was delighted.

Written to promote his new book “One for the Books,” Queenan’s piece is a witty, sarcastic and personal homage to the books he reads. Title “My 6,128 Favorite Books,” here are a few paragraphs that made me smile:

My reading habits sometimes get a bit loopy. I often read dozens of books simultaneously. I start a book in 1978 and finish it 34 years later, without enjoying a single minute of the enterprise. I absolutely refuse to read books that critics describe as “luminous” or “incandescent.” I never read books in which the hero went to private school or roots for the New York Yankees. I once spent a year reading nothing but short books. I spent another year vowing to read nothing but books I picked off the library shelves with my eyes closed. The results were not pretty.

Don’t I know what’s that like. More often than not, I return from the library with more books than I’ll have time to read before their due date, and not for lack of wanting or trying. Most of the time, I picked the books for odd reasons, like the cover (yes, I do judge), thickness, what it was sitting next to, or because I needed a couple extra books…sometimes, I’m even interested in the topic or the genre.

 A case can be made that people who read a preposterous number of books are not playing with a full deck. I prefer to

Books

Books (Photo credit: henry…)

think of us as dissatisfied customers. If you have read 6,000 books in your lifetime, or even 600, it’s probably because at some level you find “reality” a bit of a disappointment. People in the 19th century fell in love with “Ivanhoe” and “The Count of Monte Cristo” because they loathed the age they were living through. Women in our own era read “Pride and Prejudice” and “Jane Eyre” and even “The Bridges of Madison County”—a dimwit, hayseed reworking of “Madame Bovary”—because they imagine how much happier they would be if their husbands did not spend quite so much time with their drunken, illiterate golf buddies down at Myrtle Beach. A blind bigamist nobleman with a ruined castle and an insane, incinerated first wife beats those losers any day of the week. Blind, two-timing noblemen never wear belted shorts.

Similarly, finding oneself at the epicenter of a vast, global conspiracy involving both the Knights Templar and the Vatican would be a huge improvement over slaving away at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the rest of your life or being married to someone who is drowning in dunning notices from Williams-Sonoma. No matter what they may tell themselves, book lovers do not read primarily to obtain information or to while away the time. They read to escape to a more exciting, more rewarding world. A world where they do not hate their jobs, their spouses, their governments, their lives. A world where women do not constantly say things like “Have a good one!” and “Sounds like a plan!” A world where men do not wear belted shorts. Certainly not the Knights Templar.

Seriously. I like the people I work with, but who wouldn’t rather be at the center of a global conspiracy instead of negotiating commercial real estate contracts?

And…

A friend once told me that the real message Bram Stoker sought to convey in “Dracula” is that a human being needs to live hundreds and hundreds of years to get all his reading done; that Count Dracula, basically nothing more than a misunderstood bookworm, was draining blood from the necks of 10,000 hapless virgins not because he was the apotheosis of pure evil but because it was the only way he could live long enough to polish off his extensive reading list. But I have no way of knowing if this is true, as I have not yet found time to read “Dracula.”

Why not? WHY NOT?

Take moment in the next couple days and read the piece, have a laugh, and then wonder over to a local book store and pick something up.  After all, October is National Book Month, and you’ve not a day to lose if you’re going to get caught up on your book list.

[My 6,128 Favorite Books]

Stray Books: beware, or forever will they dominate your destiny

 

[Incidental Comics]

 

 

 

 

 

Need a primer in Austrian economics? [video clip]

You’ve been watching the debates (except for that one at 7 AM on Sunday morning), and you keep hearing references to Austrian economics. They keep mentioning names like Hayek, Friedman, and Mises .  What’s with all these German sounding names, you say. And why is Ron Paul staying up to read an economics textbook while the rest of these bozos are watching college football?  (ok, maybe Friedman is more Chicago style, but his name sounds German, too, and Paul does ascribe to certain aspects of Friedman philosophy, as well).


I know, and you know, who Keynes is (because we “are all Keynesians, now,” right? Wrong…but I digress, as usual), but who are these other guys?

Friedrich Hayek

Two of them are Nobel prize winners (Hayek and Friedman), and all are the fathers of Ron Paul’s political philosophy. If that’s not substantial enough for you to spend at least five minutes figuring out who the Austrian economists are, as well as what they believe, then I don’t know what is.

To help us out, we have Peter Boettke, an economist himself at George Mason University. He recently spoke to The Browser and, in addition to providing a brief explanation of the Austrian school of economics, recommended a few books that could get you started on your way to understanding Austrian economics better. Here’s how he describes the way Austrian economists view the world:

Classical economists, Austrian economists, and New Institutional economists reside in the box that starts with a complex problem situation but nevertheless gets you social order. The way you do that is not based on the behavioural assumptions of the actors, but on the institutional assumptions underlying them, ie things like the political, legal and cultural context within which individuals engage and exchange. If that context is the right context, then even in the most difficult of situations, individuals can generate social order. They can cope with their ignorance, they can take care of uncertainty. When the market goes astray, it’s not because there is something wrong with the market mechanism, it’s because the rules under which the market mechanism operates have got distorted.

That last word is very interesting. I think if we were to go back and check out what Ron Paul’s been talking about during the campaign, I think we would find out that his complaints about the government spending, healthcare reform, entitlements, and perhaps even defense spending and American projection of power abroad, often root from his views that government is interfering in the natural workings of the market. In other words, distortions.

Check out the rest of his analysis. It’s interesting and compares the Austrians to Marxists and Keynesians. It’s well worth the read.

So what books does he recommend?

  • Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. “[...] when the government distorts the monetary unit, through the manipulation of money and credit, it can generate boom-and-bust cycles. So rather than the business cycle being inherent to capitalism, it’s a consequence of distortions caused by the manipulation of money and credit.”
  • Individualism and Economic Order by Friedrich Hayek. “Hayek’s writings set off a research programme to study how it is that information gets communicated within a complex system, and a variety of different people have picked up on that, and worked with that idea and taken it in directions that even Hayek couldn’t have envisioned.”
  • Calculation and Coordination  by Peter Boettke. “What I’m doing is trying to get the history right and then get the political economy analytics right, and then trying to use both of those to explain that from that original history it was logical that we ended up with the system that we ended up with, rather than the system that we wanted to end up with.”
  • The Invisible Hook by Peter Leeson. “I think The Invisible Hook does a fascinating job of communicating to people the enjoyment of just thinking through a problem like an economist.”
  • After War by Christopher Coyne. “What he found was that in US-led efforts, basically somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of the efforts failed to meet even that minimum standard.”

I’ve not read any of these, yet, but I’m looking into them. I could certainly use an expanded understanding of our economy. Which will you pick up this week? Are there others that you recommend?

Darth Cheney, unleashed.

Dick Cheney’s memoir, “In My Time,” is out today. As Daniel Henninger at the WSJ says

No one should have expected that Dick Cheney’s memoir would be anything but frank. Make that brutally frank. Such as this characterization of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s description to President George W. Bush of her proposed nuclear-weapons agreement with North Korea. It’s on page 487:

“Looking for a way to explain this situation, Rice said, ‘Mr. President, this is just the way diplomacy works sometimes. You don’t always get a written agreement.’ The statement was utterly misleading, totally divorced from what the secretary was doing, which was urging the president, in the absence of an agreement, to pretend to have one. . . . “

Would anyone expect anything less from the man the Left compared to Darth Vader?

Also, from Henninger’s piece, and perhaps the most telling about Cheney’s character as a public servant:

After two event-filled terms as George W. Bush’s No. 2, I asked Mr. Cheney to sum it up. Characteristically, the answer had nothing to do with anyone’s approval rating:

“I think we did a pretty good job after 9/11 for those seven and a half years. I think the record reflects that. I think the president gets a lot of credit for that. Partly it’s a question of political leadership. It’s important to have people at the helm who are prepared to be unpopular, to take the criticism and the hits that go with implementing policies.”

 

In any case, will you read it?

[WSJ]

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tonight’s books, courtesy of the Salt Lake County Library

Word. Got a couple good looking books from the library tonight. It’s within walking distance, so if I put the kids in the stroller and take them with, I get new books to peruse and read, the kids pick out some new books, and I get at least a modicum of exercise….if just.

The books? I’ll spare you the fun ones and just share the more interesting of the titles.

How about you? What have you started reading this week?
(And, yes, I admit it: I also picked up sundry novels of low brow sci-fi and fantasy…but who’s keeping track?)

Gotta read this book!

I wandered through the Barnes and Noble during my lunch hour, today. I felt like a child in a candy store…

Among the many books that caught my eye, one resonated more than the others: “The Sorcerers and their Apprentices: How the Digital Magicians of the MIT Media Lab Are Creating the Innovative Technologies That Will Transform Our Lives.”

Check this, from a review in the WSJ that I found when I got back to the office:

Part of the Media Lab mystique is that no one owns the intellectual property that its sorcerers and apprentices generate. Rather, the inventions and innovations that come of its “antidisciplinary” approach to problem-solving are put into the public domain for anyone to take up and run with. Lately the Media Lab teams have turned their attention to health-care delivery systems, personal-finance tools, robots that will provide help and companionship for the elderly, and a wearable device that can turn any surface—a tabletop or a human hand—into a computer touch-screen.

Forget iPads and tablets–how about a watch that turns my desk into a computer touch-screen?

That, my friends, is cool stuff. And it’s another reason why we should be focusing more of our educational energies on beefing up on math and the sciences, not what demographic group most contributed to history.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Become an “expert” in about five books (plus or minus)

If you’re interested in becoming an “expert” in a flash, or at least boning up on a topic, then nothing beats reading a few well written books. The only trouble is finding the time and finding the right books.

Find the time and the books, though, and  it is one of the cheapest, and most accessible, ways to an education. A true leveler. Suddenly, you can pontificate with the loudest out there, yell at the T.V. with impunity, and tell Chris Matthews where he’s wrong (a clue: on just about everything that involves a thrill up his leg). [Read more...]