Risks and Riddles
“Risks and Riddles” by Gregory F. Treverton (Smithsonian Mag)
Former National Security advisor Gregory Treverton explains why there is a difference between mysteries and puzzles. Puzzles are problems that have a solution, you just might not know what it is yet. Mysteries are problems with no clear solution, and it might not even be clear that there is no clear solution. Treverton contends that the Soviet Union was a puzzle, and Al Qaeda is a mystery.
“Risks and Riddles” references an article by Malcolm Gladwell that he wrote about Enron. Gladwell wondered which elements of the Enron scandals were puzzles, and which were mysteries. While I don’t generally like Gladwell’s writing, this strikes to the core of my interest in finance: how financial tools (like the tools that Enron abused) can become so complicated that even the people who created them don’t understand how they work. I see a parallel with art here. Artists often makes things that they don’t completely understand. (Often the best art is like this.) In this case, the artist has made a mystery. The worst art is often a puzzle, one that once solved, ceases to be interesting. Abstract painting used to be a mystery, now it is often a puzzle.
Midwestworld by Meghan O’Gieblyn (The Point)
This essayist visits a living history museum in Michigan. What she finds is an undefrostable delusion.
Eberhard Faber Mongol (Pencil Pages)
Images of a great pencil, the Mongol, that used to be produced in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
It’s Good to Be Michael Lewis by Jessica Pressler (NY Mag
Michael Lewis gets paid $10 a word, and imagines, while writing, that everyone loves him.
The Secret Lives of Central Bankers By Annelise Riles
Central Bankers all love the arrogant, patrician Sherlock Holmes!
If the US unemployment rate included everyone who says they want a job, it would be nearly double by Dan Kopf (Quartz)
The unemployment rate is not what you think it is.
We’re Measuring the Economy All Wrong By David Leonhardt (NYT)
More proof. Don’t listen to the unemployment rate.
Trump wants to slash welfare with stricter work requirements (Vox)
The diminution of the welfare state, unilateral tax cuts for the rich: are we speeding a tad faster down the road to plutocracy that we turned on to during the Reagan era?
Taxpayer dollars fund most oversight and cleanup costs at Superfund sites (Washington Post)
Why would it be in the interest of the public to pay for the clean-up of toxic-waste, when a tax that fed a trust fund was established in 1980? Wouldn’t the public love a trust, that grew as the economy grew, and would pay for pollution clean up on the dividends of growth?
How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country (New York Times)
Again, why would the public want less public transit? They wouldn’t! So there must be a vested interest, doing information warfare to destroy the plan. More corporate information warfare, pitting individuals against each other, ultimately winning in the end.
Taxing the Poor by David Cole (The New York Review of Books)
Equality is good for democracy. But is democracy dangerous for the rich? The founding fathers solution to the question of whether the poor would vote to take the money of the rich away was to suppress voting. Still happening!
Do Americans sympathize with the poor?
“How To Tell a Story” by Mark Twain
Humor is notoriously hard to comment on. (For good reason: good humor works on a subtextual and unconscious level, which means that it’s too complicated to explain. Like the bottom of the ocean, the workings of the unconscious are largely unexamined. We embrace and ingest comedy, but still hold it suspect. It’s why comedy doesn’t win Oscars.) In this short article, Twain tries to parse the difference between a funny story and a humorous one. Twain finds the latter to be estimable and uniquely American. Instead of winding up for the punchline, the humorous story is told dead-pan, and is often funnier because the narrator seems to be unaware of how funny it is.
“Playing Doc’s Games-II” by William Finnegan
Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life by William Finnegan
In the mid-1980s, William Finnegan, an avid surfer since childhood, lived in San Francisco. There, in a city where most residents think there is no surf culture, Finnegan fell in with a surfing zealot. This fanatic, Dr. Mark Renneker, is the subject of Finnegan’s 1992 profile in The New Yorker. Renneker is a complicated figure because of his religious and crazed devotion to surfing in a city with unforgiving (often quite cold) surf. In many ways, this profile covers Finnegan’s development of a connoisseurship, a complicated love of waves. The irony is that he comes to write about surfing for the first time at the same moment that he was finally becoming serious about something else (journalism). The complexity of this work is grounded in how terrifying and brutal surfing can be, how often surfers will inspect the surf and decide stay to ashore, fearing that it exceeds their limits, but day after day, returning to the sea, like a gambler to a casino, hoping to find that one great wave.
Upon hearing that Finnegan was giving a talk at Hunter College, I looked him up and found the previously mentioned profile. It was this talk that inspired me to read Barbarian Days, a book that I was previously not interested in. At the talk, I asked him a question about the New Yorker profile. I wondered if writing about surfing, something he claimed to have never written about, betrayed anything about this hobby. (This is cliché question, to wonder if putting something down in words betrays the essential and assumed unknowability of lived experience, but he suggested as much in the profile, so I felt compelled to ask.) Was anything lost in the process of recording the experience? Did surfing change after writing so earnestly about it? (He often refers to waves as “lumpy,” indicating, to me at least, that surfing a wave is texturally something I can barely approach imagining.) Something had changed, he said: it was the time in his life when he became a full-time writer. While writing the book, he imagined the part of his life in which he gets to San Francisco (where it would overlap with “Playing Doc’s Games”) that the tone would change. That it would be a postlapsarian shift. But his agent knew better, and the tone remained even throughout the book. The content of the 1992 profile was re-engineered. What was betrayed, he said, was the subject of his surfing life in San Francisco, Dr. Mark Renneker. He hated the profile.