Hal O'Brien

Let me put in a lengthy quote by James Fallows, from his book, Looking At the Sun. This can be found on pages 178-179.

I had gone to Hitotsubashi to interview a professor who was, at the time, making waves. Starting in 1990, a number of Japanese businessmen and academics had begun saying publicly: Hmmmm, perhaps our business system really is different from what they have in Europe or the United States. The man Hitotsubashi, Professor Iwao Nakatani, was one of the most prominent and respected members of this group, and I'd spent the afternoon listening to his analysis while, through the window, I watched the petals drifting down.

On the way back to the station, I saw a sign that indicated, in Japanese, that there would be Western-language books inside. I walked to the back of the narrow bookstore and for the thousandth time felt both intrigued and embarrassed at the consequences of the worldwide spread of the English language. In row upon row sat an incongruous jumble of books that had nothing in common except that they were published in English. Self-help manuals by Zig Ziglar. Bodice-rippers from the Harlequin series. A Betty Crocker cookbook. The complete works of Sigmund Freud. And two books concerning Friedrich List.

Friedrich List!!! For at least five years, I'd been scanning used bookstores in Japan and America looking for just these books. I'd scoured the English-language stores in Taiwan, which until recently had specialized in pirated reprints of English-language books for about one-tenth the original cost. I'd called the legendary Strand Book Store, in Manhattan, from my home in Kuala Lumpur, begging them to send me a note about the success of their search (it failed) rather than making me wait on hold. I'd looked through English-language libraries without success. In all that time, these were the first books by or about List I'd actually laid my eyes on.

One was a biography, by a professor in the North of England. Another was a translation, by the same professor, of The Natural System of Political Economy, a short book List had originally written in German in the 1830s. Each was a slim volume, which to judge by the dust on its cover has been sitting on the shelf for years. I gasped when I opened the first book's cover and saw the price listed as 9,500 yen -- about $75. For the set? I asked hopefully. No, apiece, the young woman running the store told me. Books were always expensive in Japan, but even so, this seemed steep. No doubt the books had been priced in the era when $1 was worth many more yen than it was in 1992. I opened my wallet, pulled out a 10,000-yen note, took my change and the biography, and left the store. A few feet down the sidewalk, I turned around, walked back to the store, and used the rest of my money buying the other book. I would always have regretted passing it up.

I'm not (just) telling you all this because I think it's a lovely piece of bibliophilia.

No, I'm telling you all this because, unlike Jim, you can read Friedrich List right now. No five-year wait, no calls to justifiably legendary bookstores. The National System of Political Economy (which is indeed different from The Natural System...) is online, just a click away.

Some notes:

* The biographer, I'm guessing, was William Henderson. Friedrich List, Economist and Visionary 1789-1846. The interesting thing is, that book is about $10-$40 in German, but $130-$225 in English, even though Henderson wrote it in English.

* The Natural System... goes for $149-$175 on ABEBooks.

* 9,500 yen today is $109-ish. Also, $75 of 1992 money is about $113, or so says this inflation calculator. "Steep" though the prices may have been at the time, today they appear to be more so. List has appreciated more than inflation or currency exchange over the years.

* The National System... gets well over 200 hits on ABE, at a variety of prices. It's List's most famous work, so clearly accessibility to it (and him) in the West has improved markedly.

James Fallows of The Atlantic recently did a review of Scrivener. As part of that review, he said, "I can happily run any Windows program on a Mac, but things don't work the other way around."

I let him know that it is possible to run Mac on a Windows machine, it's just an intricate process.

Today, Jim writes up my introduction to him of the "hackintosh", complete with photo I provided from when I did this myself a few years back.

When this broke out during the Aspen Ideas Festival and later on Jim Fallows' blog, I didn't say anything. Mostly because Gehry's rudeness fell into "Dog bites man" as far as I was concerned, and because Jim accepted Gehry's... erm, statement, and I didn't want to rock the boat.

But I was catching up with David Sucher's blog, and the amazing thing to me was, in the comments to this post (with a link to the video in question -- as David says, go to minute 54), people actually defended Gehry.

That prompted this comment by me just now:

*^*^*

Let's get to the 800 lb gorilla in the room: For Frank Gehry -- Frank Gehry! -- to dismiss someone as "pompous" and "self-promoting" is hypocritical in the extreme on Gehry's part. Unless his point was, only one person can be pompous and self-promoting in his presence, and he's already taken that job, thank you. I mean, look at his core statement regarding whether structures need to be fixed (I would've used "learn") once they have long exposure to the site -- "Not my buildings!" How is that not more pompous and self-promoting than anything Kent said? Even on its own terms -- "Commission me, and a perfect structure falls as though from the brow of Zeus, and you won't have the added expense of any retrofits 10, 20, 30, 100 years hence."

The greatest irony, of course, is that Gehry is factually incorrect. When a Gehry structure goes in, the life on the street of the site is visibly, palpably diminished. Gehry is as unapologetic about that as he is because he sees no value in urban life. He's a sculptor, first and foremost, and when "little people" - critics, clients, clients' employees who have to work in his buildings, citizens of the cities afflicted with his buildings - make their displeasure known, it's "insulting." This is somewhat like a cobbler saying it's "insulting" to hear customer complaints of how the nails holding the soles onto the shoes he's made stick into the customers' feet.

And when I say "unapologetic," it is no mere rhetorical flourish. The most revealing thing is how, when James Fallows reported his discomfort with the incident, Gehry replied with a non-apology apology. That is, he doesn't say he did anything wrong, no, he just "apologize(s) for offending you." Translation: "If only you hadn't been offended, and if only you didn't write for The Atlantic, there wouldn't be anything to apologize about." (Full disclosure: Fallows and I have corresponded on other topics.)

A friend of mine has said the point of etiquette is to make the other person relaxed and at leisure. This episode has only shown that Gehry understands that idea as well as he understands the impact of his structures on the communities where he places them -- Not at all.

James Fallows of The Atlantic has been kind enough to quote me at length in his blog.

Strangely, I agree with this Hal guy. :)

Seriously, for all that I sent it in, I appreciate the vote of confidence shown by being quoted at such length by someone I respect so much. Thanks, Jim.

James Fallows writes about how Google Maps has restored clarity to images of the Naval Observatory grounds -- Dick Cheney's old house, now inhabited by the current Vice President, Joe Biden.

Here's what I wrote to Jim:

*^*^*

Jim:

I can't find it just now, but one of the things I noticed back in the day was not only was the White House somewhat fuzzed out -- which I could see the reasons for, even if I didn't agree with them -- but the courtyards of the adjacent Old Executive Office and Treasury buildings were as well.

That just drove me nuts. Because it would not have occurred to me to look for something suspicious there. But by fuzzing them out, whoever sent out that order tipped their hands that there was something worth paying attention to there.

It was one of many times I would shout at my monitor the words of Casey Stengel about his hapless Mets : "Doesn't anyone here know how to play this game?!"

Perhaps the biggest mystery about the Bush-Cheney years was how they could sell themselves as "experts" or "vigilant" about national security and intelligence issues, while flubbing the details so routinely.

Update: I am happy to report that Google has unfuzzed the whole White House area. Which means those anonymous looking courtyards are now just as anonymous looking as they *should* be.

-- Hal

*^*^*

This is as clear an indication as any that security theater is out, and genuine security is in.

(No, not the magazine...)

One of the most egregious among his many blunders of fact during the debate was when Mr. McCain "corrected" Mr. Obama on a particular set of terms... while being blissfully unaware he was getting it wrong.

From the transcript:

*^*^*

OBAMA: (The soldiers in The Surge) have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

LEHRER: Senator Obama...

OBAMA: ... of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.

LEHRER: I have got a lot on the plate here...

MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.

*^*^*

McCain hasn't been in the active military since 1981. And he was 894th out of 899 in his Annapolis class of 1958. So perhaps it's understandable why he went astray.

But, here's what the Army currently says in field manual FM-3, Operations:

*^*^*

THE STRATEGIC LEVEL

2-4. The strategic level is that level at which a nation, often as one of a group of nations, determines national and multinational security objectives and guidance and develops and uses national resources to accomplish them. Strategy is the art and science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments of national power in a synchronized fashion to secure national or multinational objectives. The National Command Authorities (NCA) translate policy into national strategic military objectives. These national strategic objectives facilitate theater strategic planning. Military strategy, derived from policy, is the basis for all operations (see JP 3-0). (emphasis in original)

*^*^*

So, strategy is the big picture stuff. "We will be victorious in Iraq to foster democracy in the Middle East," is a strategy. "We will address the threat of the Soviet Union by containing them in a cordon of surrounding allied countries," is a strategy.

Strategy answers the question, "What do you want?"

*^*^*

THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL

2-5. The operational level of war is the level at which campaigns and major operations are conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations (AOs). It links the tactical employment of forces to strategic objectives. The focus at this level is on operational art—the use of military forces to achieve strategic goals through the design, organization, integration, and conduct of theater strategies, campaigns, major operations, and battles. A campaign is a related series of military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space. A major operation is a series of tactical actions (battles, engagements, strikes) conducted by various combat forces of a single or several services, coordinated in time and place, to accomplish operational, and sometimes strategic objectives in an operational area. These actions are conducted simultaneously or sequentially under a common plan and are controlled by a single commander. Operational art determines when, where, and for what purpose major forces are employed to influence the enemy disposition before combat. It governs the deployment of those forces, their commitment to or withdrawal from battle, and the arrangement of battles and major operations to achieve operational and strategic objectives. Figure 2-1 illustrates the link between the levels of war and the plans and actions of military forces. (emphasis in original)

*^*^*

Tactics, then, answers the question, "How are you going to get what you want?"

From this definition, it's clear The Surge is a major operation. It's a series of tactical operations, with the strategic goal of keeping violence in Iraq at a manageable level while the political infrastructure is built by the Iraqis.

Tactically it's been a great success. Petraeus and his troops have executed very well.

But strategically it's been a failure. Because instead of taking advantage of the relative calm The Surge has provided them, the Iraqi political leadership has stalled in so many different ways to make Congress' performance this week the very model of effectiveness. (Thus the ghost of Garrison Keillor: "It could always be worse...")

But more than that... I'm not alone in noticing this. Jim Fallows quotes "a retired (1999) Army colonel" to the same point. Even more damningly, in some ways, was this post by Jim on McCain's personal ignorance of strategy vs. tactics:

"There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy. And McCain's dismissive comment suggests that he still does not realize this."

And remember, folks... The military stuff is what McCain thinks he's good at.

Only pecunium may fully appreciate this, but there it is.

I just wrote the following earlier tonight to James Fallows (longtime editor at The Atlantic, and author of many books, including National Defense, Breaking the News, and Looking At the Sun):

*^*^*

I was recently writing a letter to the editor of my local paper. Like many papers, they have a word limit -- 200 words. In the past, I'd used Microsoft Word's Word Count feature off whichever menu. But this time I was using Word 2007, and I noticed a dynamic word count ticking away on the left-hand side of the status bar. I thought to myself, "That's a handy feature for a working writer---"

Which is when I caught myself short, and was reminded of your piece in The Atlantic years ago about working for Microsoft on Word. Specifically, about you trying to add in features you thought would be useful to writers.

So, I have to ask -- Was this one of yours? Did it really take that long to make it into a released product?

Congratulations, if so.

*^*^*

Jim wrote back right away, and was kind enough to confirm that, yes, that was one of his features. Also, he's working on a piece for The Atlantic on the Giant Panda reserve in Wolong.

But this is about as cool as when I put together the meaning of the reference in The West Wing where someone from Indonesia was a Portuguese speaker.