A collection of anecdotes and memories from the life of Douglas Adams, the man behind “The Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy”, as told by his friends and colleagues including Terry Jones, Neil Gaiman, & Stephen Fry and brought together into one bitter-sweet article in FilmForce. (Via SlashDot)
“That he was born is just one of the many undeniable facts about the life of the late Douglas Adams – author, humorist, raconteur, speaker, and thinker (although it should be noted that, on at least one parallel Earth, Mr. Adams was born a spring-toed lemur with a predilection for grassy fields and the works of Byron – a poetic lemur whose work was not terribly springy).
Another fact which comes to mind is that, of the seven novels he wrote in his all-too-brief lifetime, by far the most popular is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and its four sequels – which make for a fine trilogy if you’re somewhat numerically impaired”
Alan Koenig in the Old Town Review Chronicles:
Back in October of 1991, a younger, more radical Christopher Hitchens wrote a superb essay entitled “A State within a State” for Harper’s magazine plumbing some of the more recent filthy deeds and unconstitutional crimes committed by the CIA. Hitchens favorably mentioned in passing the crusading work of a certain Senator John Kerry, who unearthed both financial links between corrupt Saudis, South American drug smugglers and the CIA (in the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)) and investigated the links between narcotics and the Nicaraguan Contras. But that was a far different, much less courageous Senator Kerry from the one that ran for President this past November, and alas, we have a far different and much diminished Hitchens to contend with as well.
Michael Steinberger in The Wall Street Journal:
Another academic year is drawing to a close, another year in which Harvard has generated vastly more headlines than any other American university. Most of these, of late, have concerned Lawrence Summers, Harvard’s president, who famously suggested that there may be a biological explanation for the paucity of female scholars in the hard sciences. (He hasn’t stopped apologizing since.) But a single controversy doesn’t account for all the interest. Two recent books are decidedly unflattering to the school: Richard Bradley’s “Harvard Rules” is, among other things, an assault on the entire three years of Mr. Summers’s tenure, charging him with arrogance and bad manners, among much else. And in “Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class,” Ross Douthat, class of 2002, describes his own Harvard education as a combination of vacuous classroom assignments, cruel social climbing and feverish networking.
Of course, a fervid interest in Harvard is nothing out of the ordinary: It is the country’s most famous university, with a long claim on distinguished scholarship, political influence and high SAT scores. Most important, the media have long fawned over Harvard, treating its “brand” as pure gold. But while the school may have merited obsessive coverage in the past, it no longer does: Harvard is diminishing in importance as a factory for ideas and a breeding ground for future leaders. In all sorts of ways it is not nearly as pivotal to the life of the nation as it once was. You just wouldn’t know that by reading the papers or browsing the bookstands.
Donald C. Haggis reviews Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas, in American Scientist:
Social scientists who study ancient societies now commonly use the term political economy to emphasize that economic systems fundamentally involve social and political relations. Even though archaeologists have long understood that the main developmental thresholds of sociopolitical complexity—such as the emergence of chiefdoms, cities and states—can be related to changes in economic behavior, we have only recently begun to grapple with the real complexities of integrated political and economic systems. The research questions emerging from the analysis of political economies are still derived from material patterns in the archaeological record: How was the agricultural landscape managed? How was food produced and redistributed? How were raw materials acquired and worked to produce goods for local use and consumption or exchange? And in what cultural context?
Fareed Zakaria weighs in on Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, in the New York Times:
Terrorism remains a threat, and we will all continue to be fascinated by upheavals in Lebanon, events in Iran and reforms in Egypt. But ultimately these trends are unlikely to shape the world’s future. The countries of the Middle East have been losers in the age of globalization, out of step in an age of free markets, free trade and democratic politics. The world’s future — the big picture — is more likely to be shaped by the winners of this era. And if the United States thought it was difficult to deal with the losers, the winners present an even thornier set of challenges. This is the implication of the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s excellent new book, ”The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.”
More here. And see a slightly more negative review of Friedman’s book here.
Also, here‘s Fareed Zakaria’s Martini recipe. [Thanks Sean!]
3 Quarks Daily editor Morgan Meis went to Vietnam with his new bride Stefany Anne Golberg for their honeymoon last year. As is usual with Morgan, he took an obsessive interest in the country, its history, literature, cuisine, and, of course, its vexed relations and encounters with the United States. He travelled widely while there, and read deeply when he returned. He even did some posts at 3QD about Vietnam here, and here.
Recently, Morgan and Tom Bissell were commissioned by the Virginia Quarterly Review to travel to Vietnam to cover the celebrations marking the 30th anniversary of the reunification of North and South Vietnam (the fall of Saigon), along with a photographer. They left a week ago, and Morgan posted this at The Old Town Review Chronicles four days ago:
I spoke with the young Vietnamese about the American War. “I’ve heard about this war,” a young woman said, “it seems like it was very terrible.” “Yes,” said another, “there was a documentary about it a few days ago. Those must have been difficult times.”
So much for presuppositions. Perhaps the final and sweetest revenge is that they’ve moved on more than we have.
The next thing I heard was a hair-raising email that Stefany forwarded, in which he says:
It’s a long story but we made it out of Vietnam. Because they were going to potentially detain us indefinitely and God knows what if we didn’t get out right away we were forced to fly to Singapore under constant guard from the secret police. I am very mentally exhausted and was very scared for awhile. Now I’m in Singapore with no way to get home. I’m trying to figure things out from here.
I have just spoken to Stefany, and Morgan seems to be out of danger, and just trying to make his way home. We wish him a safe passage back. Here is the Monday Musing column Morgan did for 3QD just before leaving.
Some have called Ed Witten the smartest man alive today. He is often compared to Einstein, and is by far the most famous string theorist around. Sean Carrol of Preposterous Universe reports (via Not Even Wrong):
Princeton professors stage “filibuster” against the anti-filibuster machinations of alumus Bill Frist. Two of the filibusterers are physicists Chiara Nappi and Ed Witten, the latter of whom regaled the crowd by reading selections from Griffith’s Introduction to Elementary Particles. Couldn’t he have just given an introductory lecture on twistors and string theory?
Thomas Powers reviews three recent books on the American intelligence effort, in the New York Review of Books:
“Chatter” seems too casual a word for what is arguably the most important single product of the mammoth American cyber-industrial establishment which gathers “communications intelligence.” Intelligence professionals use “chatter” to describe the miscellany they acquire of the personal and operational communications of “persons of interest,” another term of art meaning people who may know or be planning something the United States wants or needs to know about.
Billy Heller in the New York Post:
When Harper Lee published “To Kill a Mockingbird” in 1960, it caused a sensation.
Lee won a Pulitzer and the book became an Oscar-winning film starring Gregory Peck as bigotry-battling lawyer Atticus Finch.
Then Lee practically disappeared. She never wrote another book, and she gave her last interview in 1964.
But like her reclusive character Boo Radley, Lee recently emerged to perform an act of kindness.
The author signed a first edition of her book that will be sold to raise money for the seriously ill son of Cookeville, Tenn., police chief Bob Terry.