Geoffrey Canada

Also, one last comment about Parents Weekend. I heard Geoffrey Canada, founder of Harlem Children's Zone. He is an advocate of education reform. With his kids in the Zone Project he believes in early and continued assistance--into college--for children in "birth to prison" communities. The only way to break the cycle of poverty is constant and effective intervention. I wish I could communicate how inspiring his lecture was but I cannot.

Afghanistan--a middle way

I was reading my Sojourners email and found this post by Jim Wallis. Seems like a terrific answer to to Afghanistan. I haven't figured out how to posts links, so I'll just paste it in below.

Afghanistan: A Whole New Approach

Get a free issue ofSojourners Become a Facebook fan of Sojourners Follow Sojourners on Twitter

We’ve all been watching carefully as the Obama administration tries to decide how to move forward on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. And we’ve been listening to the arguments and counter-arguments being offered. Religious leaders in particular have been paying close attention to both the political and moral arguments that fill the air.

Contrary to Dick Cheney’s accusation that the administration is “dithering,” many of us feel that a period ofdiscernment is clearly called for in Afghanistan. We know what Cheney wants America to do -- he never dithered, even when there were no facts to support his case for more war. Dick Cheney always wants to fight. But Cheney’s foreign policy was an embarrassment for America, and a tragedy for the rest of the world. And not to follow his advice is always a good first step of moral wisdom.

But we need more than that. What we need is a whole new approach in Afghanistan. The argument in Washington, D.C. is far too narrow. Two points of view are contending inside the Obama team, and on Capitol Hill. One supports a robust strategy ofcounter-insurgency, requiring a substantial escalation of troops that would bring the total number of U.S. forces to as many as 100,000. The other prefers counter-terrorism, relying on the most sophisticated technology and Special Forces precision to focus on the most dangerous operatives who are the greatest threat to us.

Of course these are all old arguments. Counter-insurgency increases the massive American footprint in Afghanistan, which is clearly one of the primary causes of our failures in that country thus far. Add in a corrupt Afghan government, a radically decentralized society, and a physical terrain that has confounded every other occupier in history there; it doesn’t make many of us hopeful, and painfully reminds us of a history that deeply formed us. The laser-like precision of our counter-terrorist missiles and unmanned drones may cost less in American lives and treasure, but they often don’t just hit the bad guys. They have resulted in serious civilian casualties, even further alienating the populace and producing more angry young recruits for terrorism. And the solution that may be emerging in Washington could be a confused combination of the two strategies, bringing us the worst of both worlds.

We need a whole different approach.

We should know by now, and most of those on the ground in places like Afghanistan do, that what re-builds a broken nation; inspires confidence, trust, and hope among its people; and most effectively undermines terrorism is an old and proven idea -- massive humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development. And it costs less -- far less -- than continued war. Perhaps this was best put by Richard Stearns, the U.S. president of World Vision, at a recent meeting of President Obama’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in Washington, D.C., when he said, “The best face of America for the world is a baseball hat and not a helmet.”

Many of us have advised the president that the people who know places like Afghanistan the best are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs doing relief and development work who have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military or their mercenary friends.

So here is the new approach. Lead with what works -- development. Yes, effective development needs security, and when you massively intervene in a country as much as the U.S. has in Afghanistan, you can’t responsibly just walk away -- as has tragically happened to this country too many times before. But we should lead with development now, and only provide the security necessary to protect the strategic rebuilding of the country that is urgently needed -- and that kind of security might better attract the international involvement we so desperately need in Afghanistan, even from Arab and Muslim countries.

And here is an idea of how to do that. Bring to the White House the international organizations who know Afghanistan well because they have been there so long -- such as World Vision, Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam, Tearfund, Christian Aid, Church World Service -- and many others. Ask them what U.S. policy would best work, and what kind of security they would need to really do the kind of development in Afghanistan that is most needed.

Let the non-military strategies lead the way, rather than the other way around, which often just makes aid and development work another weapon of war; but then provide the security needed for that work, and make it as international as possible. Also bring in some of the religious and other nonprofit leaders from the Obama Advisory Council and others, to focus on the deeply ethical and moral issues that are at stake in our decisions about future policy in Afghanistan -- legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism, defending women from the Taliban, developing a diplomatic surge,genuinely supporting democracy, and saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war -- to name a few.

The conversation is much too narrow right now on Pennsylvania Avenue and at the U. S. Congress. It’s time for a deeper look and a whole new approach. Stupid people might call that dithering; smart people would call it discernment.

baby we were born to run . . . barefoot

So another lecture I attended at Parents' Weekend was by Daniel Lieberman entitled "Evolved to Run? Walking, Running and Human Health." I was interested in this lecture because I thought he might say that walking was actually better than running for humans (since after training religiously for four months for that dam race I still could not run very far without gasping for breath). However, Lieberman opined (see his long list of scholarly articles) that while walking was great, we actually evolved through our ability for persistence running. So while an animal, say dogs, can outrun us; they can actually outrun us for only a short distance. The only way an animal can get rid of the heat generated by running is by panting. They cannot get rid of the heat through their fur and they cannot run while panting! Hence animals must stop or slow significantly every so often to pant. Meanwhile, human skin is like a like a giant tongue (Lieberman's analogy) so we don't have to pant and certainly don't have to stop to pant. According to Lieberman, if I am remembering correctly, it was our ancestors' ability to run long distances (not our tool use) that allowed us to track down animals to obtain meat and the proteins that eventually resulted in our large brains! Wow interesting stuff.

Plus, citing, among many other things, runners tendency to get injured, Lieberman said that all these super running shoes are actually not good for our feet. We would be better off running in cheap shoes and even better running barefoot. When we run with running shoes we tend to go heel to toe, when you run barefoot you midway or on the ball of your foot and use all or many of the muscles in the feet. When wearing running shoes, your feet get lazy and the muscles go unused. Here's a good explanation I found by googling Lieberman:

However, shoes treat your feet like planks that move only at the ball of the foot. In other words, they often protect the feet so much that certain muscles get lazy because they are not being used. Michael Warburton, a physical therapist in Queensland, Australia, found that running barefoot decreased the occurrence of ankle sprains and chronic injuries such as plantar fasciitis. According to his study, shoes also increased the risk of sprains because they made a runner unaware of the foot’s position.

Some consider shoes protective devices from dangerous or painful objects rather than corrective devices because their capacity for shock absorption and control of overpronation is limited. In other words, shoes do a good job of protecting from the elements, but over time they desensitize the tiny sensors in your feet that tell them how to react to the terrain. Eventually feet grow lazy and weak, triggering a chain reaction up the entire leg that can lead to shin splints, runner’s knee, and iliotibial band strains. Cushioned running-shoe heels add to the problem by shortening calf muscles and the Achilles tendon. Barefoot running stretches the calves and gets foot muscles moving again, promoting good biomechanics. (I don't know where all this highlighting came from. ) (http://www.marathonandbeyond.com/choices/clift.htm)

Well well, what interesting stuff there is to be known in this world. I wish the lecture had been videoed and put on youtube. I should have had my spy pen and videoed it myself!

Two brothers running video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjco3boDZ7A

something fell out of your refrigerator

That is the comment my husband made to me when he opened the fridge to put something away. Interesting use of a possessive adjective.

rock star professors

When Russel (my husband) returned from Harvard, after accompanying my daughter through knee surgery, he brought some copies of The Harvard Crimson. It was there that I discovered that Mary had one of the rock star professors of Harvard: Greg Mankiw, professor of economics and author of the popular Principles of Economics (catchy title). He was also the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors to the Bush White House from 2003-2005. I discovered Mankiw has a blog on blogger.com, so I checked it out. There I found a link to the SNL spoof on Obama's presidency which was quite hilarious--though untrue and unfair. Here's the link to the blog: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/11/cost-differences.html

Just scroll down to find the snl sketch (October 18th blog) followed by a rebuttal from Princeton economist Alan Blinder (great name for an economist). And here's the link to CNN fact checker review of the SNL sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw.

You may want to know that at one point Amazon.com sold an "I love Greg Mankiw" t shirt and that he had a Facebook profile until he reached the maximum number of friends--5,000 and closed it down.

So with such ringing endorsements, I was delighted to go to Harvard's Freshman Parent's weekend and attend the lecture by Mankiw. I was impressed, and even understood a great deal of the lecture. I plan on getting a book he mentioned called The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan. When Mankiw was advisor in the Bush administration, he told us at the lecture, he suggested to Bush the importance of a gasoline tax. Bush told him that it was a wacky idea. (The US has an extremely low gas tax: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0DC1230F93BA35753C1A9609C8B63. By the way, for any of you believers in "there is no global warming, there is no global warming, there is no global warming" mantra, only 6 cents of a $2.00 tax, for example, would go toward global warming issues.)

Also, on his latest blog he shows an interesting graph that perhaps accounts for some of the U.S automakers' troubles: (Pic is at top of post for some reason.)

I had a mahvelous time at Hahvad.