Hi, Karen, I just came from the bookstore: Coulter's rant is on sale, 50% off. "We just want to unload it," said the clerk, who then added "I can take some more off if you want it."
But instead I bought for friends two second copies of Armstrong's THE BATTLE FOR GOD, and Barber's JIHAD VS MCWORLD. Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: What is Economics, Hudson? > > > Cousin, I won't comment on your lengthy remarks re: Hudson Economics, but > surely you don't think Ann Coulter got to the top of the best seller list > without the artifice of friends and assorted vested cronies purchasing in > lump orders? I wonder how many copies the American Spectator and > hate radio > biggies purchased? > I saw her on the Phil Donohue show and she absolutely stumbled in her > stunned inability to counter his debate of her book. She has been > exposed as > a fraud, me thinks. > Also, I read the sad story last year of an author who personally purchased > his own book in quantity via Amazon, using his own credit card, and then > reselling the books later. I think they call that the Darth Vader play in > Enronitis, but in his case it was unnecessary greed (unlike Ann > Coulter) to > push an otherwise interesting book above its naturally rising sales. > Yes, greed and novelty, there is unfortunately that link too. > Karen > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray > Evans Harrell > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson > Cc: Ed Weick; Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What is Economics, Hudson? > > (snip) Not because I didn't like it, in fact I loved it. I > would say that > this is my favorite post of Keith's of all time. I would give > you a Nobel > for it but it would have to be shared with the James Burke and > his wonderful > "Connections" television program. Here in the US we are really > more about > what I would call a contrary security blanket. In the rest of > the world I > would assume that expertise would be applauded and that you would go to an > expert to solve a problem in the area that they were expert > within. Here > in the US there is a twist to all of this that must be understood > if you are > to understand why things are done the way they are. But let you finish > first. You said: > > > Just one final comment. Apart from a relatively few extra genes than > > chimps, the supremely significant development of the human > species was the > > vast enlargement of the frontal lobes of the cortex (our vertical > > foreheads). They are *huge* compared with those of other primates. The > > primary purpose of the frontal lobes is to deal with novel perceptions. > The > > frontal lobes have an avidity for novelty. Even while most of the > > population of the world may continue to suffer poverty and extreme > > deprivation, the economies of the developing countries of the world will > > continue to be primarily motivated by the emergence of novelties and not > by > > the suffering of the rest of the world. And that's a fact that Messrs > > Samuelson, Norhaus. Mankiw, Baumol and Binder don't address and never > > discuss. > > Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In > short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much > and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib > even for an artist. As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the > snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other > areas for it > to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the Coliseum > murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is more > interesting and complicated than that. > > But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of > motivation. In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the > very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland > Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This > could produce a > very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become > murderous in its defensiveness. Yes, I know that HAS happened > but there > is another side to all of this that stops it to some degree. I > would call > it the "law of reaction." You may not defend yourself until something > has already happened. For example, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the > World Trade Center on the Mega side but on the Mini side you may not look > for someone until you have found a body, or in medicine you may not begin > prevention until you have discovered cancer. The excuse to > this ignoring > of prevention is usually economic. It costs too much. But the reality > is that we like the possibility of chance in the midst of all of our > retentiveness. "Don't care for it until its broke." Europeans may > have marched off to war in WW I because they were bored and had toys but > Americans would never do such a thing unless 1. it was economical > and 2. it > gave us relief at the toilet. > > Why else would the media push the perfect Anal Retentive Authoress and > self-described constitution scholar Anne Coulter to the no. 1 spot on the > nytimes book list (Slander) while ignoring world class artist > and non-anal > Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" who in spite of being ignored > has been on > the list for 24 months without hype or pushing from the corporate Media. > Moore is the compassionate hedonist who asks why something couldn't be > planned ahead of time to eleminate the massive loss of jobs in > his hometown > of Flint Michigan while Coulter in her finishing school manner complains > about Moore's complaints while complaining about the liberal > media's assault > on her rich friends who pay all the taxes and support all of the > charities. > i.e. not prevention or planning but "reaction". "You can't have it > unless we give it to you and we will only give it to you if we get it > first." Game theory is the best America can do on the novelty end and > it is poor indeed since it is the joy of chess. > > Ray Evans Harrell >
