Author: Matthew Clemente

Optimism and “The Human Age” v. Pessimism and “In The Dust of This Planet”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Recently, two popular podcast WNYC’s Radiolab and WAMU’s The Diane Rehm Show recently ran episodes about some trivial topics such as the fate of humanity and the planet Earth.  Each featured interviews and their authors, who have vastly divergent outlooks on life.  The podcasts discuss the future of humanity and the planet, particularly the environmental challenges we face.  

Here is a description of the Radiolab episode: 

Horror, fashion, and the end of the world … things get weird as we explore the undercurrents of thought that link nihilists, beard-stroking philosophers, Jay-Z, and True Detective.

Today on Radiolab, a puzzle. Jad’s brother-in-law wrote a book called ‘In The Dust of This Planet’.

Here is a description of the The Diane Rehm Show interview: 

At a time when talk of our planet’s future is dominated by gloom, author and naturalist Diane Ackerman is optimistic. She sees reasons across the globe to be excited by human innovation, from India – where a project is underway to plant 2 billion trees along highways – to the lab of a Cornell researcher 3D printing human ears. Ackerman’s latest book explores the ways people are shaping the modern world, and argues for a new understanding of our relationship with the environment and our own bodies. Author Diane Ackerman on why she believes human innovation can save the planet.

 

Guests – Diane Ackerman, naturalist and author of “One Hundred Names for Love”, “A Natural History of the Senses”, and “The Zookeeper’s Wife”.

Why They Hate Us, 13 Years Later

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Shortly after 9/11, Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece for Newsweek, entitled “Why They Hate Us.”  With the thirteen year anniversary of 9/11 approaching, Zakaria updated his article in a Washington Post column titled “Why they still hate us, 13 years later.”  Zakaria began his show GPS discussing the Washington Post piece.  

Here is how it began: 

Watching the gruesome execution videos, I felt some of the same emotions I did after 9/11. Barbarism is designed to provoke anger, and it succeeded. But in September 2001, it also made me ask, “Why do they hate us?” I tried to answer that question in an essay for Newsweek that struck a chord with readers. I reread it to see what I got right and wrong and what I’ve learned in the past 13 years.

It’s not just al-Qaeda. I began by noting that Islamic terrorism is not the isolated behavior of a handful of nihilists. There is a broader culture that has been complicit or at least unwilling to combat it. Things have changed on this front but not nearly enough.

It’s not an Islam problem but an Arab problem. In the early 2000s, Indonesia was our biggest concern because of a series of terrorist attacks there after 9/11. But over the past decade, jihad and even Islamic fundamentalism have not done well in Indonesia — the largest Muslim country in the world, larger in that sense than Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Gulf states put together. Or look at India, which is right next door to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s headquarters in Pakistan, but very few of its 165 million Muslims are members of al-Qaeda. Zawahiri has announced a bold effort to recruit Indian Muslims, but I suspect it will fail.

Read the Washington Post column

Why They Hate Us, 13 Years Later

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Shortly after 9/11, Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece for Newsweek, entitled “Why They Hate Us.”  With the thirteen year anniversary of 9/11 approaching, Zakaria updated his article in a Washington Post column titled “Why they still hate us, 13 years later.”  Zakaria began his show GPS discussing the Washington Post piece.  

Here is how it began: 

Watching the gruesome execution videos, I felt some of the same emotions I did after 9/11. Barbarism is designed to provoke anger, and it succeeded. But in September 2001, it also made me ask, “Why do they hate us?” I tried to answer that question in an essay for Newsweek that struck a chord with readers. I reread it to see what I got right and wrong and what I’ve learned in the past 13 years.

It’s not just al-Qaeda. I began by noting that Islamic terrorism is not the isolated behavior of a handful of nihilists. There is a broader culture that has been complicit or at least unwilling to combat it. Things have changed on this front but not nearly enough.

It’s not an Islam problem but an Arab problem. In the early 2000s, Indonesia was our biggest concern because of a series of terrorist attacks there after 9/11. But over the past decade, jihad and even Islamic fundamentalism have not done well in Indonesia — the largest Muslim country in the world, larger in that sense than Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Gulf states put together. Or look at India, which is right next door to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s headquarters in Pakistan, but very few of its 165 million Muslims are members of al-Qaeda. Zawahiri has announced a bold effort to recruit Indian Muslims, but I suspect it will fail.

Read the Washington Post column

Do Individuals and Organizations Have a Constitutional Right to Unlimited Spending on Political Speech?

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

That was the question being debated on the most recent episode on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel Partner) and Nadine Strossen (New York Law School) who argued for the motion; and Burt Neuborne (New York Law School and Brennan Center for Justice) and Zephyr Teachout (Fordham Law School, Sunlight Foundation), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

Is independent political speech the linchpin of our democracy or its Achilles’ heel? For democracy to work, some say, citizens (and corporations, and unions, and media outlets, and other voluntary organizations) must be allowed to express their views on the issues, candidates, and elections of the day. This proposition, they say, is exactly why the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press. On this view, restrictions on independent political speech undermine and subvert our constitutional structure. But others take a different view: If everyone can spend as much money as they like to express their political views, then some voices will be amplified, magnified and enhanced — while others will be all but drowned out. On this view, it is this inequality of influence that subverts our constitutional structure — and restrictions that level the playing field actually enhance rather than abridge the freedom of speech.

Do Individuals and Organizations Have a Constitutional Right to Unlimited Spending on Political Speech?

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

That was the question being debated on the most recent episode on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel Partner) and Nadine Strossen (New York Law School) who argued for the motion; and Burt Neuborne (New York Law School and Brennan Center for Justice) and Zephyr Teachout (Fordham Law School, Sunlight Foundation), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

Is independent political speech the linchpin of our democracy or its Achilles’ heel? For democracy to work, some say, citizens (and corporations, and unions, and media outlets, and other voluntary organizations) must be allowed to express their views on the issues, candidates, and elections of the day. This proposition, they say, is exactly why the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press. On this view, restrictions on independent political speech undermine and subvert our constitutional structure. But others take a different view: If everyone can spend as much money as they like to express their political views, then some voices will be amplified, magnified and enhanced — while others will be all but drowned out. On this view, it is this inequality of influence that subverts our constitutional structure — and restrictions that level the playing field actually enhance rather than abridge the freedom of speech.