Ciceronian Review

Susskind

I finished the Suskind book some time ago. (I need to get this all up to date soon.) Nicely written book -- accessible and entertaining in that physics for innumerates way. It promised an explanation of the Anthropic Principle. If he provided it, I missed it. Multiverse was explained well. Ther are plenty of mentions of an Anthropic Principle, but no real explanation of why one would believe it. That was a disappointment. I suppose the account of multiverse would work part of the way, but it does not provide a basis for thinking that the universe we are in was designed for the purpose. And that is what would be called for I think.

Multiverse I understand in that physics for fools way -- but good enough for afternoon reading.

Estimates

The new Intelligence estimate regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program is a surprise.  My first reaction was to wonder if the intelligence agencies have decided they need not cater to the administration anymore, that it is relatively safe to begin distancing themselves from the Bush administration. 

Curious about Romney's coming speech on Mormon politics.  The speech seems to me to be coming too late.  It has the appearance of being driven by fear (of Huckabee in particular).  A couple of weeks ago such a speech would have struck me as more effective -- forestalling questions.  But it now comes after months of speculation about the need for such a speech and after precipitous falls in the polls.  My guess is that the speech will be little more than "I am a good Christian, so vote for me."  I do not see how he could hope to help himself by addressing substantive theological issues (how would he explain the godhead thing?  or the place of the planet Kolob?).  It is a might hard for him to pitch the separation of church and sate, which was what Kennedy addressed the many years ago.  It is separation that his supporters do not like. 

Speech

West Wing promoted the view that speechwriters are profound thinkers and good writers, if a little loony.  It has been a long time, however, since a good speech came out of the White House.  I d not just mean the current mean occupant's crew either.  I can't recall a genuinely good speech out of Clinton either, who is and was a better speaker than Bush is.  The last time I recall a good speech from the White House goes back to the dark days of Reagan, or bright light of Reagan.  Anyway, Reagan.  He did give good speeches, and had at least one good writer working with him: Peggy Noonan.  I am reminded every week with her column in the WSJ.  Noonan can write well, and almost always does write well.  The words go along nicely, and, to the point here, read aloud as well as they sit on the page.  It is always a little sad that I can think of no one for the Demoncrats who can write so well.  Maybe Obama will get that nod -- his speech at the 2004 convention was a good speech.  I have not heard any speeches since, so I don't know whether he can do that on a frequent basis, or even if he wrote the thing.  But off the subject - Noonan.  She has, in addition, good analysis of things (with some blind spots).  I don't buy her policy recommendations, but I do think that she gets the topics right.  Sort of reassuring that someone so far into the wrong starts at least with the right topics.  But she has her blind spots -- like the hatred of Hilary.  Can't manage a civil word about her.  Noonan reminds me of David Gergen, who I used to listen to on the TV shows - has the policy wrong often but sees the dynamics properly and has in mind the right sets of alternatives.