Read This!

With both party conventions behind us, we are now in the thick of the election year, the world around us crackling with dialogue, debate, and diatribe as the issues and headlines heat up. On those issues--particularly the future of our economy and the heady questions around America's rank and influence as a global power--there are few authors more knowledgeable or passionate than Thomas Friedman (his newest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded challenges us to lead the green revolution) and Fareed Zakaria, whose Post-American World poses salient questions about America's future that everybody (and perhaps especially our Democratic candidate) wants to answer. In the spirit of the season, we invited Friedman and Zakaria to strike up a conversation, which we're pleased to share with you here exclusively. --Anne

Fareed Zakaria: Your book is about two things, the climate crisis and also about an American crisis. Why do you link the two? 

Thomas Friedman: You're absolutely right--it is about two things. The book says, America has a problem and the world has a problem. The world's problem is that it's getting hot, flat and crowded and that convergence--that perfect storm--is driving a lot of negative trends. America's problem is that we've lost our way--we've lost our groove as a country. And the basic argument of the book is that we can solve our problem by taking the lead in solving the world's problem.

Zakaria: Explain what you mean by "hot, flat and crowded."

Friedman: There is a convergence of basically three large forces: one is global warming, which has been going on at a very slow pace since the industrial revolution; the second--what I call the flattening of the world--is a metaphor for the rise of middle-class citizens, from China to India to Brazil to Russia to Eastern Europe, who are beginning to consume like Americans. That's a blessing in so many ways--it's a blessing for global stability and for global growth. But it has enormous resource complications, if all these people--whom you've written about in your book, The Post American World--begin to consume like Americans. And lastly, global population growth simply refers to the steady growth of population in general, but at the same time the growth of more and more people able to live this middle-class lifestyle. Between now and 2020, the world's going to add another billion people. And their resource demands--at every level--are going to be enormous. I tell the story in the book how, if we give each one of the next billion people on the planet just one sixty-watt incandescent light bulb, what it will mean: the answer is that it will require about 20 new 500-megawatt coal-burning power plants. That's so they can each turn on just one light bulb!

Zakaria: In my book I talk about the "rise of the rest" and about the reality of how this rise of new powerful economic nations is completely changing the way the world works. Most everyone's efforts have been devoted to Kyoto-like solutions, with the idea of getting western countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But I grew to realize that the West was a sideshow. India and China will build hundreds of coal-fire power plants in the next ten years and the combined carbon dioxide emissions of those new plants alone are five times larger than the savings mandated by the Kyoto accords. What do you do with the Indias and Chinas of the world?

Friedman: I think there are two approaches. There has to be more understanding of the basic unfairness they feel. They feel like we sat down, had the hors d'oeuvres, ate the entrée, pretty much finished off the dessert, invited them for tea and coffee and then said, "Let's split the bill." So I understand the big sense of unfairness--they feel that now that they have a chance to grow and reach with large numbers a whole new standard of living, we're basically telling them, "Your growth, and all the emissions it would add, is threatening the world's climate." At the same time, what I say to them--what I said to young Chinese most recently when I was just in China is this: Every time I come to China, young Chinese say to me, "Mr. Friedman, your country grew dirty for 150 years. Now it's our turn." And I say to them, "Yes, you're absolutely right, it's your turn. Grow as dirty as you want. Take your time. Because I think we probably just need about five years to invent all the new clean power technologies you're going to need as you choke to death, and we're going to come and sell them to you. And we're going to clean your clock in the next great global industry. So please, take your time. If you want to give us a five-year lead in the next great global industry, I will take five. If you want to give us ten, that would be even better. In other words, I know this is unfair, but I am here to tell you that in a world that's hot, flat and crowded, ET--energy technology--is going to be as big an industry as IT--information technology. Maybe even bigger. And who claims that industry--whose country and whose companies dominate that industry--I think is going to enjoy more national security, more economic security, more economic growth, a healthier population, and greater global respect, for that matter, as well. So you can sit back and say, it's not fair that we have to compete in this new industry, that we should get to grow dirty for a while, or you can do what you did in telecommunications, and that is try to leap-frog us. And that's really what I'm saying to them: this is a great economic opportunity. The game is still open. I want my country to win it--I'm not sure it will.

Zakaria: I'm struck by the point you make about energy technology. In my book I'm pretty optimistic about the United States. But the one area where I'm worried is actually ET. We do fantastically in biotech, we're doing fantastically in nanotechnology. But none of these new technologies have the kind of system-wide effect that information technology did. Energy does. If you want to find the next technological revolution you need to find an industry that transforms everything you do. Biotechnology affects one critical aspect of your day-to-day life, health, but not all of it. But energy--the consumption of energy--affects every human activity in the modern world. Now, my fear is that, of all the industries in the future, that's the one where we're not ahead of the pack. Are we going to run second in this race?

Friedman: Well, I want to ask you that, Fareed. Why do you think we haven't led this industry, which itself has huge technological implications? We have all the secret sauce, all the technological prowess, to lead this industry. Why do you think this is the one area--and it's enormous, it's actually going to dwarf all the others--where we haven't been at the real cutting edge?

Zakaria: I think it's not about our economic system but our political system. The rhetoric we hear is that the market should produce new energy technologies. But the problem is, the use of current forms of energy has an existing infrastructure with very powerful interests that has ensured that the government tilt the playing field in their favor, with subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure spending, etc. This is one area where the Europeans have actually been very far-sighted and have pushed their economies toward the future.

 

Friedman: I would say that's exactly right. It's the Europeans--and the Japanese as well--who've done it, and they've done it because of the government mechanisms you've highlighted. They have understood that, if you just say the market alone will deliver the green revolution we need, basically three things happen and none of them are good: First, the market will drive up the price to whatever level demand dictates. We saw oil hit $145 a barrel, and when that happens the oil-producing countries capture most of the profit, 90% of it. So, some of the worst regimes in the world enjoy the biggest benefits from the market run-up. The second thing that happens is that the legacy oil, gas and coal companies get the other ten percent of the profit--so companies which have no interest in changing the system get stronger. And the third thing that happens is something that doesn't happen: because you're letting the market alone shape the prices, the market price can go up and down very quickly. So, those who want to invest in the alternatives really have to worry that if they make big investments, the market price for oil may fall back on them before their industry has had a chance to move down the learning curve and make renewable energies competitive with oil. Sure, the market can drive oil to $145 a barrel and at that level wind or solar may be very competitive. But what if two months later oil is at $110 a barrel? Because of that uncertainty, because we have not put a floor price under oil, you have the worst of all worlds, which is a high price of dirty fuels--what I call in the book fuels from hell--and low investment in new clean fuels, the fuels from heaven. Yes, some people are investing in the alternatives, but not as many or as much as you think, because they are worried that without a floor price for crude oil, their investments in the alternatives could get wiped out, which is exactly what happened in the 1980s after the first oil shock. That's why you need the government to come in a reshape the market to make the cost of dirty fuels more expensive and subsidize the price of clean fuels until they can become competitive.

Right now we are doing just the opposite. Bush and Cheney may say the oil market is “free,” but that is a joke. It's dominated by the world's biggest cartel, OPEC, and America's biggest energy companies, and they've shaped this market to serve their interests. Unless government comes in and reshapes it, we're never going to launch this industry. Which is one of the reasons I argue in the book, "Change your leaders, not your light bulbs." Because leaders write rules, rules shape markets, markets give you scale. Without scale, without being able to generate renewable energy at scale, you have nothing. All you have is a hobby. Everything we've doing up to now is pretty much a hobby. I like hobbies--I used to build model airplanes as a kid. But I don't try to change the world as a hobby. And that's basically what we're trying to do.

Zakaria: But aren't we in the midst of a green revolution? Every magazine I pick up tells me ten different ways to get more green. Hybrids are doing very well...

Friedman: What I always say to people when they say to me, "We're having a green revolution" is, "Really? A green revolution! Have you ever been to a revolution where no one got hurt? That's the green revolution." In the green revolution, everyone's a winner: BP's green, Exxon's green, GM's green. When everyone's a winner, that's not a revolution--actually, that's a party. We're having a green party. And it's very fun--you and I get invited to all the parties. But it has no connection whatsoever with a real revolution. You'll know it's a revolution when somebody gets hurt. And I don't mean physically hurt. But the IT revolution was a real revolution. In the IT revolution, companies either had to change or die. So you'll know the green revolution is happening when you see some bodies--corporate bodies--along the side of the road: companies that didn't change and therefore died. Right now we don't have that kind of market, that kind of change-or-die situation. Right now companies feel like they can just change their brand, not actually how they do business, and that will be enough to survive. That's why we're really having more of a green party than a green revolution.

Zakaria: One of your chapters is called "Outgreening Al-Qaeda." Explain what you mean.

Friedman: The chapter is built around the green hawks in the Pentagon. They began with a marine general in Iraq, who basically cabled back one day and said, I need renewable power here. Things like solar energy. And the reaction of the Pentagon was, "Hey, general, you getting a little green out there? You're not going sissy on us are you? Too much sun?" And he basically said, "No, don't you guys get it? I have to provision outposts along the Syrian border. They are off the grid. They run on generators with diesel fuel. I have to truck diesel fuel from Kuwait to the Syrian border at $20 a gallon delivered cost. And that's if my trucks don't get blown up by insurgents along the way. If I had solar power, I wouldn't have to truck all this fuel. I could—this is my term, not his—‘outgreen' Al-Qaeda."

I argue in the chapter that "outgreening"--the ability to deploy, expand, innovate and grow renewable energy and clean power--is going to become one of the most important, if not the most important, sources of competitive advantage for a company, for a country, for a military. You're going to know the cost of your fuel, it's going to be so much more distributed, you will be so much more flexible, and--this is quite important, Fareed--you will also become so much more respected. I hear from law firms today: one law firm has a green transport initiative going for its staff--they only use hybrid cars--another one doesn't. If some law student out of Harvard or Yale is weighing which law firm to join--many will say today: "I think I'll go with the green one." So there are a lot of ways in which you can outgreen your competition. I think "outgreening" is going to become an important verb in the dictionary - between "outfox" and "outmaneuver."

Zakaria: Finally, let me ask you--in that context--what would this do to America's image, if we were to take on this challenge? Do you really think it could change the way America is perceived in the world?

Friedman: I have no doubt about it, which is why I say in the book: I'm not against Kyoto; if you can get 190 countries all to agree on verifiable limits on their carbon, God bless you. But at the end of the day, I really still believe--and I know you do too--in America as a model. Your book stresses this--that even in a post-American world we still are looked at by others around the world as a role model. I firmly believe that if we go green--if we prove that we can become healthy, secure, respected, entrepreneurial, richer and more innovative by greening our economy, many more people will follow us voluntarily than would do so by compulsion of a treaty. Does that mean Russia and Iran will? No. Geopolitics won't disappear. But I think it will, speaking broadly, definitely reposition us in the world with more people in more places. I look at making America the greenest country in the world like running the Olympic triathlon: if you make it to the Olympics and you run the race, maybe you win--but even if you don't win, you're fitter, healthier, more secure, more respected, more competitive and entrepreneurial, because you have given birth to a whole new clean power industry--which has to be the next great global industry--and put your economy on a much more sustainable footing. So to me, this is a win-win-win-win race, and that's why I believe we, America, need to take the lead in it. In the Cold War we had the space race with Russia to see who could be the first to put a man on the moon. Today we need an earth race with Japan, Europe, China and India--to see who can be the first to invent the clean power technologies that will allow man to live safely and sustainably on earth.

This is not a declaration of love or song of war
not a tractate, autonym, or apologia
          --Peter Gizzi, from “Protest Song”

yes: the 1st photo after the end of America.

would you care to unwrap it?
hang it in your cockpit?
          --Rachel Zucker, from “To Save America”

If we the people were as funny as you say, then
we the people would laugh at us the laughers!
          --Edwin Torres, from “E-Man’s Proclamation”

Political poems have a bad reputation. The worst of them hit you over the head, scream at you, or try too hard to be funny or sly or rebellious. But when you encounter even one good one, it can change the way you look at the world (or at least make you thankful that some crazy fool out there feels the same as you).

This week, my friends over at Seattle-based Wave Books published a rare anthology: a slim volume of 50 good political poems by 50 poets aptly called State of the Union. Covering a surprising generational and stylistic range, the book comes together as a unified front, a sort of collective voice of contemporary poetry taking on the frenzied political state of our country and our world.

And, if that isn’t cool enough: all royalties from the book are going to Swords to Ploughshares, a nonprofit organization that helps homeless and low-income veterans get back on their feet.

I caught up with the book’s busy poet-editors, Joshua Beckman (right) and Matthew Zapruder (left), by email:

Amazon.com: The timing for State of the Union seems perfect, with such a historic presidential race. How did you decide to do a political anthology?

Matthew Zapruder: It has been clear to everyone for a long time that this current presidential election was going to be a historic one, with far-reaching consequences for the U.S. and the world. We wanted as editors, and poets, to contribute to the conversation at this crucial time, by putting together an anthology of poetry that would engage with the themes and issues that confront us, in ways that only poetry can.

Over the past several years (especially since 9/11, and then the start of the Iraq war in 2003) we have been noticing an increase in the number of poems that feel to us, or could be called, "political." This is obvious and natural; poets get their material from what surrounds them, and what has surrounded all of us in the last several years is an unmistakable feeling that the position and role of the United States abroad and at home has become more problematic and dangerous. Surely it has always been that way; this is just a time where that consciousness is more clear and urgent. Which is probably a good thing. While the events of the past seven years in particular have been traumatic, it is good that artists are waking up and paying more attention to their role as citizens.

Amazon.com: What makes a poem political? How did your definition of a political poem evolve as you went through the process of compiling the anthology?

Joshua Beckman: In creating this anthology we tried very hard not to have a definition of what a political poem was, while still constantly asking the question of what makes a political poem. I think we searched for work that felt like it was genuinely motivated by the needs of our present political circumstance. Historically it is easy to identify poetry that responds well to its time, and looking at a broad view of literary history one can see the amazing variety of poetry that has been politically motivated. But it feels far more daunting to have any grasp of the range and depth of contemporary work in relation to a political environment one is experiencing first hand, and I believe that was our challenge before we edited the anthology and continues to be. The more poems we saw the more we recognized the vastness of the needs that created them.

Amazon.com: Does this anthology have a central theme or message? The accumulation of voices reporting on the emotional and political state of America is powerful in itself, but I wondered if you began to see a shared message emerging, or if you had a central idea in mind all along.

MZ: No, we don't think it does. There are plenty of places one can find all the messages one needs about what is right/wrong with the state of the world today--in fact, it would be very difficult to escape those messages. But we believe there is a kind of consciousness and awareness of the world that can only happen to someone when that person is reading or hearing (or writing) a poem. This consciousness is often considered separate from political discourse. We wanted to get away from this reflexive idea that a poem couldn't be political and also a true poem, that somehow any political act in poetry immediately contaminates it, and turns it into propaganda or polemics. We are deeply concerned with social and economic justice, equality, violence, and the minds, bodies, and souls of our fellow human beings. Any work of art that enacts and summons awareness of how society and government affect those things--and how our inevitable position as members of a larger national community makes us responsible for them, and each other--can be called "political."

Amazon.com: The poems in the collection manage to avoid the pitfalls that you generally find in political poems. They’re unrelenting without being heavy handed, and funny (at times) without being glib. I’m sure this is a matter of the poets you chose. What was your selection process?

JB: For years we have encountered poets with deep connections to both poetry and politics and an aversion to their co-existence. I think this comes from a fear of strong ideas becoming dogmatic, or maybe simply that there is a belief that for many, at the core of their poetic practice is a mystery or unknowing and that this mystery seems an impossible partner with the direct needs of political action. I think we searched for poems created simultaneously out of that unknowing and need.

Amazon.com: Can you talk more about your process or gathering the poems? I know you had an open submissions process, and I definitely see poets here that I have not read before, and you also have luminaries and regular Wave authors. Did you ask for people to submit poems that they considered to be political, or did you target specific poems that you'd read?

JB: Actually, we decided early on not to solicit for submissions. I think part of our concern was that people would write poems for the anthology. Our sense was that there was a growing body of political poetry written in direct response to a set of personal and social needs and that there was a real necessity in this work, and it was often this necessity we found inspiring. So, we (and here I should say it was not just Matthew and me, but everyone at Wave Books) spent about two years looking through libraries, magazines, and websites searching for work by people who we were familiar with and by many people who were new to us. We took a lot of time with the open reading period and learned a lot about what was motivating political poems. We had done general open reading periods at the press before but never something like this. I think the topic drew a greater range of poets and that pushed us to continue to look more broadly.

Amazon.com: With the open submissions, did you find a lot of poems that you really liked but for whatever reason did not fit into the anthology? Can you talk about that experience a little?

JB: With both the submission period and in the outside reading we found many many poems that didn't fit into the anthology. From the beginning we had planned to make it a short anthology, and by the end it seemed even shorter. The limitations, however, made it easier to focus on the task of the book, to look at it as an attempt in the middle of many other attempts. By the time we came near the end of editing we still had more than twice the poems we could use in the anthology. 

Amazon.com: One thing that Wave does really well is publish books that are thoughtfully designed. Can you talk a little bit about the design of this book? (E.g., the 1776 pamphleteer-style fonts, which play up the urgency of the material in a subtle way and have some fun with the whole citizen poet thing.)

JB: For us, the present political work seems to draw strength and insight from previous poetic political endeavors, the baldness of earlier discourses and a different social role for the poet. It is great to hear you call it "urgency" because it is hard to express urgency in a climate where every soft drink seems to be demanding direct action. I think we hoped that something slightly antiquated would create a remove in which the work could be heard and become present on its own.

Amazon.com: You’re donating your royalties to Swords to Plowshares, an organization that helps veterans. What encouraged you to support them?

JB: They are an amazing organization, and one dealing with some of the most pressing social needs.

Amazon.com: Is there anything you want people to know about your upcoming readings?

JB & MZ: We wish we could be at all of them.

---

Wave is hosting a series of readings around the country for the book, which they kicked off Thursday with a monster reading/voter registration at NYU. Check their website for a schedule of upcoming readings.

To preview poems from State of the Union, see the book’s Amazon page, as well as the Wave Books website. --Heidi

          
      There. Isn't that better, dear reader? Now Auntie Gertrude won't take away your copy...

Stryke couldn't see the ground for the corpses. He was deafened by screams and clashing steel. Despite the cold, sweat stung his eyes. His muscles burned and his body ached. Blood, mud, and splashed brains flecked his jerkin. And now two more of the loathsome, soft pink creatures were moving on him with murder in their eyes.

That's the opening of the intimidating new edition of Stan Nicholl's Orcs, released this month from Orbit Books. It collects three novels previously published in England. The books provide an alternate rationale for those perennial bad guys, the orcs, and have sold over a million copies overseas. Orbit's cover for the book matches the tough-guy prose inside. So much so that I got sick of looking at the ugly mug on the outside, effective as it might be, and decided to "prettify" my copy of Orcs. Just look at what a few randomly applied stars, flowers, smiley-faces, and the like can do to make a cover more humane! In fact, maybe Orbit should even run a "Beautify Your Orcs" contest. I bet readers would get a kick out of that.

All silliness aside, this is a significant release, with a striking cover, from one of the hottest publishers in genre fiction at the moment. Check it out if you want some gritty realism with your fantasy.

In this week's roundup, I'm filling in for Paul as we go back to the UK for more controversy and demonstrate our uber-Ameri-sentimentality about Lady Liberty and something all kids love--play!

No naughtiness at Random House
On Thursday, the Guardian reported that Random House was removing the word "twat" from Jacqueline Wilson's boarding school book for 10+ year-olds, My Sister Jodie. Because of three complaints, the publisher and author have decided on a less offensive replacement:

"The word 'twat' was used in context. It was meant to be a nasty word on purpose, because this is a nasty character," said a spokesperson for Random House. "However, Jacqueline doesn't want to offend her readers or her readers' parents, so when the book comes to be reprinted the word will be replaced with twit."

Amazon.uk has a charming video of Wilson talking about the book. Could this lady possibly be offensive? Please!

This comes on the heels of Sian Pattenden's report earlier this month that Random House was adding a "morality clause" to their author's contracts. (reported by Cory Doctorow in BoingBoing last week)

Even Americans aren't this gooey
I still haven't seen Meghan McCain's picture book, My Dad, John McCain, but these words from Derek Draper in the Guardian don't necessarily inspire me to pick it up:

It's easy for us Brits to assume that such sentimental spin will backfire but, having lived in the US for three years, I can assure you that Americans are made of gooier stuff. There, a commitment to "family values" isn't seen as a devalued political soundbite but the sine qua non of a politician's suitability for office.

Where did Draper live in America? I don't think it was Seattle. (found via Read Roger's "Fighting Words..." post)

O.K., well, we are gooey about our national landmarks
A Patchwork of Books posted a review last Monday of Lady Liberty, by Doreen Rappaport and illustrated by Matt Tavares--one of my favorite picture books of the year.

One thing I loved about this book, besides seeing the whole history of how the statue was conceived and built, was learning about how it was paid for. Basically, when sculptor Auguste Bartholdi visited the U.S. "everyone was polite and seemed interested. But no one offered to raise money to build her." So they got donations from French citizens to help build the statue, then Joseph Pulitzer asked his readers to chip in with the donations for the base (including one girl who sent her two pet roosters).

And we're not alone in loving the book. It got starred reviews from Booklist and The Horn Book. Here are a few more reviews from earlier this year:

Seven Impossible Things Before Breakfast
YA and Kids Book Central
I.N.K. (Interesting Nonfiction for Kids)

It's time to play!
Speaking of I.N.K., contributor Anna M. Lewis posted Friday about her favorite book of the summer, The Case for Make Believe by Susan Linn, a book that's also been a favorite at our house, especially as we've watched 16-mo-old Silas begin to make up games of his own.

Lewis adds a list of books that encourage or celebrate play, such as Smart Play, Smart Toys and Unplugged Play: No Batteries. No Plugs. Pure Fun. One of her commenters also recommends the The Big Book for Little Hands, which looks really cute and fun. We'll be checking it out, for sure. --Heidi

---

Seeds of Change is a cool new anthology edited by John Joseph Adams and featuring work by Jay Lake, Tobias Buckell, and many others. A compact, small-sized hardcover from Prime Books, it's a work of art just in the design alone. The stories, which deal with social and environmental issues, are thought-provoking and strong. Recently, I asked Adams to give me a list of things readers can do in connection with the anthology, which is itself a call for being proactive in helping with some of the most pressing problems facing us on a global level. Here's his response...

John Joseph Adams: In the introduction to my anthology, I said: "It is my hope that reading these stories inspires some to plant their own seeds of  change—that when we see something wrong, we'll do something about it, whether that means writing to your representative in congress or researching a cure for a disease or simply speaking out against inequality and prejudice. We're all in this together—and the first step toward change can begin with any one of us."

So, obviously one of the main ideas behind the book was that science fiction can be a mode of social change. With that in mind, I'd like to offer up five ways--not necessarily the top five ways--you can plant seeds of change of your very own.

(1) Donate. We live in a land of privilege, but some of us are more privileged than others. If you can afford to spare the money, consider donating to a charitable organization. Uncle Sam will thank you come tax time, but do it for the karma, not the tax write-offs. Not sure who to donate money to? Check out Network for Good, which acts as a charitable clearinghouse, allowing you to discover and donate to a number of different charities and track your contributions.

(2) Volunteer. If you can't afford to donate money, or just want to do more than that, try donating your time. Charitable organizations of all kinds are always in need of volunteers to help make their organizations work. Not sure how to get involved? Check out VolunteerMatch.org, which helps match up volunteers with charitable organizations that need their assistance. (Network for Good can also help you find volunteering opportunities.)

(3) Recycle. Mother Earth has given us a lot; recycling is one of the