Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Bill Simmons in S.F.


As part of his book tour, Bill Simmons visited S.F. on November 5, 2009. He apologized about not wearing his Golden State Warriors jersey, and then mistakenly praised Stephen Jackson. The crowd booed immediately at the sound of Stephen Jackson's name. (Jackson has publicly demanded a trade.) Apparently, Simmons interpreted the boos as a perfect segue to mention Chris Cohan, the much-hated Golden State Warriors owner. Simmons asked about the proper spelling of Cohan's name, which few people knew off the top of their heads. Then, without further ado, he sat down and started signing books.

Although Simmons is in his forties, he looks (and dresses) like he's in his late twenties. I suppose if my job consisted of watching sports and going to Vegas, I'd look perpetually young, too.

I read some of Simmons' book, and I liked it. He trashes my favorite player, Reggie Miller, but he does it in a way that allows me to still like him.

Monday, November 9, 2009

How to Judge a District Attorney

[Note: I revised the last two paragraphs to update facts relating to Vahid Hosseini's prosecution.]

Shouldn't the main factors used to judge a D.A.'s success be 1) winning trials; 2) managing costs, i.e. winning cases without overspending taxpayer monies; 3) not prosecuting unwarranted cases; and 4) promoting settlement when non-violent crimes, such as drug possession, are involved?

On these four factors, where is the evidence that Santa Clara County D.A. Dolores Carr has failed? Where is the evidence that challenger Jeff Rosen will do a better job than Attorney Carr on these four factors? [Update: at this point, I had not met Mr. Rosen. Having met Mr. Rosen, I can tell you that he seems very motivated to bring a new culture to the D.A.'s office.]

I don't have a dog in the D.A. race, but I am curious why the SJ Mercury dislikes Attorney Carr so much. Scott Herhold, one of my favorite local columnists, trashed her in a recent column. See here. He also wrote, "I personally like to think I'm near the top of her enemies list." (Wow.)

I know Attorney Carr's husband was involved in an ethics issue, but I haven't heard of the D.A.'s office botching any major cases (Maybe I've missed something--and I consider the DeAnza case to be more of a tragedy than a missed opportunity to prosecute). I know prosecutor Benjamin T. Field allegedly committed ethical violations, but that wasn't necessarily Attorney Carr's fault.

Bottom line: the legal profession is monolithic enough as it is. District Attorneys tend to be hyper-aggressive, egotistical men with Superman complexes. (See here for further explanation.) I like the idea of having a female D.A., even though I realize gender has nothing to do with competence. Plus, I don't know much about challenger Jeff Rosen, and it seems to me that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

At the same time, I am a harshly judgmental voter. Some readers may remember that the Santa Clara County D.A.'s office transferred the prosecution of Vahid Hosseini's alleged killers to the state AG's Office (Attorney Geoff Lauter?). The D.A.'s office may have transferred the case to avoid making Attorney Carr the centerpiece of an "O.J. Simpson, 'local law enforcement is corrupt'" defense strategy. If, however, the AG's Office fails to convict the killer and his alleged accomplices, I may vote against the incumbent D.A. Is that unfair, given that Attorney Carr's office is no longer responsible for the Vahid Hosseini case? Perhaps. But to me and many others, not putting Vahid Hosseini's killer(s) in jail would be a monumental failure worthy of widespread blame.

[Update on November 10, 2009: One person has questioned my comments regarding the transfer of the Vahid Hosseini case. Apparently, Attorney Carr's office would not have had to transfer the case to the AG if the Mercury News hadn't raised issues about a possible conflict with Attorney Carr's husband being hired by Mrs. Hosseini's civil lawyer. (Mrs. Hosseini hired Attorney Carr's husband to investigate protocols used by bank security personnel in a separate civil lawsuit.) In short, Attorney Carr may have transferred the Hosseini case not because she had to do so, but because she wished to avoid the appearance of impropriety.]

Updates on June 22, 2010 and April 7, 2011: Mr. Rosen won the D.A.'s race by a razor-thin margin. More here on his swearing-in ceremony and an important change in the prosecution's procedures.

Hamed Haddadi: First Iranian NBA Player


Sunday, November 8, 2009

2009 Golden State Warriors: My Solution

The Warriors need to switch to a D'Antoni/Phoenix style offense using PG Ellis, SG Morrow, PF Randolph, SF Jackson, and C Biedrins. Right now, Maggette slows down the offense and the Warriors rise and fall with his inconsistent (read: generally poor) shooting.

Also, the Warriors should trade Maggette and either Azubuike or Jackson for Channing Frye and Barbosa. The trade would benefit both Phoenix and the Warriors. (Of course, the fact that it makes perfect sense for both teams automatically means the trade will never happen.)

Overall, the Warriors have excellent young talent. They should do whatever it takes to keep all of their young players, even if it means dumping Jackson and other veterans.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Fort Hood Shootings: a Hostile Work Environment?

As we reflect on the Fort Hood shootings, I hope we remember that a person's religion has nothing to do with his or her acts of violence. Did Christians apologize for Steven Dale Green or Charles Graner? Of course not. 

A solider necessarily places himself or herself in violent situations. Sometimes, soldiers snap (for example, Steven Dale Green), and the consequences are tragic. Numerous Muslim groups have already condemned the Fort Hood shootings. My thoughts and prayers are with the soldiers and their families. 

Here is James Fallow's take on the situation: 

Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre "mean"? A decade later, do we "know" anything about Columbine? There is chaos and evil in life. Some people go crazy. In America, they do so with guns; in many countries, with knives; in Japan, sometimes poison. 

Something is terribly wrong when people shoot strangers or acquaintances. We need to find ways to prevent similar incidents. The NRA's solution--giving everyone a gun--is not the best answer. This shooting shows that even when nearby people are armed, a lone gunman can cause numerous deaths. How can we prevent these types of incidents from happening again? 

Bonus: from The Atlantic's website

Michael Moore: "After a shooting like this it's very important that no one jump to conclusions and take out any revenge against doctors or psychiatrists." 

Matthew Yglesias: "Lucky for us Christians never shoot anyone. Otherwise America might have the developed world's highest murder rate." 

Update: I am having a back-and-forth Facebook discussion on The Atlantic's wall with Kim P. See below. 

Me: Violence is not a religious issue--it's an issue of unstable people attaching themselves to a particular ideology. Remember what Charles Graner said: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself." (That quote still makes me shudder, because it's wrong on so many levels.) 

No sane person would say that Graner's Christianity had anything to do with him torturing detainees. If you agree that Graner's religion had nothing to do with violent behavior, then you must also agree that Nidal Hasan's religion had nothing to do with his violent behavior. 

Her: What reality are you living in?? Didn't he shout "Allahu [sic] Akbar!" as he opened fire??? 

Me: to be consistent, you must agree that Christianity influenced Charles Graner when he tortured Abu Ghraib detainees. After all, Graner did mention Christianity, and he is a Christian, correct? So *obviously* Christianity had something to do with Graner's actions, right? (I hope you see the sarcasm and problem with your "logic.") 

To support a link between Islam and the shootings, you mentioned a rumor that the shooter yelled, "God is great." If that's the case, then you must believe "God" had something to do with the killings. If a white Christian American shot somebody and yelled "God is great," would you link Christianity with the shootings? Of course not. You'd be crazy to do such a thing. Yet, you have no problem making the same crazy link when the shooter happens to be from a different religious background. If that's not Islamaphobia, I don't know what is.

Her: Remember 9/11??? Islam is much more dangerous than Christianity. Most people would agree they are just to PC to say so. 

Me: [after picking my jaw off the ground] I can't believe my eyes. First, you fail to respond to any of my actual comments, and then you pull 9/11 out of your arse? Are you seriously comparing the Fort Hood shootings with 9/11? Really? I'll just say this: the 9/11 attacks were carried out primarily by European residents who--as far as we know--did not become radicalized until they lived in a Christian-majority culture. More here. When you get a chance, look up the most populous Muslim country in the world. I bet the answer will surprise you. 

Her: The Fort Hood shootings are a domestic terrorist attack just like 9/11. It doesn't matter where the terrorists resided before the attack, homegrown or not, families are grieving for their loved ones now. [Hallelujah! She finally made a rational statement.] 

Me: I think we've finally found the answer to why Nidal went nuts--imagine him being surrounded 24/7 by mostly white conservative Christians who probably associated him with 9/11 merely b/c of his religious choice. Congratulations, Kim--you may have helped us figure out why all this happened. 

Her: Any religion that promotes blowing oneself up or denying women rights is nuts. The Fort Hood shooter had sympathy for suicide bombers. What a coward. Interesting that you have sympathy for this guy... 

Me: Again, thanks to you bringing up non sequiturs like 9/11 and suicide bombings, we can finally understand that Nidal may have been surrounded by mostly white Christians who blamed him for 9/11 because of his religious choice. We also know Nidal's car was vandalized in an act of anti-Muslim hatred. Obviously, a hostile work environment does not excuse murder. At the same time, everyone is asking, "Why did he do this?" Unfortunately, the answer may be unsatisfying and therefore overlooked; in short, we may be dealing with another case of a hostile work environment leading to workplace violence. That hypothesis is much more rational than believing, as you apparently do, that God caused Nidal to murder numerous people. 

Her: He had Sudden Jihad Syndrome... 

[At this point in the discussion, Kim or someone else deleted all of her comments from the Atlantic's Facebook wall, so I have to start paraphrasing.] 

Me: Is it like Crazy Christian Syndrome, which tolerated lynchings, slavery, and black church bombings? You conveniently forget that many Americans once despised white Christians b/c of their willingness--similar to yours--to advance hatred against minority groups. Guess who said the following? 

"I ain't no Christian. I can't be, when I see all the colored people fighting for forced integration getting blown up. They get hit by stones and chewed by dogs, and they blow up a Negro church and don't find the killers... Followers of Allah are the sweetest people in the world...All they want to do is live in peace." 

I have no doubt that if you were in the South in the 60's, you'd be at Little Rock screaming those kids down and in Alabama cheering on Bull Connor. You've somehow inherited the kind of cultural myopia that went out of style several decades ago. Back then, though, people could blame segregation for their cultural myopia--after all, the law prevented them from interacting with people different from themselves. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for your cultural myopia and anti-Muslim beliefs. My prayers are with the families who lost their loved ones at Fort Hood. May God look over them and the 5000+ American soldiers who have died so far in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

Her: [Again, I am paraphrasing this comment from recent memory.] Almost all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. When an act of terrorism happens, you can be sure that a Muslim is behind it. 

Me: you have access to a list of crimes committed all over the world, broken down by religious affiliation? Or are you just pulling your "facts" based on arbitrary mass media accounts? You have made a statement that is impossible to verify, b/c no reliable evidence exists to support it. 

Let me explain why your comment lacks credence, common sense, and logic. Here are some other lovely "facts" we can agree on if we go by mass media accounts: (WARNING: heavy sarcasm to follow...) 

1. You can be sure whenever a crime is committed against a gay person in America, a white Christian is behind it. Remember Matthew Shepard? Clearly, gay people need to avoid white Christians if they want to feel safe, right? 

2. Whenever there is corporate embezzlement in America, you can be sure a Jew (Madoff) or Christian (Pendergest-Holt) is behind it. Last time I checked, no devout Muslims have committed securities fraud...well, at least that's what the television told me (note the dripping sarcasm) 

3. Whenever an American president lies to the American people, whether it's about WMDs or Watergate, we can be sure he's a white Christian. Obviously, we need to stop electing white Christians as presidents. 

I could go on for days, but just like you, I don't know if any of the above statements are actually true. They might sound true, but only a dimwit would actually believe such statements without reviewing actual statistics...which don't exist for the type of comment you made. Even if they did exist, making any broad statement based on statistics is foolish. 

Let's say, for example, we determine that mostly African-Americans are on death row for committing capital crimes. So what? It doesn't tell us anything about whether black people commit capital crimes at higher rates than the general population, because too many other factors are involved. For example, lack of adequate representation could be involved. Perhaps D.A.s prosecute black persons at higher rates than non-black persons. Perhaps juries tend to give white murderers jail sentences and black murderers the death penalty, etc. 

I could also copy your style of "reasoning" and say, "Almost all white people are not NeoNazis, but almost all NeoNazis are white. Or have you already forgotten about the Holocaust Museum shooting and the anthrax mailings?" (I hope you understand that unlike you, I am being sarcastic.) 

Even a 6th grader ought to be able to understand that broad statements, like the ones you are making, lack value. Anyone can speculate about what they see on TV. But it is shocking that an adult who has presumably graduated high school is unable to understand that mass media isn't a reliable indicator of overall and total criminal activity. To copy your "logic," I hope you understand that while white Christians like yourself aren't necessarily NeoNazis, we need to be careful about people like you because almost all NeoNazis are white Christians. Please contact the FBI and have them monitor you pursuant to the Patriot Act immediately. Thank you for your service to this country. [Again, note sarcasm.]

Friday, November 6, 2009

Berkshire Shares to Split 50 to 1?

According to this article, Berkshire Hathaway shares might split, making them more accessible to the general public. Shareholders still have to approve the stock split, and the final vote tally might be close. Buffett started giving away his shares to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, so it's unclear if any single person or group controls the outcome of the vote.

I bought my BRK.B shares so I could go to the annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. If shareholders approve the split, more people may attend the annual meeting. I'm not sure that's a great idea--when I attended in 2007, the meeting was extremely crowded. At the same time, Buffett is coming along in age, so perhaps he wants to give more people the chance to come see him.

My Most Influential Books

Various books have influenced me throughout my life. Below are the titles of my most influential books:

Middle School: Although I was reading at least one book a week, I can't remember anything in particular that influenced me. I just remember loving to read. My mom would go window-shopping in the mall and leave me in a bookstore. After four hours, I would usually finish one or two books.

I do remember enjoying everything by Roald Dahl, especially Matilda; Sweet Valley Twins (*not* Sweet Valley High), and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe series.

The earliest book I remember loving is Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' series, which I found, of all places, in an Iranian used bookstore. It was the only book they had in English. Start with A Study in Scarlet (1887): "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it."

High school: Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front. After reading this WWI book, I became anti-war. I've been that way ever since.

George Breitman's Malcolm X Speaks (1990).

Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution--what was it based on? The landless against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost, was no compromise, was no negotiation. I'm telling you--you don't know what a revolution is. Because when you find out what it is, you'll get back in the alley, you'll get out of the way. 

The Russian Revolution--what was it based on? Land; the landless against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed...

As long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people, but when it comes to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls murdered, you haven't got any blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it's true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea?

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country." -- Malcolm X 

John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me (1961) displayed America's racist past from a poignant, unique perspective. Griffin, a white man who darkened his skin so he could pass for a black man, showed the daily slights of Jim Crow's South from a deeply personal voice.

Blind or sighted, Griffin worked on like a metronome. He was always trying to save somebody, himself last... If there is something wrong with Griffin it is that he is a goddamn saint, an insufferable Christian, a soft-spoken, gentle guy who never seems to think ill of anyone; he even prayed for those friends and neighbors who burnt him in effigy on the main street of his home of Mansfield, Texas, when the word reached the local pool hall that he had gone and turned himself into a n*gg*r. -- San Francisco muckraker Warren Hinckle on Griffin, from If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade (1973, 1974, hardcover), pp. 85, 86

Nathan McCall's Makes Me Wanna Holler (1994). 

Honorable Mentions: Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965) and Roots (1976). 

College: Burton Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street. I didn't necessarily agree with Professor Malkiel's conclusions, but I appreciated his rationale.

Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981). Few writers can rival Professor Gould's vast scientific knowledge. His writing is unique in that it is both dispassionate and engaging. Thus far, no modern equivalent exists to Professor Gould. Only Michio Kaku comes close.

I didn't finish Hunter Thompson's The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman (1997), but I enjoyed it immensely. I forgot to include the book earlier, in part because I assumed people would recognize this blog's title--Quiet Highway: Saga of a Gentleman--was based on it. 

I don't remember the name of the author, but my Introduction to Symbolic Logic textbook had a tremendous impact on my understanding of abstract concepts. Every college student should take a symbolic logic course. I didn't do well in my UC Davis class, but this introductory philosophy course provided the most useful long-term knowledge. It may have even re-wired my brain.


Law school: N/A. I played too much basketball to read anything fun during law school.

Late 20's: Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. See here for more.

[Update on August 6, 2012: after reading Friedman's book, try David Cay Johnston's 2007 book, Free Lunch. Johnston's writing is generally biased, but this specific book provides excellent food for thought.]

Early 30's: Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. It's sickening to see everything Mr. Postman predicted coming true, and yet, no one seems to care.

See also George Soros' Lecture #4, titled "Capitalism vs. Open Society." The lecture is available here.

I will give honorable mentions to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence PeopleNiall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, and Stephen Pollan's Die Broke.

Late 30's: Hernando de Soto's The Mystery of Capital (2000).

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1999) -- many of my own ideas are encompassed in this book. I did not add this title before because it didn't influence me so much as display my own thinking, but with citations. [Update: I stopped reading My Life, Our Times (2017) by PM Gordon Brown when almost every single page included ideas I had envisioned before reading the book. Brown, a Scot, was and is my favorite UK politician.]

Eisenhower, Soldier and President (1983) by Stephen Ambrose.

If This Isn't Nice, What Is? Advice to the Young--The Graduation Speeches (2014) by Kurt Vonnegut. (I thoroughly enjoy reading both George Carlin and Kurt Vonnegut, despite them being complete opposites.  At the end of the day, I'd like to leave this earth with my hand closer to Vonnegut's side of the shelf.)

Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder (2012), by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. [I'm re-considering this selection, realizing its perceived quality was due largely to the dearth of excellent non-fiction generally post-2012. Additionally, Duncan J. Watts has similar findings and has a better writing style. See, for example, Everything is Obvious (2011)]

Future Crimes (2015), by Marc Goodman. Bonus: Adam Segal's The Hacked World Order (2016).

Early 40's: Warren Hinckle's If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade (1990).

Becoming Kareem (2017). I'd recommend first reading Giant Steps (1960) by Jabbar/Knobler.

Bill Moyers: A World of Ideas (1989). Moyer is the best interviewer in the English-speaking world.

Paul Theroux's Deep South (2015). It took Mr. Thorax, er Theroux, 75 years to publish a book I didn't find tedious, but the result is quite possibly the first Great American Novel.

Colegio de Mexico's A New Compact History of Mexico. It's almost impossible to understand Mexico's history without first understanding American and European (primarily French) history, so your personal background will impact this book's reach.

G. Willow Wilson's The Butterfly Mosque (2010). Wilson is a master of the written word, and her status as an insider-outsider delivers numerous insights not found anywhere else.

Alan Beattie's False Economy (2009). A remarkable book and a must-read by anyone interested in economics.

"Painting is literature in colors. Literature is painting in language." -- Pramoedya Ananta Toer, This Earth of Mankind (translated in 1980)

What books influenced you the most? Please feel free to share book suggestions by leaving a comment.

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2009, then updated in subsequent years) 

Update on 10/6/11+: I enjoyed Junot Diaz's book, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao immensely (2007). It is my favorite fiction book. In second place so far is Christina McKenna's The Misremembered Man (2011).

Update on 10/2/12: I enjoyed Raul H. Castro's autobiography, Adversity is My Angel: the Life and Career of Raul H. Castro (TCU Press, paperback, 2009).

In Bemidji, Minnesota, I witnessed ethnic intolerance, though it was a completely alien form to me.  Swedes and Norwegians, I discovered, discriminated against Finns.  As I walked the streets I saw signs that read, "We don't rent to Finns" and "No Finns wanted."  It was hard to believe because the Finns were blonde and blue-eyed--why would anyone be prejudiced towards them?  All of the prejudice that I knew related to the darkness of one's skin.  Raul Castro, don't feel so sorry for yourself, I thought to myself, they are picking on someone else here in Minnesota. In Bemidji, they viewed me through a stereotypical prism; I was a Latin from Manhattan [Mr. Castro is from Arizona], and somehow I must have been a great lover who played the guitar.  The experience there reinforced my view that racial prejudice makes no sense.  (pp. 27-28)

Adversity has been my angel, as I have always seen it as something to overcome, not as a roadblock to my success.  I was never satisfied with the status quo and always wanted to move ahead, to progress to the next level.  If that is "ambition," then it gave me a good life, and I wish it for everyone. (pp. 106)

Update on November 10, 2015: my favorite comedian is Chris Rock. Never Scared (2004) is his most searing standup routine. One indicator of whether I would enjoy someone's company is our mutual like or dislike of comedians. 

Funniest books I've read so far:

1. Me Talk Pretty One Day (2000), by David Sedaris; 
2. The Complete Calvin and Hobbes (2012), by Bill Watterson; 
3. Smile When You're Lying (2007), by Chuck Thompson;
4. Changing Places (1975), by David Lodge; 
5. Bloodsucking Fiends (1995), by Christopher Moore. (You may skip the subsequent two titles in the series--they were not very good.) 

I like Nick Hornby's fiction books as well, but I can't think of a particular one I would recommend. I suggest reading the first 30 pages of one of his books to see if it strikes your fancy. If you enjoy Hornby's writing, try David Nicholls, especially One Day (2009). 

Update: Samuel Cohen's 50 Essays (2006) is fantastic reading. So is Vaclav Havel's Disturbing the Peace (1991). I also recommend Viet Thanh Nguyen's collection of essays by refugees, The Displaced (2018) and David Remnick's King of the World (1998). 

Update on April 2018: I'm starting a new list, one including my most influential or favorite speeches/lectures/articles. In no particular order, I present the following:

1. ee cummings six nonlectures: "I value freedom; and have never expected freedom to be anything less than indecent."

2. MLK's Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence (April 4, 1967) [MLK was murdered exactly one year later on April 4, 1968.]

3. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, The Danger of a Single Story (2009): "I did not know that people like me could exist in literature."

4. Viet Thanh Nguyen, Introduction, The Displaced (2018): "Keeping people in a refugee camp is punishing people who have committed no crime except trying to save their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. The refugee camp belongs to the same inhuman family as the internment camp, the concentration camp, the death camp."

5. James Baldwin, "The Creative Process," from Creative America (1962), Ridge Press.

6. Tommy Koh's "De Tocqueville Revisited" speech given at JFK School of Government, Harvard University, September 5, 1986. It is the best summary of USA's political structure I have ever seen. Sample sentence: "The US system of government, characterized by the separation of powers among the three branches of government and by many checks and balances, is designed to protect the liberty of the individual."

7. Stephanie Ericsson's “The Ways We Lie.” (1992) 

8. Tennessee Williams' "On A Streetcar Named Success" (1947): "Our technology is a God-given chance for adventure and for progress which we are afraid to attempt." 

9. William Deresiewicz’s Solitude and Leadership (Spring 2010): “It’s perfectly natural to have doubts, or questions, or even just difficulties. The question is, what do you do with them? Do you suppress them, do you distract yourself from them, do you pretend they don’t exist?” 

Update on June 2020: I should have included other authors who have influenced me: the United Kingdom's C.S. Lewis, especially The Problem of Pain (1940); USA's Michael Lewis; USA's William O. Douglas, especially The Right of the People (1958); South Africa's J.M. Coetzee; Kwame Anthony Appiah; William Shakespeare, especially Othello; Michelle de Kretser; and England's Zadie Smith. 

Update on July 2020: let's make a list of my favorite poets, in no particular order. 

1. Róisín Kelly (Ireland) 
2. Theodore Roethke (USA) 
3. ee cummings (USA)
4. W.H. Auden (United Kingdom) 
5. Dannie Abse (Wales) 

Update on May 2021: for magazines, short form, and other periodicals, National Geographic stands out. A National Geographic from 20 years ago will, even today, contain the best writing you'll see in short form. If you prefer shorter rather than longer pieces, start with National Geographic; then read all the Nobel Prize Literature speeches; then read interviews in the Paris Review.