Political & Elections

Me too on the time travel thing.

I'm about half way through listening to an unabridged version of 11/22/63 during my commute to and from work.

I am enjoying it very much. I find it to be quite introspective and thoughtful, almost philosophical, about human nature, and about the nature of time.

I think life is about the things that are larger than life. King is good at exploring many of those things.

Freedom by Jonathan franzen. Really fun, old style novel. First pages of motherhood in the eighties are hilarious.

Ever since working at a talking books Library, I've been "reading" more as I get to listen to books at work.

I got about 1/4 of the way through Age of Spiritual Machines by Kurzweil (sp?) before I couldn't listen any more. It was decent, but the talking books read out every graph, graphic, link, and footnote. Just made the book FAR too tedious to listen to.

Then read Eve: A Novel of the First Woman by Elissa Elliott. I really liked this book. It tells the "story" of what happens when Adam and Eve are banished. Blends mythology, Biblical traditions, and some fiction to make a great story.

Then read Empire of Bones by Liz Williams. Good book. Science Fiction about aliens, India, and harvesting of humans.

Almost done with Wastelands: Stories of the Apocalypse by various authors (collection of short stories). Most of these stories are very good but a few completely missed the mark.

Had to reread Brave New World for a class. I have always loved that book but it definitely makes my skin crawl. For a different class, I had to read a book about ethnographies and critical theories in anthropology. It is far less exciting than it sounds -.-

I've learned that short stories are the best for talking books. Next up on my list is a collection of short science fiction stories. Can't remember the name.

romanigypsyeyes wrote:

---

Billy, I've never heard of Rubicon. I just looked it up though and it sounds absolutely fascinating. I might have to check it out shortly.

---

Definitely! I thought I liked Roman history before reading it, but it gave me a much better perspective on the most interesting (in my opinion) period in ancient history. Seeing everything in the time period play out until the fall of the Republic helped me establish a firm grasp on what really happened. And the writing, in my opinion, is just brilliant. The direct opposite of high school history textbook writing.

I'm currently rereading Tom Holland's Rubicon, which is the single most well-written straight history book I've ever read. It's about the late Roman Republic, and it's written in a way that just draws you in. I would certainly recommend it.

As for novels, I also recently reread The Sparrow and Children of God (sequel).

For new books, last month I read the newest "A Song of Ice and Fire" book, A Dance With Dragons, an excellent book in an excellent series.

I just reread Freakonomics. I read it first in 2005, when I was in 8th grade (or just before freshmen year... I can't remember whether or not it was during the year or summer). It was very interesting to compare what I thought about it then and what I think about it now. I read it when I was 14, a pretty conservative Republican, and with the 2005 economy. Now I'm 20, liberal, and trying to get a job... Definitely a change of perspective.

I've never really been able to just read books with a plot, at least not since starting high school. Perhaps I'm too ADD. I much prefer an alternative archaeology book (yes, I'm a nerd, but a darn proud one!) to something like the DaVinci Code (which I hated! but I loved Digital Fortress... I don't understand).

Just finished the psychological whodunnit "The Truth Teller's Lie" and am presently reading "The Wrong Mother" by Sophie (NOT Kristen) Hannah, a British author, which has a blurb on the front cover writen by Tara French.  I will definitely try Tara French next!

Oh yeah, and Time Magazine gets it wrong too:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/05/gross_media_ignorance_about_the_founders_110460.html

I'll lighten this up a bit. I've been taking improv classes for several months so I'm reading "Improvise" by Mick Napier.

Be careful from whom you learn your history. The liberal mind tends to see and interpret everything in terms of oppression and victimhood (i.e., Beard and Zinn), and conveniently forgets or ignores, as Paul Harvey used to say, “The Rest of the Story,” and thus misrepresents what actually happened. This is as true of the writers of history as it is of the readers of it.

For example, the New York Review of books said this about Eric Foner’s review of freedom in America:
it passes over too much and seems to be driven too much by the author’s predilections.
And
If the story of American freedom is told largely from the perspective of blacks and women, especially the former, it is not going to be a pretty tale.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1999/sep/23/freedom-and-its-discontents/

Today’s two preeminent historians of the American founding, Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood, are aware of this problem. In the introduction of his newest book, “The Idea of America,” Gordon S. Wood observes that historians are not immune to political correctness, saying “each generation of historians finding in the era of the Revolution and early Republic whatever fits its particular political and cultural needs.” Wood continues:
Our present preoccupation with race and gender has sometimes misrepresented the period in much the same way that Charles Beard’s Progressive generation misrepresented the period with their preoccupation with the common people against the business interests.
An article entitled “Modern Historians Confront the American Revolution,” here

http://mises.org/daily/2541#1d

presents a good overview of how historians have approached their work through the years.
Here’s what that article says about Bailyn:
The crucial breakout from the miasma of American historiography of the Revolution came from one man. He was able by sheer force of scholarship to overthrow the Consensus and Progressive views and to establish a new interpretation of the causes of the American Revolution. This was Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn,

There’s no better example of today’s politically correct preoccupation with race and gender misrepresenting history than the following:
However, the effect of the 3/5ths clause was to hand power over to slave holding states, and to encourage them to increase the numbers of their slaves for greater political power - more seats in the House of Representatives and more electors for president.


The fact is that “Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

In other words, the slave holding states insisted on COMPLETE representation for slaves because that would have given them MORE power in congress which they most certainly would have used to fight not only to maintain slavery, but also to extend it into any new states. The true effect of the 3/5ths clause, therefore, was FEWER seats in the house and the REDUCTION of power of the slave holding states than they otherwise would have had under the new Constitution, which WEAKENED their ability defend and extend slavery.

As Bailyn observed in his book “The Central Themes of the American Revolution.”, the notion that the Constitution protected slavery “inverts the proportions of history:”
Chattel slavery was brutal and degrading, but as far as the colonists knew, slavery in one form or another had always existed, and if it was brutal and degrading, so too was much else of ordinary life at the lower levels of society. Only gradually were men coming to see that this was a peculiarly degrading and a uniquely brutalizing institution, and to this dawning awareness the Revolution made a major contribution. To note only that certain leaders of the Revolution continued to enjoy the profits of so savage an institution and in their reforms failed to obliterate it inverts the proportions of the story. What is significant in the historical context of the time is not that the liberty-loving Revolutionaries allowed slavery to survive, but that they-even those who profited directly from the institution-went so far in' condemning it, confining it, and setting in motion the forces that would ultimately destroy it.

For another, more balanced, view, you might also consider “Decision in Philadelphia,” by Christopher Collier, which corroborates Bailyn’s summary, illustrating beyond any doubt that the Constitutional Convention was, in many respects, one long convoluted debate over slavery, with the Northern states doing everything they could to limit it, and the Southern states doing everything THEY could to protect and extend it. Slavery was “so enmeshed with a host of other problems that addressing it was unavoidable.” (p. 190)
If, for example, the new legislature was to be based on Proportional representation as Madison so fervently wished, would slaves be counted? Would they be taxed as wealth? Furthermore, it was obvious .that import duties must be a key source of revenue for the new government. Would newly arrived slaves be taxed as imports? Were slaves people or property?

Then there was the question of the new states that would inevitably be cut from the western lands. Neither side wanted to admit states allied with the other, and it was generally recognized that the determining factor in the alliance would be the presence or absence of slavery.

Thus, should slavery be permitted in new states? Ought northern states allow southerners to cross their borders in search of runaway slaves? Should northern states be required to hunt down and arrest fugitives? Would a black traveling with his master into a free state become free? Were slaves items of interstate commerce? The slavery question, then, ran into everything. Moreover, the issues it touched upon were themselves intermeshed. (p. 190)

The bargaining between the North and South, as must now be abundantly clear, was enormously convoluted, with the main deals being continually modified by subbargains, which were in turn further adjusted with yet other bargains. (p. 223)

One of the reasons for this was that slavery was much more than an issue of freedom or equality. It also was an issue of economics, especially in the south. Slavery was the economic engine of much of the 18th Century world, not unlike our current reliance on fossil fuels. If, for the sake of argument, 230 years from now we’re no longer dependent on fossil fuels, then today’s “conventional wisdom” regarding slavery in the founding age would be the logical and moral equivalent of saying, in the year 2246, “If Americans in 2011 were so intent on clean energy then why didn’t they ban the use of fossil fuels?”

This is why, during the Constitutional Convention, “Southerners, by and large, believed that if slavery was abolished, their economy would collapse.” (“Decision in Philadelphia, by Christopher Collier, p. 188) And , if slaves were not factored in to proportional representation, North Carolina, for example would have left the Convention.

William Davie “was sure that North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at lease as three-fifths. If the Easter states meant therefore to exclude them altogether the business was at an end.” (Collier, p. 216).

Nonetheless, there was strong opposition to slavery at the Convention. For example, Luther Martin said that slavery “was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution." But…

The only effect of this speech was to cause the southerners to become more obdurate. Rutledge said flatly that "religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be parties to the union." And Charles Pinckney said even more flatly that "South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the [foreign] slave trade." (p. 230-231)

Gourverneur Morris also gave a strong speech against slavery, saying it:

“was a nefarious institution the curse of Heaven on the states where it prevailed Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote.... The admission of slaves into the representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practise.” (p.229)

But for both sides the topmost priority was to form a Union, and so the North and the South compromised, not just through the 3/5 clause, but on many, many issues.

The popular conventional wisdom that the constitution defended slavery or that the 3/5 compromise gave more power to the south is, in truth, revisionist history that tells the story completely the wrong way around in order to propagate the liberal mythology of our founding as a “power grab” by a bunch of hypocrites talked out of both sides of their mouths; on the one hand claiming that all men are created equal while on the other hand owning slaves. This notion is such a gross misrepresentation of the truth that it amounts to a bald faced lie.

Just put in a request for 'Demonic' from the library. If the request comes through when promised, I should have it in my hands by Halloween, yipee!

-- Edited by CelticClan07 on Wednesday 29th of June 2011 10:52:28 PM

Amar is the expert, not I, but I will give the second hand version.  First of all, it sounds like your professor knows what he/she is talking about.  The compromise had to be made, or their would be no union and the union was and remains critically important for geostrategic reasons.  We don't want to be like mainland Europe with every state bordered by political rivals.  However, the effect of the 3/5ths clause was to hand power over to slave holding states, and to encourage them to increase the numbers of their slaves for greater political power - more seats in the House of Representatives and more electors for president.  Southern presidents dominated after Adams up until Lincoln, and they appointed slave friendly Supreme Court justices.

The only amendment that could not be made until 1808 was one to ban the slave trade because of the original Constitution.  The Fugitive slave clause protected southern slave interests at the expense of northern state sovereignty.  These are grossly racist compromises that taint the original document.

Then the south secedes and Lincoln upholds his consitutional duty to the uphold the Constitution.  After the bloodbath, the Recontruction Amendments are passed (13, 14, and 14) freeing the slave, giving them civil rights, and then voting rights.  Amar points out that secession and attacking Fort Sumpter brought about the end of slavery.  Before that, Lincoln estimated that it would take 100 years to bring about the end of slavery and the mainstream political debate had been about slavery in new states, not abolishing slavery in the deep south (though certainly abolitionists pushed for that too).

Those amendments are directed at the states, particularly southern states, for the first time rather than putting limits on the federal government.  They give congress the power to ennact laws to effectuate their purposes (at least 14 and 15 do.)  This is a constituional revolution thatwas headed off by inappropriately narrow readings of these amendments by the Supreme Court.  Nonetheless, they gave the national government new power against the states and were the first amendments to do so.

Obviously, congress already had the powers enumerated in Article I, and the powers necessary and proper to carry those out, and congressional enactments were the supreme law of the land.  But congress had no ability to veto stupid or prejudice state legislation (Madison wanted to give congress that power, but that idea was rejected by anti-federalists).  The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.  State government was free to abridge speech, ban assembly, and do whatever the Bill of Rights prohibited the federal government from doing unless barred by the particular state constitution.  The 14th and 15th Amendments gave the federal government power to regulate the conduct of states far beyond what was contained in Article I.  There has been a judicial battle ever since as to the reach and scope of the 14th Amendment and which amendments it "incorporated" against the states.

By the way, I am not sure that Madison was wrong about the role of faction.  That is what leads to stalemate and gridlock, which we have plenty of.

I have been reading quite a bit lately, which is why I have not been participating much. I read the trilogy about the "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo," which is very good, and have seen two out of the three movies, which are also very good.

I read, and highly recommend, Akhil Amar's "The Constitution: a Biography." It is an explanation / history of the Constitution written by a Yale professor who is not only brilliant, but also has a gift with language - he can really turn a phrase. It is not a light read, but you really want to find out about the Constitution, it is a great place to start. It is shocking to appreciate how much racism was embedded into the original document, which was otherwise admirable for its experiment in democratic freedom for white males. It started out with anti-federalists' fears of a powerful federal government leading to arguments for state's rights and pressuring the first congress to pass the bill of rights to protect individuals from the power of the federal government. Then, the Civil War and the resulatant reconstruction amendments gave the federal government power against the abuses of citizens / residents by state governments. The amendments made the political process increasingly democratic and federalized. Amar gives the historical context and reasons for each amendment and shows the relationships between the various parts of the original document and the amendments in deatl that only a true scholar, or those on this forum, would know. I am actually plowing through it a second time, taking copious notes, trying to acually study it rather than just read it, but I work full time so that is slow going.

Other books I have read recently and recommend highly are: "History of Freedom in America," Eric Foner (about how the conception of freedom has changed over time in U.S. history, and the conflict between notions of freedom an equality); "Obscene in the Extreme," Bill Wartzman (about the banning of "The Grapes of Wrath" in Bakersfield, CA. during the depression); and "Freethinkers," Susan Jacoby (about the history of secularism in the U.S. - a rebuttle to the notion that this is a Christian nation - we were a collection of Christian states, but formed a secular nation under the Constitution with periods of strong secular leaders between the "great awakenings," and require far more religious affirmations by politicians now than ever before.)

I am reading "The Federalist Papers," because of the frequent references to them in Amar's book. I tried to read them in high school and was bored to tears. They have changed so much in the last 40 years or so! Each one is about 6 to 8 pages and a lot of arguments and insights about government remain the same. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay clearly gave politics / government some thought. Compare their knowledge, innovation and insight to that of our current crop of citizens clamoring for control of government - Palin cannot name a Supreme Court case she admires *We elect morons of all political stripes to office because they are charismatic or simply not incumbents. Scary. Simplicity is not always admirable in politicians. However, they are all "qualified" since year only need to be 25 and a citizen for the House of Reps, and 35 and a citizen for the senate.

I am reading "The People's History of the Supreme Court" by Peter Irons. It is also a very good introduction to formation of Court, major players, and important decisions (good and bad). Irons makes no bones about his liberal point of view because his thesis is that everyone has one, so it is disingenuous to pretend to be objective - the Justices certainly are not and never have been.

I am also reading "Freedom Just Around the Corner," the first part of proposed trilogy on the history of the U.S., by Walter McDougall. His thesis is that we are a nation of "hustlers" in both the sense of fauds and cheats, and in the sense of aggressive go-getters. I think he has a very interesting perspective.

I want to read the entire "Harry Potter" series very soon, but can't seem to find the time to just relax and escape from muggle issues. "I am not a warlock."

BigG wrote:

---

Michio Kaku
He really is "the new Sagan".

---

He aggregated a lot of stuff I'd read already - but that is very valuable.

I'm reading Bonfire of the Vanities now. A bit late - but I guess the most hilarious thing is how damn true it is. Says all the stuff you can't say normally.

just started "Challenge for the Pacific: Guadalcanal: The Turning Point of the War" by Robert Leckie

I read Tinkers, which seemed to me to be an attempt by an artist to impress other artists. It won a Pulitzer, which makes be wonder if that prize, at least in the realm of fiction, isn't about the same thing. The book did not hold my interest. I kept at it anyway, wading through all the flowery prose in the hope that I would see what the Pulitze committee saw. I never did (unless, of course, flowery prose is sufficient by itself. In that event the book deserves several Pulitzers because it's full of it.)

I read True Grit before seeing the new movie and enjoyed both. In my opinion, the language in this book outshines that of Tinkers.

At the end of Tinkers I thought "Finally!"

At the end of True Grit I thought "I want more."

I "read" all of the Tattoo books by listening to unabridged audio versions in the car during my commute. I might have had an easier time listening to the stories than those of you who are reading them because there was zero stumbling over difficult names and pronounciations - somebody else was reading them all aloud to me. I enjoyed all thre books, although in the third one I thought there was so much exposition about the backstory and history of the "Zala" character that it unnecessarily slowed the story. I like the Lisbeth Salander character. I've heard that the auther intended to continue the story for a total of ten books and I could see that, possibly, in a long arc of Salander gradual growth from an anti-social angry teen virtually incapable of love to a much more social and well adjusted adult who finally comes to trust another person enough to let love happen. The beginnings of that evolution happen over the course of the three books. I'd rate these books as compelling crime mysteries but I would not put them in the category of "literature" that I think True Grit is in.

Aw, shucks, Woody. 

Hindoo, I love vampires. I even watch that stupid Vampire Diaries even after they introduced the freaking werewolf. I draw the line at vampires that sparkle.

I have the 2nd Tattoo book sitting one my desk here at work. My boss gave it to me. Now I just have to get a copy of the first one and read it first... I'll report back in about, oh, 3 years or so...

I would never have chosen the Dragon Tattoo books but my girlfriend gave me all three for my birthday.  I sort of had to read them and was surprised how much I liked them.  The third one is a little tougher to get through- there are a ton of characters and it's hard to keep everyone straight.

Ha ha.  No kidding, Hindoo.

I really don't hang with you all literature-wise. I'm more of a Harry Potter, Belgariad, Rift War, Asimov type reader. Sometimes I wanter into some non-fic, usually historical.

Just finished Ron Chernow's new bio of G Washington. I have through the years read 3 bios of Washington and compared to Chernow's they were a complete waste of time. To my mind, he is the best historical writer of our time. His Hamilton Biography was at least as good as this new one on Washington.

Also, the 4 volume collection of George Orwell's collected essays and letters by my bedside for the last half-year. One of the great prose writers of history. You can hear him talking as you read.

Also, an amazing 2 volume bio of Joseph Stalin, by Simon Sebab Montefiore. What a revelation! Thug, psychopath, ideologue, woman's man, world-class poet and a lover of the arts. I would put this history right up there with Ian Kershaw's 2 volume "Hitler." Amazingly well researched and presented.

Also, Keith Richard's "Life." Interesting if depressing. A love of music crippled by a passion for drugs. Very interesting man, however. And he really dumps on Mick.

Also, Christopher Hitchens "Hitch22." It was ok. I like his columns much better than his long-form writing; even when the subject is himself. Also, quite a name-dropper.

And recently reread with my 12 year old son, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. We read and discuss as we go along. It is as much a conversation as a reading. Great reading for young people that do not have the benefit of religion in their lives. Did it with my daughter when she was young as well. Can't recommend it enough to young people and families.


Bullet, I have read Shelby Foote's Civil War. Spent close to a year on it at night before bed. He is certainly a warm and engaging writer. I came away believing that the civil war was not worth the incalculable suffering. over half a million dead in a brutal war to expedite what would have come about in any case and probably with far less historical ramifications for decades, even centuries to come. It depressed me greatly.

Pmrlcomm, I really enjoy the writing of McCullough. In particular, I liked "Mornings on Horseback."

I'm currently reading the first novel in Pat Barker's "Regeneration" trilogy about the First World War, after having semi-accidentally read the third one, which won the Booker Prize, first. (The books go back and forth between the trenches, and a psychiatric clinic in Scotland where soldiers suffering from shellshock are treated.) The historical characters include Robert Graves, Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, and the doctor William Rivers. I'm not sure "enjoyment" is the word to describe how I feel about them, but they're great books nonetheless.

Before that, I recently read Victor Klemperer's two-volume diary "I Will Bear Witness: 1933-1945." It recounts, on an almost daily basis, his experiences as a Jew living in Dresden during that time; he survived only because he was married to an Aryan woman, and because the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 happened to take place almost literally as he was about to be finally deported to the death camps, allowing Klemperer and his wife to escape in the subsequent chaos.  It's probably the best first-hand contemporaneous account that exists about what it was like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany.  In between the Klemperer and the Pat Barker, I read the wartime diaries (1940-1945) of Marie "Missie" Vassilitchikoff, a White Russian princess who worked in the photo department of the German Foreign Office in Berlin, and ended up involved -- along with quite a few others in that office -- in the plot to kill Hitler in July 1944, although she was never implicated.  After that, she worked as a military nurse in Vienna.   Although parts of it were fascinating historically, and she was always quite clearly an anti-Nazi, her diaries present quite a stark contrast with the Klemperer diaries (almost obscenely so at times, I'm afraid).  I got the feeling reading this that she knew and/or was related to every single aristocrat in every country in Europe, on both sides of the conflict, and was welcome at every single estate and castle from France to Croatia.  Blue blood crosses all national boundaries, I guess, even in the middle of the Second World War.




-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 13th of December 2010 10:13:33 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 13th of December 2010 10:15:12 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 13th of December 2010 10:23:31 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 13th of December 2010 10:25:35 PM