Friday, February 27, 2004
Finally, I got through that block, and I'm ready for the next round of developments. I will be looking for firmer dates on the origins of universities in medieval times, the discovery of Brazil, the founding of English colonies in the Americas, the origin of Harvard University, and other topics I don't clearly remember at the moment. In more recent times, I expect to push my histories of American presidents back into the 60s and 70s, before I pick back up with British and French. In the last 20 years, I'm still working on German and Russian leaders, as well as Chinese and Indian Prime Ministers. For this decade, I'm spreading out to Brazil and Indonesia.
So far, this doesn't connect well to the major areas of civilizations. I have my organization of peoples from a list of 100+ prominent people, but if I consider countries in decreasing order of populations, there are a lot more Asians than Europeans, and I will need to consider some of their leaders, and I have barely started on the Africans.
Religion is still hard to handle. Except for Roman Catholic Popes, religious leaders are a little harder to identify than governmental and political figures. I do have more material on government, and a classification of major governments. So for, I can identify Federal Republics (US, Russian Federation), Federal Parliamentary Democracies (India, Germany), Unitary Republics (France), Unitary Parliamentary Democracies, (United Kingdom), and Communist States (China, USSR). This classification is perhaps oversimplified, but it's a starting point. I also am starting to gather information on corporations: I have a few names, and I will want to refine this approach. I am interested in education so that I can begin adding it to the areas I am concerned with.
I don't have anything to say about the suspicions of the British spying on the UN, but I am mildly curious about what motive they might have had. I note with approval the easing of tensions between India and Pakistan.
It appears that Bush has announced his support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between men and women. While I support this definition, a constitutional amendment to address this is addressing a symptom, not the cause of the problem. The root is the lack of adequate checks on the Supreme Court's assumed power of judicial legislation. Massachusetts has an even worse case of government by judges than the Federal Government does. Instead of government of the people, by the people, for the people, they are approaching a government of the people, by the courts, for the liberal elite.
So far, this doesn't connect well to the major areas of civilizations. I have my organization of peoples from a list of 100+ prominent people, but if I consider countries in decreasing order of populations, there are a lot more Asians than Europeans, and I will need to consider some of their leaders, and I have barely started on the Africans.
Religion is still hard to handle. Except for Roman Catholic Popes, religious leaders are a little harder to identify than governmental and political figures. I do have more material on government, and a classification of major governments. So for, I can identify Federal Republics (US, Russian Federation), Federal Parliamentary Democracies (India, Germany), Unitary Republics (France), Unitary Parliamentary Democracies, (United Kingdom), and Communist States (China, USSR). This classification is perhaps oversimplified, but it's a starting point. I also am starting to gather information on corporations: I have a few names, and I will want to refine this approach. I am interested in education so that I can begin adding it to the areas I am concerned with.
I don't have anything to say about the suspicions of the British spying on the UN, but I am mildly curious about what motive they might have had. I note with approval the easing of tensions between India and Pakistan.
It appears that Bush has announced his support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between men and women. While I support this definition, a constitutional amendment to address this is addressing a symptom, not the cause of the problem. The root is the lack of adequate checks on the Supreme Court's assumed power of judicial legislation. Massachusetts has an even worse case of government by judges than the Federal Government does. Instead of government of the people, by the people, for the people, they are approaching a government of the people, by the courts, for the liberal elite.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Still slow going on assimilating web site updates, two more on saturday's list to go. I got in a bit of practical self-education yesterday when I had to help finish cutting up a pig carcass. I have zero experience as a butcher and I had practically no idea where to begin, so it took a lot longer than it would have done if I had a clue about what I was supposed to be doing.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Still going slow on assimilating the bios I gathered recently. Until I get more done on this, I don't have a whole lot more to say, but it is becoming increasingly evident that I need to do more work in other areas of society besides government, although identifying the most prominent individuals is somewhat more difficult than it is for government.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
I've been gathering bios of recent government leaders; George HW Bush, Tony Blair and John Major of Britain, Chirac and Mitterand of France, Schroeder of Germany, Hu Jintao of China, and Vajpayee of India, along with summaries of some major events of the past 20 years. Next, I need to stare assimilating this information and putting it together. There are still some other directions I need to go.
I did a little bit of background on this about 6 months ago or so, so the names were reasonably familiar, although not all the details of their political careers make sense. I particularly notice the differences between parliamentary systems of government and the Presidential system used in the US.
I've been particularly interested in collective government as practiced in China. It seems to have certain advantages over majority rule, and seems worth studying. The question seems to be, whether it is sufficiently responsive to changing conditions in the country or the world. Certainly Chinese Communism is repressive compared to the US, so I'm not advocating it, but it's still an interesting concept.
I did a little bit of background on this about 6 months ago or so, so the names were reasonably familiar, although not all the details of their political careers make sense. I particularly notice the differences between parliamentary systems of government and the Presidential system used in the US.
I've been particularly interested in collective government as practiced in China. It seems to have certain advantages over majority rule, and seems worth studying. The question seems to be, whether it is sufficiently responsive to changing conditions in the country or the world. Certainly Chinese Communism is repressive compared to the US, so I'm not advocating it, but it's still an interesting concept.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Progress can be painfully slow, sometimes. I retrieved some basic info on Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation. I note that he had a career in the KGB up until the breakup of the USSR, and with its successor agency in the Russian Federation. He's had a comparatively low profile in world news that I've noticed.
Apparently he doesn't disassociate himself from the "bad old days" of the Soviet Union as much as Yeltsin did. In recent news, I've noted that he is proposing new initiatives in "Strategic weapons", which means rebulding Russia's nuclear arsenal. Where are the anti-nuclear activists now?
I saw a column by Walter Cronkite on the "gay marriage" issue, and I must say that my respect for him has rather diminished. Among other things, he brings up this old idea of "you can't legislate morality". Hogwash. That's what the law is: establishment of public morality. We legislate against murder, violence, rape, pedophilia, vandalism, drunken driving, child abuse, insider trading, revealing the names of US espionage agents, selling marijuana and cocaine, and all kinds of other acts. These are all percieved as wrong, harmful to society, and in other respects immoral.
Legislating morality is in fact exactly what the gay rights crowd wants to happen: They are not satisfied with tolerance, but want social and legal approval for their morality and lifestyle. They also want the economic, inheritance, and property rights that are are extended to married couples as the progenitors and caregivers of children. This means, of course, adoption and other people's children, since homosexual couples are infertile. Is anyone talking about homosexual divorce? Homosexual liaisons are in general notoriously unstable, short-lived, and accompanied by promiscuity. This is wrong, and it moves society in the wrong direction.
Apparently he doesn't disassociate himself from the "bad old days" of the Soviet Union as much as Yeltsin did. In recent news, I've noted that he is proposing new initiatives in "Strategic weapons", which means rebulding Russia's nuclear arsenal. Where are the anti-nuclear activists now?
I saw a column by Walter Cronkite on the "gay marriage" issue, and I must say that my respect for him has rather diminished. Among other things, he brings up this old idea of "you can't legislate morality". Hogwash. That's what the law is: establishment of public morality. We legislate against murder, violence, rape, pedophilia, vandalism, drunken driving, child abuse, insider trading, revealing the names of US espionage agents, selling marijuana and cocaine, and all kinds of other acts. These are all percieved as wrong, harmful to society, and in other respects immoral.
Legislating morality is in fact exactly what the gay rights crowd wants to happen: They are not satisfied with tolerance, but want social and legal approval for their morality and lifestyle. They also want the economic, inheritance, and property rights that are are extended to married couples as the progenitors and caregivers of children. This means, of course, adoption and other people's children, since homosexual couples are infertile. Is anyone talking about homosexual divorce? Homosexual liaisons are in general notoriously unstable, short-lived, and accompanied by promiscuity. This is wrong, and it moves society in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
So far not much progress besides the entry on President Bush, but I have the late 20th century a little better connected to the United States. I'm also starting to look at areas of economics, specifically corporations. Have I mentioned yet that I have next to nothing on banking? Unfortunately, the number of areas that I want to study has a tendency to rise exponentially, while the amount of time I can devote to any one of them is, alas, linear.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
I had intended to cycle through the site, mentioning the things I wanted to update and look into, but I don't think this approach is going to be very satisfactory. The basic idea is that I want to trace connections and fill in gaps, which involves a somewhat exploratory approach. So, I'm going to back up a little.
If I begin with the 21st century, the major events are largely associated with the United States, and Government is a key area, which brings me to President Bush. I have some biographical notes on him so I can begin a page. Later, I can start to fill this out with other important world leaders and the like.
Going back to the late 20th century, I can start referring to the few other American presidents, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton, although I want to look at other world leaders before I go too far here. British leaders, French, Spanish and Latin American, Russian, and Asian (particularly in India and China). There is in all these areas a heavy emphasis on government, so I need to add some religious and business leaders. Connections continue to spread from there, so I need to stop and get some of the entries written before I go too far into speculation.
If I begin with the 21st century, the major events are largely associated with the United States, and Government is a key area, which brings me to President Bush. I have some biographical notes on him so I can begin a page. Later, I can start to fill this out with other important world leaders and the like.
Going back to the late 20th century, I can start referring to the few other American presidents, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton, although I want to look at other world leaders before I go too far here. British leaders, French, Spanish and Latin American, Russian, and Asian (particularly in India and China). There is in all these areas a heavy emphasis on government, so I need to add some religious and business leaders. Connections continue to spread from there, so I need to stop and get some of the entries written before I go too far into speculation.
Monday, February 16, 2004
I was going to mention that there is some difficulty trying to connect current events with history. It's difficult to rate the historical significance of today's news, unless the person reading is has a sense of what is historical and likely to have lasting importance, and what is not. Even then, it may take a little bit of time to see what develops from a given event.
Generally speaking, I am beginning with Western civilization, particularly among the English-speaking peoples. At present, the United States is the largest and most significant of these nations, and a good part of my site development deals with it. There isn't yet enough detail in the historical events to analyze the US by region: so far most of what I have deals with the entire nation, but I think I've managed to hit the high points, and can start on some detail. An obvious starting point is US Presidents of the late 20th century and early 21st, but this contributes to a heavy emphasis on government that I would prefer to avoid. There is a big historical gap in the early colonial period I would like to fill.
British peoples have a longer history, which accounts for the greater size of this section, but a smaller population and less significance in today's world. Churchill appears in more than one list of prominent people of the world in general and the 20th century in particular, but not on the Hart 100 list, so he will need to be added. There is also a big gap in 18th century history I want to fill.
The next group is Latin peoples, with two subgroups so far appearing. French people need to be distinguished: I am not certain who to include first and foremost, but De Gaulle comes to mind. I also need to fill in more from the early 18th century.
Next is Iberian peoples, which include Portuguese, Spanish, and Latin American. These are rather neglected in most of the surveys of recent world history that I have seen, and I may have to go back earlier to the age of discovery to identify significant peoples.
Germanic peoples also need to be included. I am not certain which people or periods to add, but I am inclined to look towards the Dutch and southeast Asia, or toward World War I and the 19th century.
The group of Russian, Polish, and related areas could also use some development. I am inclined to add Brezhnev in order to give more influence in the 20th century.
Southeast Europe is rather empty: I need to look at the Byzantine empire, Ottoman empire, and Austrio-Hungarian empire, all of which are rather sorely neglected in my list of important world figures.
Generally speaking, I am beginning with Western civilization, particularly among the English-speaking peoples. At present, the United States is the largest and most significant of these nations, and a good part of my site development deals with it. There isn't yet enough detail in the historical events to analyze the US by region: so far most of what I have deals with the entire nation, but I think I've managed to hit the high points, and can start on some detail. An obvious starting point is US Presidents of the late 20th century and early 21st, but this contributes to a heavy emphasis on government that I would prefer to avoid. There is a big historical gap in the early colonial period I would like to fill.
British peoples have a longer history, which accounts for the greater size of this section, but a smaller population and less significance in today's world. Churchill appears in more than one list of prominent people of the world in general and the 20th century in particular, but not on the Hart 100 list, so he will need to be added. There is also a big gap in 18th century history I want to fill.
The next group is Latin peoples, with two subgroups so far appearing. French people need to be distinguished: I am not certain who to include first and foremost, but De Gaulle comes to mind. I also need to fill in more from the early 18th century.
Next is Iberian peoples, which include Portuguese, Spanish, and Latin American. These are rather neglected in most of the surveys of recent world history that I have seen, and I may have to go back earlier to the age of discovery to identify significant peoples.
Germanic peoples also need to be included. I am not certain which people or periods to add, but I am inclined to look towards the Dutch and southeast Asia, or toward World War I and the 19th century.
The group of Russian, Polish, and related areas could also use some development. I am inclined to add Brezhnev in order to give more influence in the 20th century.
Southeast Europe is rather empty: I need to look at the Byzantine empire, Ottoman empire, and Austrio-Hungarian empire, all of which are rather sorely neglected in my list of important world figures.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Ancient history before 500 BC is normally one of my more casual areas of interest, and I'm not at all certain that the dozen individuals I have are representative. I have a few people from Egypt, but not much from Babylonia. I have noticed that a lot of sources tend to focus on particular cultures, such as Babylonia and Egypt, and it's not easy to find a readable history of even the Ancient Middle East.
In the classical and medieval period, it is easiest to identify classical Greece and Rome. In Medieval European history, there was some emphasis on Roman history, and in the Renaissance and later, there was especial interest in the Greek heritage. More recently, medieval history has been considered complex and fairly uninteresting, except to Europeans, and there has long been a cultural barrier which inhibits research into Islamic and Asiatic history. I will be trying to fill in the gaps with particular peoples.
In the modern period, the emphasis given to the European peoples is a little more justified, but I still want more emphasis on the Asiatic peoples. The initial contacts of Europeans with Asiatic and African peoples in the 16th century have only been sketched in broadest detail. The opening of North America in the 17th century has barely been touched on, and many political developments in Europe are also missing from my site. For the 18th century, I need more events of all kinds so that I can expand this section. The 19th century is in something of an intermediate or resting kind of state.
The 20th century is the most immediate focus, and particularly the late 20th century. I want to include more events, but need to lay the groundwork by including more nations.
To summarize, the latest batch of additions of individuals to world history hasn't advanced it sufficiently or in the directions I want to go. In order to properly fill in the gaps, I will need to work more on pariticular regions and nations. That's next in the cycle.
In the classical and medieval period, it is easiest to identify classical Greece and Rome. In Medieval European history, there was some emphasis on Roman history, and in the Renaissance and later, there was especial interest in the Greek heritage. More recently, medieval history has been considered complex and fairly uninteresting, except to Europeans, and there has long been a cultural barrier which inhibits research into Islamic and Asiatic history. I will be trying to fill in the gaps with particular peoples.
In the modern period, the emphasis given to the European peoples is a little more justified, but I still want more emphasis on the Asiatic peoples. The initial contacts of Europeans with Asiatic and African peoples in the 16th century have only been sketched in broadest detail. The opening of North America in the 17th century has barely been touched on, and many political developments in Europe are also missing from my site. For the 18th century, I need more events of all kinds so that I can expand this section. The 19th century is in something of an intermediate or resting kind of state.
The 20th century is the most immediate focus, and particularly the late 20th century. I want to include more events, but need to lay the groundwork by including more nations.
To summarize, the latest batch of additions of individuals to world history hasn't advanced it sufficiently or in the directions I want to go. In order to properly fill in the gaps, I will need to work more on pariticular regions and nations. That's next in the cycle.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
I finally have references to most of the Hart 100 plus alternates in my web site, though they aren't yet fully linked in. I may have mentioned that I don't entirely agree with his rankings or with his inclusions or exclusions. When the listing is broken down by nationality, it becomes evident that his list overlooks some fairly important individuals. Furthermore, it doesn't include the most recent events and influential individuals.
Trying to base history on a list of prominent individuals has its own series of problems, among other reasons because certain regions of the world tend to be favored, while others are ignored. I will be looking more at this in the next few days. For now, I want to put the major events associated with these individuals in chronological order, so I can start to make comments and pose questions on the varioous periods of history.
Recently my development process has involved cycling through the site from top to bottom, so from now on, I hope to follow that cycle in my comments in this blog.
Trying to base history on a list of prominent individuals has its own series of problems, among other reasons because certain regions of the world tend to be favored, while others are ignored. I will be looking more at this in the next few days. For now, I want to put the major events associated with these individuals in chronological order, so I can start to make comments and pose questions on the varioous periods of history.
Recently my development process has involved cycling through the site from top to bottom, so from now on, I hope to follow that cycle in my comments in this blog.
Monday, February 09, 2004
My web site is now inactive, and I don't know when I'll be able to get it back up. Depressing, but I've had worse setbacks in my life. In the meantime, I can work on the content even if it's not visible.
I'm not convinced that the talk of remposing decency standards on the American networks is going to go anywhere, for at least two reasons. 1) The recent Super Bowl incident is merely the latest in a long line of incidents that have shocked much of the public but resulted in no fundamental change. There is no clear line between what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" in public entertainment, or if there is, we crossed it long ago. This is just another step into the sewer. 2) People with money and influence know that shock and sex sell, and welcome the publicity. They are counting on the moral outrage being fleeting, are ready to defend their "rights" with arguments that have worked before, and are already looking for the next opportunity to shock and tillillate an increasingly jaded and desensitized public.
I'm not convinced that the talk of remposing decency standards on the American networks is going to go anywhere, for at least two reasons. 1) The recent Super Bowl incident is merely the latest in a long line of incidents that have shocked much of the public but resulted in no fundamental change. There is no clear line between what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" in public entertainment, or if there is, we crossed it long ago. This is just another step into the sewer. 2) People with money and influence know that shock and sex sell, and welcome the publicity. They are counting on the moral outrage being fleeting, are ready to defend their "rights" with arguments that have worked before, and are already looking for the next opportunity to shock and tillillate an increasingly jaded and desensitized public.
Friday, February 06, 2004
I've been reading in the local paper that there is still a continuing furor over the Super Bowl half-time show. Ummm...wasn't it Pope who said something about vice being something we endure, then pity, then embrace? Since I don't watch MTV (or much TV at all, for that matter), and don't worship at the shrine of the NFL, I missed it. Not that it was worth seeing in the first place, I gather.
The French, apparently, are so committed to a secular state, that they are edging toward persecution of those who are outwardly religious. They are likely to find that sate-imposed secularism doesn't work any better than state-imposed Catholicism, Protestantism, or atheism.
The French, apparently, are so committed to a secular state, that they are edging toward persecution of those who are outwardly religious. They are likely to find that sate-imposed secularism doesn't work any better than state-imposed Catholicism, Protestantism, or atheism.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Missed a day. I'm continuing to work on my site, although my access to it is in danger. I don't understand why a service that offers free hosting should require a payment to switch back to that plan if I try the enhanced version and miss a deadline for cancelling it and switching back to the free version. That's a good way to alienate new customers.
It looks like Kerry is well in the lead for the Democratic nomination for President: he will be hard to beat at this point. I'm rather more concerned about the Massachussetts court's ruling on same-sex marriages. This is judicial activism run amok: the Court is dictating to the legislature what laws it may or may not pass. I wonder what Samuel and John Adams would have to say about this. I've said it and I'll say it again. American government is based on the theory that the people collectively and not the governor, not the legislature, and not the courts are sovereign. The courts have been deliberately shielded from direct responsibility to the people, in the interest of stability of the law rather than responsiveness to shifting popular moods, but when they use this shield as a cover for usurping the constitutional rule of the legislature and imposing rules offensive to the majority of the people, they risk having this shield stripped away.
British PM Tony Blair is in political trouble about his support for the action in Iraq. I don't think his reliance on the intelligence reports for Weapons of Mass Destruction is the real issue. Rather, the furor shows signs of being a political tactic, a barely credible pretext for those whose opposition to him is based on other things.
To some extent, that appears to be also true of the critics of Bush.
I wonder who tried to kill the ayatollah in Iraq who is calling for early elections, and what effect this will have on the progress of the US occupation and the future of the country. Actually, it appears that few governments can survive long when enough of the governed adopt a "kill the opposition" attitude.
It appears that I spoke too soon when I expressed the hope that the political crisis in Iran would be resolved without mass resignations. It appears that by disqualifying candidates for elections en masse the governing council is asserting its control over the legislature and assuming its functions, since the remaining legislature will, and indeed must, conform to to the policy of the governing council. At the same time, it is creating its own opposition, since those who desire change have no political voice or influence, and there are few things better calculated to create explosive unrest than trying to take back political privileges than have once been granted. Watch for internal violence up to and including civil war in Iran in the next few years.
I note also encouraging signs that NASA is starting to take the right steps in its new program of exploration: It is starting to look at giving funding to Kistler, which is a lot closer to building a new vehicle than NASA has come for decades, and it's talking about offering its own version of astronautics prizes.
Meanwhile, apparently the problems with the Spirit rover are software rather than hardware, and correctable, and the Opportunity Rover is in good condition. I hope the responsible team is taking steps to make sure that it doesn't develop the same problems.
It looks like Kerry is well in the lead for the Democratic nomination for President: he will be hard to beat at this point. I'm rather more concerned about the Massachussetts court's ruling on same-sex marriages. This is judicial activism run amok: the Court is dictating to the legislature what laws it may or may not pass. I wonder what Samuel and John Adams would have to say about this. I've said it and I'll say it again. American government is based on the theory that the people collectively and not the governor, not the legislature, and not the courts are sovereign. The courts have been deliberately shielded from direct responsibility to the people, in the interest of stability of the law rather than responsiveness to shifting popular moods, but when they use this shield as a cover for usurping the constitutional rule of the legislature and imposing rules offensive to the majority of the people, they risk having this shield stripped away.
British PM Tony Blair is in political trouble about his support for the action in Iraq. I don't think his reliance on the intelligence reports for Weapons of Mass Destruction is the real issue. Rather, the furor shows signs of being a political tactic, a barely credible pretext for those whose opposition to him is based on other things.
To some extent, that appears to be also true of the critics of Bush.
I wonder who tried to kill the ayatollah in Iraq who is calling for early elections, and what effect this will have on the progress of the US occupation and the future of the country. Actually, it appears that few governments can survive long when enough of the governed adopt a "kill the opposition" attitude.
It appears that I spoke too soon when I expressed the hope that the political crisis in Iran would be resolved without mass resignations. It appears that by disqualifying candidates for elections en masse the governing council is asserting its control over the legislature and assuming its functions, since the remaining legislature will, and indeed must, conform to to the policy of the governing council. At the same time, it is creating its own opposition, since those who desire change have no political voice or influence, and there are few things better calculated to create explosive unrest than trying to take back political privileges than have once been granted. Watch for internal violence up to and including civil war in Iran in the next few years.
I note also encouraging signs that NASA is starting to take the right steps in its new program of exploration: It is starting to look at giving funding to Kistler, which is a lot closer to building a new vehicle than NASA has come for decades, and it's talking about offering its own version of astronautics prizes.
Meanwhile, apparently the problems with the Spirit rover are software rather than hardware, and correctable, and the Opportunity Rover is in good condition. I hope the responsible team is taking steps to make sure that it doesn't develop the same problems.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Back in Nebraska. I got a request to link to another site: The Insight.com. I don't think I've made much of a point of religion or spirituality here, but since my religious and spiritual beliefs influence and shape all the others, they may be recognizable.
In any case, the site is one I can approve, so I've included the link.
I see no essential conflict beween learning and spirituality. In fact, they enhance one another. Without a spiritual or moral basis, learning does not translate to wisdom: society is full of learned fools who ignore or deny the higher values of life: many of them
tenured professors in the Universities. Although morality deals more with the desire to do good, but learning and education make it possible to translate that desire into action.
Overall, the visit was less difficult and more beneficial than I expected.
In any case, the site is one I can approve, so I've included the link.
I see no essential conflict beween learning and spirituality. In fact, they enhance one another. Without a spiritual or moral basis, learning does not translate to wisdom: society is full of learned fools who ignore or deny the higher values of life: many of them
tenured professors in the Universities. Although morality deals more with the desire to do good, but learning and education make it possible to translate that desire into action.
Overall, the visit was less difficult and more beneficial than I expected.
