Graduate Oregon State University and Northern Illinois University,
Former City Manager, Corporate Vice President, General Contractor, Non-Profit Project Manager, occasional free lance writer and photographer for the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Robert Plomin (Author, American Psychologist and behavioral geneticist.)
As a psychologist and clinical geneticist, Robert Plomin seems well suited to explain how understanding of DNA has the potential of mitigating (possibly curing) many human psychological maladies.
The scientific community notes that 70% of human variability is based on genetic differences among people.
With a perfect picture of a person’s DNA, there is potential for reducing human mental disorders. However, Plomin’s argument seems weakened by his research and experience.
Plomin has spent a great deal of his life researching DNA and genetic inheritance.
What “Blueprint” reveals is how much progress has been made but, at the same time, how far science must advance to clearly understand what the other 30% of human experience has to do with who we are, how we think, and why we act as we do.
Plomin acknowledges there are different patterns of genetic inheritance. These patterns show susceptible psychological maladies and other genetic anomalies that cause Huntington disease, Marfan syndrome, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, hemophilia, and others. The inheritance patterns suggest those diseases are probabilities, not certainties.
Plomin acknowledges DNA analysis remains too complex for precise understanding of the correlation between cause and effect. Without precise understanding of genetic manipulation there will be unintended consequence, ranging from disability to death. Further, there is the ethics of gene splicing that implies creation of a utopian society.
Who would have the right to determine another’s role in society? Whether as a philosopher king envisioned in Plato’s “…Republic”, or an Aryan race envisioned by Hitler, genetic manipulation opens a door to predetermined roles for human beings. Who will make these decisions? Is a planned society a good thing? Does a human being want to be classified as a worker, a leader, a thinker, a doer because someone suggests society needs those classifications?
Plato’s Republic
Listening to “Blueprint” leaves little doubt that understanding DNA is important. What is in doubt is how that understanding is used. Humanity has survived an estimated five or six million years. To date, human survival has been based on random modifications of DNA and life experience.
Maybe genetics offer the next stage in human survival, but abandoning natural selection carries risks based on human thought and action rather than natural selection. Should science open Pandora’s box?
Arkady Ostrovsky (Author, Russian-born, British journalist spent 15 years reporting for the Financial Times from Moscow.
Arkady Ostrovsky’s book offers a personal perspective on post-1917 Russian political history. Of particular interest today is in how Vladimir Putin came to power and how he may become an author of his own destruction.
Some listeners may conclude Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will doom his future as Russia’s leader. Others will conclude Putin will survive this political mistake because of Russia’s political history.
Putin’s ascension after Gorbachev/Yeltsin seems foretold by Russian history. As noted in Mark Steinberg’s lectures on Russian governance–since the 16th century, popular leaders (whether Czars or revolutionaries) prudently balanced authority and freedom.
Though Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite different as Russian leaders, they led Russia with an emphasis on freedom. Both offered freedom without adequate economic support for Russian Citizens. In contrast, Ostrovsky argues Putin emphasizes authority with a measure of economic support that improves Russian lives.
Yeltsin fails because his reforms were largely political with little improvement in economic security for most citizens. Yeltsin’s support base came from oligarch’s economic gain rather than from policies designed to improve Russian citizens’ lives. The early years of Putin’s reign emphasize authority with the help of media to influence public perception.
Putin uses secret service personnel and media to detain and restrain public opposition to the government.
Ostrovsky notes the Chechen uprising is brutally suppressed by Putin. Chechens opt for a level of peaceful coexistence as a part of greater Russia.
Russian government control of media coverage emphasizes Chechen brutality while lauding Russian soldiers’ success in abating Chechen independence. Ostrovsky suggests the reality of Chechen brutality is real but Russian soldier’s success in abating brutality is exaggerated by government-controlled media. Ostrovsky reports many Russian’ innocents are murdered in the process of rescuing children and teachers from a school attacked by Chechen rebels.
In 2004–Besian school massacre in Russia.
Ostrovsky explains the first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, personally endorses Putin as his successor. Yeltsin is nearing the end of his life after a fifth heart attack. He views Putin as the best hope of Russia to return to national prominence because of Putin’s relative youth and experience as a former KGB officer. Putin has political experience as an aid to the former Mayor of Moscow.
However, Ostrovsky notes Yeltsin discounts the paranoia of Putin and how his experience as a KGB officer makes him suspicious of any activity over which he has no control. Ostrovsky suggests KGB training gives Putin the ability to hide behind a persona adopted to sooth the concerns of whomever he meets. That ability disguises Putin’s personal thoughts when dealing with controversial issues.
(The KGB is dismantled in 1991 but its apparatchiks remain in Putin’s government.)
The media during the Gorbachev/Yeltsin years grows as an independent oligarchic organization. The two edges of power in media are telling convincing truths as easily as lies. Yeltsin owes his electoral success to media according to Ostrovsky. Yeltsin, before his last election as President, has a single digit approval rating from the Russian public. With the help of a media oligarch and Yeltsin’s populist skill, he wins the election. On election day, Ostrovsky notes Yeltsin is nearly dead from a fifth heart attack.
Ostrovsky explains the growth of oligarchs begins with Gorbachev and gains momentum with Yeltsin. The communist party leaders are losing their hold on governance, but they are well positioned to understand how things get done and can be controlled with acquired individual wealth. Some of these former communist party leaders use their position to start personal companies with the financing of government money over which they have control. They become behind-the-scenes movers and shakers for the Russian economy. Their personal wealth grows, and the general economy begins to improve.
In the short term, these new barons of wealth improve the lives of many Russian citizens. However, this unrestrained capitalist revolution begins to rot at its core. Political power follows money. Money supports political leaders that kowtow to oligarchic demand. An oligarch’s demand may or may not benefit the general public.
When political leaders act in ways that support oligarchic demand, they improve their prospect for re-election. In some cases, dynamic political leaders gain some independence based on their popular appeal. Putin seems to have achieved some level of that power. With the help of popular appeal, public support can become a source of power to challenge oligarchic demand. It seems Putin may have achieved both power bases, but invasion of Ukraine may change that support.
Robert Kagan finely reveals the fundamental mistake made by Putin in a May-June 2022 “Foreign Affairs” article. History reveals the mistakes of great nations like France, Great Britain, Germany and Japan in thinking they could become world hegemons by force.
Robert Kagan (A neoconservative Republican scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations of the Brookings Institute.)
Kagan notes America became a world force by virtue of economic growth which led to a choice by other nations to recognize American hegemony. Rather than capitalizing on the natural resources of Russia, Putin chooses to waste his country’s wealth on a war Russia will lose. It is a lesson one hopes China realizes in its pursuit of its sphere of influence. Sphere of influence is determined by economic growth, not military power.
Ostrovsky argues media is reality in Russia. World media is not the same as the Russian media that is tightly controlled by government leadership. Further Ukraine invasion is not a Chechnian rebellion. Chechnya is a small area within Russia–with an estimated 1.2 million people. Ukraine is an independent country of 44.3 million.
Russian media might be controlled within Russia, but the world’s news will seep into Russian citizen’s knowledge, either by the internet or other means.
Russia may be an invention as Ostrovsky suggests but all nation-states in the course of history are inventions. History changes with information. Dissemination of information is increasingly uncontrollable.
In time of war, Nagasaki and Hiroshima show what uncontrolled fission can do in the event of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima shows what uncontrolled fission can do in time of peace.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima Nuclear BombFukushima Nuclear Accident
Invading Ukraine may lead to loss of Putin’s power and influence in Russia. The tragic consequence of Putin’s decision is the unnecessary death of many Ukrainians and Russians. The decision to invade Ukraine may lead to Putin’s dismissal, imprisonment, or execution. It has certainly changed his reputation in the world.
A History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev
By: The Great Courses
Lecturer: Mark Steinberg
Mark Steinberg (History professor at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)
It is timely to review Steinberg’s lecture series on the history of Russia because it offers perspective on Russian leadership. Professor Steinberg reveals a dichotomy in Russian leadership that reaches back to the Czars.
When Czarist Russia is replaced by Leninist communism, Russian citizens continue to demand centralized authority but with greater personal freedom, both of which are inherently in conflict. There is no government in history that has achieved a perfect balance between authority and freedom.
Either centralized authority or freedom are compromised by human nature.
America’s answer is “checks and balances”. Russia’s answer, with few exceptions, is to strengthen centralized authority at the expense of individual freedom.
The natural human desire for money, power, and prestige demand balancing centralized authority with freedom.
The most recent exception for more freedom within centralized authority is Gorbachev. Gorbachev tries to keep the U.S.S.R. together by authoritatively demanding meritocratic government that focuses on improvement in Russian citizen’s freedom. In contrast, Putin looks to define freedom only for those who get things done in accordance with government dictate. The “things done” are meant to improve the economy and power of the nation. Steinberg suggests Putin reduced corruption in his redefinition of freedom, but the rise of oligarchs diminishes his success. Neither leader finds the right balance between authority and freedom.
12/8/1987 President Mikhail Gorbachev in the White House LibraryVladimir Putin, President of Russia
Steinberg recounts the leadership of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great that appear more like precursors to Gorbachev’s style of government. All three demand a powerful centralized authority but they temper that demand with their desire to make Russian citizens’ lives better. Though Putin is not addressed by Steinberg, as a leader, Putin seems more like Ivan the Terrible and Nicholas the First who looked at what was best for government leadership rather than what benefits the general population.
Steinberg exudes love for Russia in his profile of its past. He reinforces one’s belief that an intimate understanding of another countries culture is necessary for there to be any hope for success in diplomacy.
Putin is at a crossroad in Ukraine. Professor Steinberg implies that a crossroad is not for one direction or another but a middle way that serves the best interests of all Russian citizens, not just those in leadership positions.
The Next Great Migration (The Beauty and Terror of Life on the Move)
By: Sonia Shah
Narrated by Sonia Shah
Sonia Shah (Journalist-born in NYC to Indian Immigrants.
Sonia Shah takes a broad look at migration. She personalizes her view and, at the same time, writes about the broad tableau of nature’s migratory imperative. Myths and misunderstandings are exposed by Shah.
The lie of Disney’s lemming suicide documentary is largely forgotten in the 21st century. Disney implied overpopulation leads to a deep-rooted impulse to compel millions of lemmings to jump off a cliff to their death. She notes the documentary is a staged lie. The only truth is that scarcity and fear compel animals to migrate. There is no mass instinct for death. There is only an instinct for species survival.
Shah notes the fundamental motivation for migration is survival. Whether writing about butterflies or human beings, the animal kingdom chooses to migrate because of changes in their environment that degrade their way of life. It is not an easy choice to move.
Shah explains humans fear change. One imagines what it is like for a young adult to move to a foreign country that speaks a different language, is exposed to a different culture, knows only a few fellow countrymen, and is thrown into a job market that makes or breaks their future.
Shah correctly identifies the idiocy of Trump’s classification of migrants that are “…bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people”.
That is true of all people in the world, whether American or foreign born. Human nature “…is what it is” as Trump’s callous comment about Covid19 deaths reiterates.
A young person may have left his home country because of economic, environmental, or political changes that threatens life, but it is a life he/she understands. Shah notes, that is the “…Terror of Life on the Move”.
Though it is cliché—America is founded by migrants. Even Trump’s parents were migrants. Shah’s parents are doctors from India that migrated and made a life in America in ways that serve the needs of their new home. They gave birth to an American-born daughter who has contributed to America’s understanding of migration’s beauty and terror. Migrants are not America’s burden. They are America’s hope.
Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983, American architect, systems theorist, author, futurist.)
Shah’s purpose in “The Next Great Migration” is not to solve the world’s problems but to explain all life migrates to survive. As Buckminster Fuller noted, we live on “Spaceship Earth”. Human life on “Spaceship Earth” depends on how humans are treated if we are destined to survive.
Narrated by Cassandra Campbell, Adenrele Ojo, Hilliary Huber, Ramiz Monsef, Kate Reading, R.C. Bray
Joan Silber (Author, winner of the 2017 National Book Critics Circle Award in Fiction and the Pen/Faulkner Award for Fiction for her book “Improvement”.)
“Improvement” is a compilation of characters in the formative years of their early adult lives.
The primary character is Reyna who lives in Harlem, New York. It is a story of her life and the lives of several who are in that age group. All characters in the novel are directly or indirectly connected to Reyna. None are “movers and shakers” of the world, but each represent what life is like for many young adults in the 21st century.
Reyna is a single mother with a young son named Oliver, and a boyfriend who is not the son’s father.
The boyfriend, Boyd, is serving time in prison for drug possession. Her attachment to Boyd comes from personal attraction but is cemented by Boyd’s attention to her son. The four-year-old idolizes Boyd.
Boyd also lives in Harlem. Reyna is white. Boyd is black. They are both living on the edge of poverty. Reyna is a secretary at a veterinary clinic.
Cigarette Smuggling in New York
After being released from prison, Boyd and friends decide to become smugglers by buying cigarettes in Virginia and selling them in New York.
The cigarette tax difference between States goes into the pockets of smugglers. If caught, they are fined and put in jail. This illegal activity, either directly or indirectly, sets events in motion that affect all the characters in Silber’s story.
Reyna is called upon to drive the smuggler’s transport truck when their regular driver is unavailable.
Reyna initially agrees but at the last moment decides she cannot make the trip because of her responsibility as a parent. She fears being arrested and having her son taken from her. Claude, one of the smugglers, says he will drive even though he has little experience driving, and no experience driving a truck. Claude also has no driver’s license.
On the trip to Virginia, the truck is t-boned by a commercial truck driver. Claude is killed, others are permanently injured.
The result of the accident is to reveal more information about everyone in the accident and people who are affected by the death of Claude. Claude had found a girlfriend in Virginia. She knows nothing of the accident and wonders why Claude has not contacted her. Claude’s sister is heartbroken by his death.
Claude’s girlfriend meets someone else to replace her affection for Claude. Reyna feels guilty for Claude’s death. Boyd breaks up with Reyna. Reyna’s son misses Boyd. The commercial driver becomes deeply in debt to repair his truck. The consequence of the accident reaches into the details of many lives. Claude’s sister leaves Harlem with money she unknowingly received from Reyna who feels guilty for Claude’s death. Claude’s sister starts her own business in Philadelphia.
One draws conclusions about life from Silber’s story. Seemingly unrelated events have consequences beyond one’s knowledge.
This is a story of people at the bottom of America’s economic ladder but what is true for the poor is true for all humanity. Everyone’s life is affected by what happens to others.
Empathy will not cure the ills of society, but knowledge of life’s interconnection offers hope for life’s “Improvement”. Silber shows how all human actions have consequence. One cannot predict the consequence of one’s actions, but Silber implies moral actions offer a chance for human “Improvement”.
David Auerbach (Author, software engineer, writer for various publications.)
David Auerbach wishes not to be categorized. However, Auerbach is an author, ivy league graduate, computer geek, software coder, gamer, philosopher, and more. The point is categorization does not explain the real Auerbach. Auerbach offers a wide-ranging conception of what is real and not real in the world.
Auerbach criticizes categorization because it is fictive. His example is the wrong-headed categorization of sexuality. What social or cultural value can come from such categorization? Auerbach notes at one point Facebook insists users identify their sexual predilection from a list of hundreds of categories.
Auerbach pursues the concept of what is real in “Bitwise”. He fails to clearly define real but identifies what real is not. Real is not simply what the mind’s eye beholds and it is not the mathematics of reproducible experiment. There is a concreteness to real in Auerbach’s belief. However, real remains a mystery because it is to be revealed in a future not yet written.
To Auerbach, real lies somewhere within the triptych of human’ thought, mind, and language.
Auerbach’s philosophical argument for real is partly supported by the evolution of scientific understanding of the world. Newton discovered a partial truth about the physics of moving bodies. Einstein expanded Newton’s partial truth with a more comprehensive understanding of space and time. Einstein’s truth is changing with the discovery of quantum mechanics. All of these discoveries came from the interplay of human’ thought, mind, and language. This triptych gives concreteness to what is real.
SIR ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955)
Auerbach questions the advance of software algorithms as a method for finding truth about what is real. An algorithm is only a tool of human’ thought, mind, and language. Auerbach infers there may be a time when a computer becomes more human with the ability to define reality but not until they are more than algorithmic machines. That, of course, raises many more questions.
An algorithm is a set of calculations meant to define reality or conduct problem solving operations when in fact they neither define reality nor solve anything.
A revelation one has from Auerbach’s “Bitwise” is that gamers have become important to a younger generation because algorithms offer insight to the concreteness of existence. One can experiment with life’s outcomes without consequence in the real world.
Auerbach gives the example of a gamers use of a nuclear war game to show how world diplomacy decisions lead to world conflagration. Early versions are refined but remain blunt predictive instruments that only mimic human’ thought, mind, and language.
In his early career, Auerbach’s software experience comes from working with Microsoft. He suggests the stewardship of Balmer diminished Microsoft’s innovative history. Auerbach leaves Microsoft to join Google. He finds Google to be a more cutting-edge software developer by recognizing the value of data gathering and mining.
“Bitwise” is a clarion call to the public. Big Brother is here. It has the face of Google and the power of a nation-state.
The near future is dependent on software coding. The long future is dependent on human’ thought, mind, and language.
Several years ago, “Being Mortal” was reviewed with appreciation of what the author had to say about a doctor’s responsibility for improving the quality of life for the elderly and terminally ill. Atul Gawande reinforces the double meaning of “Being Mortal” in his “Complications…Notes on the Imperfect Science”.
Gawande explains doctors are not superhuman beings. They are well-educated mortals that practice medicine with the intent of making the right decisions through attentive communication with patients.
Knowledge from teachers and practitioners is helpful but it is through practice on patients that doctors become proficient for those needing help. Gawande’s reflective words “practice on patients” are frightening to one who’s life is threatened by injury or disease.
Gawande notes decisions are not based on omniscience but on a doctor’s education and experience.
Gawande offers notes on the imperfect science of medicine. He explains why even the most conscientious physicians, let alone bad practitioners, make mistakes. To become a skilled physician, as with any skill, requires practice. The monumental difference is medical practice directly affects human lives. Other professional practices are indirect.
The compounding difficulty of the science of medicine is that even the most experienced physicians make mistakes. It may be because of missed diagnosis or motivations inherent in human nature (the drive for wealth, power, or prestige) but it is always at the expense of a patient.
Gawande reflects on the intuitive nature of medicine by telling the story of the fire captain that tells fellow fire fighters to leave a building when he senses the building is going to collapse (an anecdote also told in “Thinking Fast and Slow”). An experienced doctor often must rely on the same sense and can be perfectly right or catastrophically wrong.
Gawande tells the story of a young woman who is diagnosed with cellulitis in a leg that is swollen and inflamed. The attending physician asks Gawande to look at the patient to confirm the diagnosis.
Gawande questions the patient about how she might have acquired the infection. He suspects it may be from a rare flesh-eating virus even though all the symptoms are consistent with cellulitis which can be easily treated with antibiotics. Gawande suggests a biopsy and the diagnosis is changed. It is found to be to the rare flesh-eating virus. It is Gawande’s intuition that leads to treatment that successfully saves the young woman’s life.
A medical patient listening to Gawande appreciates his candor but fears the truth of human fallibility of a profession one relies upon.
Most realize all humans make mistakes. What is disconcerting is the lack of disclosure by many physicians and the doubt raised by Gawande in some doctor’s veracity in seeking what is best for their patients.
Gawande explains some organizational methods used to minimize mistakes and modify future medical practices. However, public disclosure of those mistakes (particularly regarding specific doctors and hospitals) is largely undisclosed.
Gawande is challenging his profession to do better. To that, the public should be grateful.
One is in at least two minds in listening to “The Old Man and the Boy”. On the one hand, a listener is fascinated and learns a great deal about hunting and fishing. On the other, one sees how a young intelligent boy is influenced in good and bad ways by people he knows and the environment in which he lives.
“The Old Man and the Boy” is serialized for “Field and Stream” in 1953.
The author, Robert Ruark, is a North Carolinian. “The Old Man and the Boy” is a memoir of his youth. As an adult, he is characterized on the internet as a hard drinking outdoorsman who travels the world, writes books, and publishes articles in magazines like “Field and Stream” and “Playboy”.
Scenes and experiences recall the author’s life in rural North Carolina before the depression. This is a time when the word Negro is used to describe Black Americans.
Ruark’s brief notes about Black families reflect a paternalism and assumed inferiority of the “colored race”.
The “Old Man…” in Ruark’s story is his grandfather. The author shows how impactful grandparents can be in a young person’s life.
The grandfather teaches the boy about the ethics of hunting.
Along the way, he introduces the boy to life by teaching him the fundamentals of hunting and education provided by books and experience. Some lessons are farsighted, some shortsighted.
Preservation of the ecosystem is explained to the boy in different ways.
The grandfather explains why it is important limit one’s catch of fish or animals killed. Hunting should be for no more than what can be eaten or needed for species maintenance.
Ruark tells a funny story of an untrainable goat that suggests some animals cannot be domestically trained. Dogs are eminently trainable; horses and some goats are not, in the grandfather’s opinion.
The grandfather characterizes women as homemakers with little understanding of what constitutes education and work versus idleness. The grandfather offers a dim view of women with poor justification for male idleness.
The boy is introduced to liquor by his mentor. His insightful grandfather takes a nip or two or three after, never before, a day’s hunting or fishing.
The boy makes friends with a local coast guard captain. The boy tags along on Coast Guard’ rum runner captures and is introduced to both the danger and occasional imbibing by Coast Guard’ shipmates of gains from rum-runner’ interdictions. Coincidentally, Ruark dies from cirrhosis of the liver at age 49, mostly attributed to alcoholism.
This is an entertaining, period piece story. It offers insights to hunting and fishing to anyone who has done or wishes to truly experience the great outdoors. It is a book of its time that reflects a reality of what it was like to live in rural North Carolina in the 1920s.
Notes on a Foreign Country (An American Abroad in a Post-American World)
By: Suzy Hansen
Narrated by Kirsten Potter
Suzy Hansen (Author, journalist.)
In her thirties, Suzy Hansen chooses to relocate to Turkey, in part because of a writing assignment but also as a life changing experience.
Hansen’s view of the world is disappointing in that it represents a population cohort positioned to inherit America’s future. Hansen reports facts with a journalist’s interpretation of other’s perception of American foreign policy without history’s context.
To an older generation, Hansen’s facts denigrate the realpolitik of life in the presence of its time.
In many respects, Hansen’s view of America’s moral failure is spot on, but no country is without sin. Without intending to deny the ugly consequence of President Truman’s decision to drop the bomb, or America’s intent to widen its sphere of influence, Hansen ignores some important facts.
America’s experience in WWII left little doubt to most Americans that the Japanese would fight to the end, even in defeat. Over 41,000 Americans were killed and 145,000 injured in Pacific conflicts. Japanese culture demanded fealty to an emperor to the point of suicide in the face of defeat.
As horrendous as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, it ended war with Japan in less than a week. How many more would have died in a continuing battle? This does not diminish the horror of nuclear war, but its reality defied 20th century’s imagination.
After the war, Japan, Greece, and Turkey, let alone Europe, were in dire straits. The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plans were created to rebuild much of what was destroyed in the war. There is no question American capitalism profited by its investment in these countries. However, no other country had the untapped wealth that capitalism created in America. What nation could take on reconstruction without American capitalist success?
America did take advantage of its wealth by imposing democratic ideals on foreign countries. However, mistakes Hansen notes in her book are more a function of cultural ignorance and capitalist fervor than evil intent.
Hansen fails to mention the power grab by Stalinist Russia as a major factor in creating an American counter force to Stalinist acquisitiveness. The Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan created a shield against Stalinism.
America continues to make mistakes in other countries for many of the same capitalist reasons they did after the war. America supports some of the most immoral autocrats of the world because they control their countries. American support of despots is based on America’s perceived self-interest. As with any foreign country’s foreign policy decisions, self-interest can be a mistake recognized only in history. One must acknowledge “self-interest” pervades all human beings, let alone independent nations.
Only with more investment in understanding other cultures, in the way that George Kennan understood the U.S.S.R., can good foreign policies be formulated.
The reality is–many mistakes are based on cultural ignorance.
Hansen presumes America is in decline. America is not in decline, but other countries are advancing, and America is becoming an equal, not a hegemon. The lesson America must re-learn is the importance of sovereignty and culture difference. There should be no more Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan invasions. This is not to argue isolationism which seems implied by Hansen’s stories. America must use its financial strength to influence other nations to become better stewards of their citizens, whether through democratic ideals or their chosen form of governance.
Hansen ignores many facts to make her case for America’s failures. It is difficult to listen to “Notes on a Foreign Country” because it only reports on mistakes, not America’s example as a free Republic.
David Kyle Johnson (Lecturer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at King’s College in Pennsylvania)
David Johnson’s first thirty lectures revolve around proof of God, the definition of reason, knowledge, truth, and the existence of free will. Those lectures, though logically consistent, are a slog and may cause listeners to stop listening. However, the last six chapters of Johnson’s lectures are rewarding summaries of government philosophy and the meaning of life.
Johnson questions several arguments about God’s existence by revealing their logic and evidentiary failings. Johnson defines reason, truth, knowledge, and testimony as falsifiable evidence for God’s existence. He challenges arguments about the existence of soul, and what it means to be free. He explains the significance of mind and body, good and evil, and personal identity. Along the way, he defines good and evil with various side trips showing how we “ought” rather than “how” we really live. Johnson’s attacks many, if not all, substantive philosophical arguments for the existence of God. His noted weaknesses of many philosophical beliefs about God, truth, and knowledge are mind numbing.
The first two thirds of Johnson’s philosophical analysis conclude God’s existence is an unverifiable truth, solely dependent on the chimera of faith.
In contrast, Johnson’s summary of government philosophy and the meaning of life are both entertaining, and informative.
There is a good deal of bias in this review because of personal interest. The first thirty chapters may be of more interest to some, but his analysis of the history of economic and political theory remind one of how great it is to be steeped in western culture.
Lecture 31 one asks—Should Government Exist? Johnson suggests the alternative for government is anarchy. He offers three categories of anarchy, i.e., theoretical, serious, and violent. All three question governments’ moral authority.
From an American perspective, the only substantive concern is with the category of serious anarchy. Serious anarchy is Johnson’s category of what is known as Libertarianism in the United States.
Rand Paul, US Senator from Kentucky
The most famous American Libertarians are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Sowell, the Koch brothers, Steve Forbes, and Peter Thiel. Essentially, they believe government should be restricted to defense of the country with citizens responsible for their own actions. The only law should be moral law because government-imposed law restricts personal autonomy. There should be no government regulation that infringes on personal autonomy in social, or economic policy.
Lecture 32 asks—What Justifies a Government? Johnson recalls luminaries like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
John LockeJean Jaques Rousseau
Hobbes viewed citizens as naturally power hungry and that government is necessary to protect citizens from being harmed by acquisitive neighbors. Locke suggests citizens enter a social contract with a government when they choose to become members of a nation-state and by contract will not be allowed to infringe on a neighbor’s freedom of choce, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. In the case of Locke, laws are passed to protect citizens by a government Republic that represents the will of the people who vote for them. Rousseau agrees with Locke but insists on direct democracy to establish any laws meant to protect citizens. Each of these men influence the founding fathers in writing an American constitution.
Lecture 33 asks—How Big Should Government Be? Johnson summarizes the economic philosophies of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes who shape much of what American government has become.
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES (1883-1946)
The economy of America is largely based on Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”. Though many know of Adam Smith, few seem to have closely read “Wealth of Nations” to clearly understand what he said about economic growth. There have been many interpretations of “the invisible hand” that range from an extreme that suggests self-interest is all that matters in an economy to price-controlling when competition is driving businesses into bankruptcy. Neither extreme represents Smith’s belief in “the invisible hand”. Neither self-interest nor competition is all that matters for an economy to grow. Smith tempers self-interest by arguing it cannot be adhered to at the expense of the common good. Smith endorses competition when it lowers prices for the public. However, Smith notes monopolies created from aggressive acquisition of competitors restricts competition and infringes on the common good.
Karl Marx addresses the threat of capitalism making slaves of workers who are undercompensated for their labor that only benefits entrepreneurs who own businesses without fairly compensating their employees.
History has shown the weakness of Marx’s argument. Labor organizes to increase compensation for labor. More than labor costs determine value. There is the willing buyer and seller that determine the cost of any business’s survival. Marx ignores too many other variables when valuing labor without addressing risk to entrepreneurs, the cost of doing business, and the inherent inventiveness of capitalist self-interest.
John Maynard Keynes is a preeminent economic theorist who recognizes the weaknesses of capitalism. Capitalism engenders economic crashes, panics, recessions, and depressions.
Johnson notes Keynesian economic theory ameliorates those threats by deficit spending when “the invisible hand” fails the common good. Johnson suggests Keynes offers a middle ground between Smith and Marx. The inevitable problem is knowing where the line is to be drawn between government overreach and an “invisible hand” which benefits the common good.
The next two lectures address the limits of liberty and societal fairness. America is among the richest countries in the world, but homelessness seems to grow with each passing year. Having traveled some, it appears America is doing a poorer job of dealing with poverty and homelessness than more autocratic countries like China. One picks China as a contrast because it has a population of 1.4 billion versus 320 million in America. The wealth of American citizens far outweighs the wealth of Chinese citizens. U.S. per-capita income is estimated to be 5.78 times higher than China’s.
One sees no homeless people sleeping in parks or on the sidewalks of major cities like Beijing, Hong Kong, or Guangzhou in China. America is not doing a very good job of drawing the line between government outreach and the impact of capitalist self-interest when it comes to homelessness. This is not to argue limits to liberty in China are either better or worse than America’s ineptitude. However, managing homelessness is a distinct societal unfairness in America. This is a national problem that needs to be addressed by American government policy based on the welfare of its citizens.
At the end of Johnson’s lectures, one is reminded of Plato’s fictional writing about the Oracle of Delphi identifying Socrates as the wisest of Greeks.
Socrates (Greek Philosopher, 470 BC to 399 BC.)
Plato writes that Socrates disbelieves the Oracle. He questions scholars of his time to find they know no more than him. However, he concludes “xero katie pou den xero tipota” or “I know something that I know nothing”.
The final chapter of Johnson’s lectures is “What is the Meaning of Life”.
There is no definitive answer. Maybe, it is the number 42, the nonsensical conclusion of the Bible noting “The Duration of Suffering”. (It is also Douglas Adams ironic answer in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.)
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 