History Rhymes

Elephant Tree

2012-02-05T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Elephant Tree (Copal) of Southern Arizona down into Mexico is related to the Frankincense and Myrrh Trees of the Middle East. The Arizona trees smell wonderful.

Prehistoric peoples of Arizona and points south used these trees for their odor. I have seen them growing wild in South Mountain Park of Phoenix, Arizona. I recently planted one bought at a nursery in my back yard.

The Best Medical Care Available

2010-09-26T17:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a favorite historical anecdote …

King Louis XIV of France was not succeeded by his son nor by his grandson nor by his eldest great-grandson, but by a younger great-grandson, who became Louis XV.

Here is the story… Louis XIV lived a long life and became king as a young boy. When his son Louis, the Grand Dauphin, was about 50 an infection spread through the royal court (probably smallpox). The Grand Dauphin caught it. As heir to the throne, he received the best medical care available. He died.

Some years later another infection spread through the royal court (probably measles, apparently more virulent in times past than today). The new Dauphin, Louis, the Duc de Bourgogne (Burgandy), grandson of Louis XIV, son of Louis the Grand Dauphin, got it. Again as the heir to the throne he received the best medical care available. He died.

His young son, Louis, duc de Britagne (Brittany), only a boy, great-grandson of Louis XIV also contracted the infection. With the death of his father, he was now heir to the French throne. So the best medical practitioners available all turned their attentions to saving his life. He died.

Now Louis Duke of Brittany had a younger brother, the Duc d’Anjou, also named Louis (probably one of many names). Since he was not in the direct line to be king, no one had paid a lot of attention to him. Besides, he was just a toddler. Since court activities consumed much of his parent’s time, he was farmed out to a noble lady of the court, Charlotte, Duchess of Ventadour, one more interested in children than in court festivities, and she was his governess. When the infection came up, she locked him and herself in her palace apartment. She refused to allow anyone to enter or even be at the open door. Food and other needed items had to be left at the door and she would retrieve them when everyone was gone. She said through the door that she did not want the boy to catch the infection, so she was keeping him secluded. No one cared that much since more important people were sick and getting all of the attention. So she was left alone.

The fact was, the boy had caught the sickness right off. She kept him in her rooms and lied about keeping the infection out. She kept him resting in bed, with warm blankets, nutritious food, lots of liquids, and no prescribed medicines or treatments. He recovered and lived to become Louis XV a few years later.

So three generations got the best medical health care available and they all died. The one kept from such care lived and reordered history. Of course today we know that their medical care was not all that good in 18th Century France. But at the time, they thought it was very good, especially with the best doctors at the service of the royal court of France. And at this time, France was the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world, and the cultural leader of the western world. But they were wrong to place so much faith in their medical health care professionals.

Today, the US is the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world, and the cultural leader of the western world. We know our medical professionals and facilities are very good, with the best doctors, facilities, and equipment in the world.

Tour of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Tent City Jail

2009-11-20T17:48:00.000-08:00

Maricopa County, Arizona

In November 2009 I had an opportunity for a “tour” of the Maricopa County Tent City Jail set up by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As a tour, we did not see much of the actual Tent City, only going along part of the perimeter and also viewing some of the visitation area and intake offices. Nevertheless, it was very interesting.

Here are some surprising things I learned ...

Everyone in the Tent City Jail volunteered to be there. When convicted by a court of a crime and sentenced to less than one year in jail, if the judge thinks the person is suitable, he is offered the choice to do his time in the regular indoor county jail or in Tent City. Convicts with sentences longer than one year go to the state prison system.

If a Tent City prisoner breaks rules like fighting or possessing contraband or such, he can be expelled and sent to the regular indoor jail.

After a set time an expelled prisoner can ask to return to the Tent City Jail. To do so he must first volunteer for and be accepted into the Chain Gang program. This is a rigorous military style disciplined “Yes Sir, No Sir” program. If he passes the 30 day Chain Gang program, then he can be readmitted into the Tent City Jail.

Most prisoners choose the Tent City Jail. There are good reasons.

Instead of being cooped up indoors in a cell or a day room with other prisoners, he can live outdoors in the Tent City yard. There is an indoor air conditioned day room he can use at Tent City if he wants.

Tent City residents have the opportunity to work, generally off site. They go into communities and clear trash, do laundry, pick fruit (for the prisoners to eat), and do assorted other tasks. Time goes faster than sitting indoors.

Every day a Tent City prisoner works counts as two days on his sentence. So they get out faster.

When they are not working, they can do anything they want within reason: sleep, exercise, wander around, read, watch television.

Prisoners deemed dangerous or violent or otherwise a behavioral problem are not admitted to Tent City.

Medical facilities are available week days. Emergency medical care is always available. If a prisoner asks to see a doctor he can usually get in in 2 or 3 days, always within a week. This is faster than normal people can usually get in to see a doctor. They accommodate diabetics (have a lot of them), and numerous other chronic maladies at Tent City, providing necessary health requirements.

The tents can be hot in the summer and a bit cool in the winter. However, they are identical to facilities for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the day Tent City Prisoners can go to the day room, which is air conditioned. Television is available, but there are only 3 channels: ESPN, Food Channel, and Weather Channel. An exception is the Super Bowl, which is usually shown.

Prisoners are not allowed to have any of the following: alcohol, tobacco, drugs, coffee, any fire making device or materials, anything that can be classified as a weapon (includes ropes or cords that could be used for strangulation), or in general anything modified from its original purpose.

There is a Tent City store where prisoners can buy items charged to their accounts, which must be filled from external sources (prisoners are not allowed to have money). Indigent prisoners can get a special package including pencils, paper, envelopes, postage.

The prisoners wear zebra-striped uniforms. Underwear, sheets, towels, blankets, and other items are all dyed pink. Essentially clothes are exchanged daily for clean clothes. If a prisoner goes off on a work project, upon returning, they strip off all clothing and are showered and issued new clothing. This way they can get two showers and two sets of clothing in one day.

We saw the area where the stripping takes place. It is outdoors housed in a big tent. There are successive bins for each type of clothing article. The prisoners enter, and successively deposit shirt, pants, underwear, socks, and so on into the appropriate bins, then go to be showered.

During our tour a group of prisoners about 100 yards off were arriving coming to the strip-off facility from Laundry Duty. They were in the zebra prisoner outfits, marching two-by-two, handcuffed in pairs, coming to the facility. They saw us tourists and a few called out something or the other. The loudest was a shout “Criminals!” Our tour guide removed us from the area before they arrived as he said “we don’t want to see 40 guys undressing.”

The Tent City prisoners get two meals a day. There are federal requirements on daily calories and they are exceeded. At about 8-9 am they get the morning meal. It consists of two huge buns fresh baked at the prison bakery, a good bit of meat of some kind to make a sandwich, two pieces of fruit, a snack, and other items. The snacks are something they can save to eat later if they want, like a small bag of chips, peanut butter and crackers, and so on. Most of these items come from donations or surplus. Farmers can donate excess fruit and get a tax write-off. If they have unpicked fruit, a Tent City work group will come out and pick it. Evening meal is usually a hot stew of some sort, plus other items. It costs about $1.30 per day to feed a prisoner.

If a prisoner can show that he needed a special diet before coming to Tent City, that diet will be accommodated. This includes such things as diabetic and renal patients. However, it also includes vegetarians, vegans, and “no-porks.” There are numerous special diet classes that are accommodated.

Prisoners work 3 or 4 days a week, depending on what needs to be done or is available and availability of supervising guards.

Off-site work project guards are armed. Guards at the Tent City are not armed, except perhaps with pepper spray if they want it.

Many work projects are clean up. For example, the highland lakes around Phoenix sometimes have areas trashed by users. Prisoners clean these up. They also clean up roadsides. Some low income areas of Maricopa County are trashy because residents cannot afford to have trash removed. Periodically Tent City crews come in and clean them up.

The visitor facility was interesting. For each visitor there is a telephone receiver and a video screen. There is an identical set-up inside the prison area. The prisoner and visitor are hundreds of feet from each other in separate buildings. It is planned to have a visitor center more centrally located in another part of the city. A prisoner gets 90 minutes of visitation a month, with no rollover of unused minutes. A prisoner’s visitor minutes can be broken up into however many parcels with however many visitors he wants.

A regular prison to replace Tent City was scoped at $79 million about ten years ago. Tent City has cost only about a million to construct.

Deepest Emotion

2009-05-20T14:57:00.000-07:00

I once heard a quotation or proverb that explains a lot of politics. I have not been able to identify the source of the quote. It is “The deepest emotion ever felt by a person in a position of power is the desire to stay there.”

It is sometime puzzling why a Presidential candidate will criticize the incumbent for his policies and then, when he himself holds the office adopts many of the policies of his predecessor that he criticized. This proverb explains some of that behavior.

Similarly, it is sometimes puzzling to some how people with very liberal attitudes about free speech, free press, protection from surveillance, and so on, once they are in a position of power then clamp down on these things.

Neural Nets

2008-06-15T08:22:00.000-07:00

When there is a network of "entities" (subsystems) that make "decisions" based on inputs and produce outputs, where these outputs are inputs to other entities, then the overall system is a sort of "Neural Network." A Neural Net can accept complex inputs and make complex outputs. In a sense, it can "think." It can make decisions that are not necessarily the decsions of any of the individual component entities.

Examples of Neural Nets are brains, ecosystems, crowds, cultures, and civilizations. The US Economy is a Neural Net. People try to control it, but it has a mind of its own. Political Parties are Neural Nets and they too can have a mind of its own, defying political "leaders" and making thier own decisions. Political leaders are just a component puting in their outputs as inputs to all the other components.

Natural Selection in an Ecosystem is itself a sort of a Neural Net. That is why Evolution seems to have a purpose or sense of direction sometimes. The Neural Net of organisms and environment (all kinds of entities) are receiving inputs and making outputs which become inputs to the others. No wonder "it" thinks.

The same is true of a Culture or Civilization. It can think and evolve and seem to have a direction and mind of its own. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The "mind" of a culture is not the same as the mind of any individual. The mind of a human is not the "mind" of any single neuron or cell in the body. Each cell goes its way, doing what it does, but the whole body is a different entity, with its own purpose and direction, and it goes its way. And that body and mind, is itself a component in the Culture and Economy of the human community. And the Community is itself a bigger Neural Net, with its own mind.

Forgotten

2008-04-08T21:42:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that some US Presidents who once were held up are fading out of interest.

I think that the partisans of Franklin Roosevelt wished to portray civilization as starting with him, something like the First Emperor of China who had all of the books destroyed. So Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan (never President but he tried hard) were sort of suppressed.

The same people sort of regretted Harry Truman, since he wasn't Roosevelt, but rehabilitated him as better than Eisenhower during those dark years. But John Kennedy eclipsed all in their minds, but the time was short. And he went eyeball to eyball witht eh Soviets, something we don't want to encourage today. And he cut taxes. Let's not talk about it. Lyndon Johnson? Was he ever President? When? Was he a Democrat? He is in oblivion.

Nixon, of course, cannot be forgotten because he is the example of all that is bad. Remember that. Ford was nothing. And Carter is only brought out when a senior statesman is needed. But let's not talk about his single term. Too many bad things happened then, Inflation, Gas Lines, Iran.

Roosevelt provoked the Fascist and Imperial powers of his day, until they finally declared war. Good for him. It would have been more honest to be up front about it, but that was not politically workable. Not today either. But we condemn Presidents who do that now, so it is best not to bring up War President Roosevelt. Then there is the Internment of the Japanese -Americans in 1942, much condemed, but we won't mention what President did it. Or the one who authorized the Atomic Bom program. Or for that matter, the one who dropped it and who put America in the Korean War. We condemn these things now.

When are we pulling out of Germany and Japan? When are the troops coming home from Korea? Let's not talk about it, or the Presidents who put them there. Let's look to the future. Change.

Decision Where the War Will be Fought

2007-06-28T21:51:00.000-07:00

Back around 200 B.C. King Philip V of Macedon was aggressing on some peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean. Some of them asked the Romans for help. So the issue was brought up in the Roman Assembly and the pros and cons were being debated. After a while Publius Sulpicius spoke up. He said that the people thought that they were being asked whether they wanted peace or war. That decision was not up to them, he said. That decision had already been made. Philip was assembling money, weapons, soldiers, and ships right as he spoke. The question before them was whether the war will be in Macedonia or in their own Italy.

He cited the recent Second Punic War with Carthage. It had begun when the people of Saguntum in Spain had asked for help from the Romans. The Romans sent negotiators. Hannibal led an army into Italy, where the war was fought for a decade in their own country. The Romans should have sent soldiers, he said.

The Romans decided to send an army to Macedonia. It wasn’t easy. But no foreign Army invaded Italy for hundreds of years after that.

War of 1812 and Dejavu

2006-10-22T10:35:00.000-07:00

It is interesting that New England was the center of opposition to the War of 1812 between The young United States of America and Britain.. Interesting also was that the British did not extend their blockade of American ports to New England until 1814. During the war, New England traded freely with British Canada up until then. Although New England was being enriched during the war, their political party leaders claimed the area was being ruined. They were furious at “the little man in the Palace” President James Madison. They propagandized that the real object of the war was to help Napoleon, expose the seaports to British destruction, and conquer Canada. New England party leaders discouraged enlistments, celebrated British allied victories in Europe, and rejected a vote of thanks to an American Naval hero. It was “not becoming a moral and religious people.”

The British eventually took advantage of this dissidence and occupied parts of Maine and raided New England coasts, all unprotected because New England politicians refused to put New England Militias under National control or allow Federal troops on their soil. New England States planned to nullify a draft bill if it passed Congress. .New England was ripe for secession in 1814. They were proposing to make a separate peace with Britain. As they said, “New England allied with Old England would form a dignified and manly union well deserving the name of Peace.” This was during the war while hostilities were going on. When the peace Treaty of Ghent was signed, the New England party officials decried it as proof that Madison had lied to get America into the war, because none of the original reasons given for entering the war were mentioned in the treaty.

The party of New England at this time was the Federalist Party. It was discredited as unpatriotic as a result. Also, since prosperity boomed in New England during and following the war, the party was also economically discredited. The party of “king” Madison was called the Republican Party. This was not the same party as today called the Republican Party. It was the party of Thomas Jefferson, also hated by the New England party leaders (Jefferson was a southerner). About a decade later, Andrew Jackson split the “Republican” party, taking his backwoodsmen, southerners, immigrants, and working men off to the Democratic Republican Party, later shortened to just “Democrat” as it is today. Several decades later, slavery abolitionists founded a new party and adopted the old name of Thomas Jefferson’s party, the Republican Party.

Today the center of opposition to “Imperial” President Bush who “lied” about the reasons for entering the Iraq war, also center in New England. Is this really a policy issue or just a battle for regional domination going on for 200 years. New England appears to not be happy since Jefferson (a southerner) replaced Adams (a New Englander) unless a New Englander is in the presidency (or an honorary one, like FDR or maybe Al Gore?).

The source for this information is mainly The Growth of the American Republic by Samuel Elliot Morrison and Henry Steel Commager. This book was published in 1962 before the Viet Nam War, Watergate, and just about everything else that colors current politics, so it would appear to be an unbised account. In fact, the authors appear to be "liberals" in their time.

Illegal Immigration

2006-04-09T14:05:00.000-07:00

Back in the early 1600's a ragtag group of illegal immigrants arrived up in the Northeast. They were pretty sad. Some of the local Algonquians felt sorry for them. The poor people did not know how to hunt or fish, they didn't know how to plant and grow corn, squash, or beans, they didn't even know how to speak Algonquin. They were pretty pitiful. They looked pretty harmless.

Some of the Algonquians decided to help them. They gave them badly needed food. They showed them how to hunt and fish. They taught them how to grow corn, squash, and beans. They even taught them a few words of Algonquin, like skunk, squaw, and succotash. They said they could stay there, even though they had no right to do so. Sort of an Amnesty.

Well, this ragtag group of illegal immigrants worked hard and prospered. They were joined by friends. And more friends. The Algonquians said, enough. You can stay, but no more. These immigrants however continued to assist and encourage more of their kind to illegally enter the country. They protected them and helped them get on their feet in the new land. And they began to push the Algonquians back. It wasn't necessarily out of evil intent. There were just so many of them, they needed room.

But it came to intent. The Algonquians, unable to stop the illegal immigration with talk felt compelled to resist more strongly. The expanding illegal immigrants themselves felt the need to press forward more strongly. Both sides felt threatened. It came down to violence.

To make a long story short, the illegal immigrants overwhelmed the Algonquians. They did not adopt Algonquin culture. They did not learn to speak Algonquin. They did not respect Algonquin Laws or government. They pushed all of this aside. What few Algonquians survived were compelled to adopt the ways and language of the illegal immigrants. And generally they were impoverished.

The Algonquians lost their land to the illegal immigrants. They lost their homes. They lost their government and their laws. They lost their culture. They lost their language. A great many lost their lives. They and their ways were eliminated.

It had happened before, it happened again, and it will happen again.

Home is Where the Heart Is

2005-12-08T18:42:00.000-08:00

The Spartans were a bunch of homebodies. Their idea of winning the war was to just march over to the territory of Athens not far away and devastate it. They figured that the Athenians would come to terms seeing their homes and farms destroyed. So each summer, year after year, they did this. At one point, Thucydides ( The Peloponnesian War, about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.) comments that the Spartans stayed slightly more than a month one year, and that this was the longest they ever did.

At another point he describes the Spartan leader Brasidas heading up north to Thrace to free Athenian subject cities there. This was astonishing and scary to the Athenians, because most of their so-called allies were far from Sparta, often on islands or across the sea. The Spartans had failed in their promise of aid to the Lesbians, and this had strengthened the hand of Athens. But now this marching of a Spartan army to an area dominated by Athens was very threatening.

Except it was not a Spartan army. The Spartan army always stayed close to home. It is kind of funny, in a way. The Lesbians sent word that they would revolt if Sparta sent aid, soldiers and a fleet. Basically, Sparta sent one man Salaethus. They did send some ships, but they turned away once they saw the Athenian ships. Later they would send Glyppus to Sicily pretty much by himself (one boat). And they would send Lysander to Asia. The Spartan army stayed at home.

It is like an old joke about the Texas Rangers. Rioting had broken out in a Texas town and they called on the Texas Rangers for help. They sent one man. Astonished, the city fathers asked him why they had sent only one man. “You only have one riot, don’t you?” he answered. It was as though the Spartans were saying, “You only have one war, don’t you?”

Brasidas was a Spartan, but his army was mostly drawn from the subject Spartan peasants, otherwise known as slaves. Their official name was “Helots.” From time to time the Spartans would recruit soldiers from the most aggressive and ambitious of the Helots. They would not be coming back. They would be trained, armed and sent off to war. If they did return, they were generally disposed of sooner or later. So Brasidas set off with an army of Helots and what mercenaries he could hire from the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta. He died from wounds in battle defeating the Athenians. Cleon was the Athenian commander and he also was killed. Thucydides seems to have had a lot of respect for his adversary the Spartan Brasidas, but he despises his countryman Cleon. Interestingly, Thucydides himself was an Athenian commander in the area when Brasidas first arrived. He failed to win against the Spartans. Typical of the Athenians, Thucydides was exiled for this crime. He was lucky. Later in the war the Athenians would pass death sentences on victorious generals, because they didn’t win big enough.

Political Siblings

2005-11-20T18:56:00.000-08:00

When I was a boy in the 1950’s I saw a not so old movie on TV about a young German boy taken in by an English or American couple. He was a lot of trouble because he was an unrepentant Nazi. I asked my Mother, “What is a Nazi?” She answered, “They were sort of like Communists.” I already knew about Communists.

Some time later, according to my memory, the fifth grade, but I think it must really have been later, I was astonished to read in some school book that “Nazi” was a verbal abbreviation of the German name of the Nazi Party: National Socialist German Workers’ Party. I had somewhere learned that Communists and Socialists were Left Wing and Fascists and Nazis were Right Wing. How could the Nazi’s have “Socialist” in their name? I asked my teacher. She answered, “That was a trick that Hitler used to make people think he was a good guy.”

These two anecdotes define two different models of the political spectrum.

For 80 years liberals have hammered the notion that the relationship is a spectrum from Left to Right:

Communists => Socialists => Liberals => Moderates => Conservatives => Fascists => Nazis

It was this model that makes “National Socialist” a strange name for Nazis.

The model my Mother was using was more like this:

Communists
Socialists = = = = > Liberals = = > Moderates = = > Conservatives
Fascists
Nazis

This, of course, was absurd, as everyone knew. I knew it.

Over the years I read a number of books about Hitler and the rise of the Nazi’s in Germany in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Here are some things I observed: Not much was known about Hitler’s early life or where he got his ideas. But for some reason, he valued Mussolini, who was a nonentity.

Curious, I began to look for information about Mussolini and Italian Fascism. There did not appear to be much interest in this. However, I did learn that Mussolini became Premier of Italy in 1922, ten years before Hitler came to power in Germany. He did this with a political “March on Rome” a year before Hitler tried the “Beer Hall Putsch” march on the Bavarian Government in Munich. Mussolini had a private party army of uniformed “Blackshirts” and Hitler had a private party army of uniformed “Brownshirts.” Mussolini was called “Ill Duce” (“The Leader”) long before Hitler was called “Der Fueher” (“The Leader”). The Italian Fascist salute involved the stiff up-stretched arm and a shout of “Salud” (“Salute” or “Hail”) which was used long before the Nazi’s adopted the stiff up-stretched arm with flat hand and a shout of “Heil” (“Hail”). Also, a lot of the early Nazi symbology has a faux-Roman style to it. Italian Fascism to some extent looked back on the Italian Roman glories. The “fasces” (bundle) was an ancient Roman symbol of power. The imagery of German Nazism seemed to be a wannabe copy of Italian Fascism.

Actually, it is not “seemed”, but “was.”

Mussolini was Hitler’s role model, his hero, the man he wanted to be like, back when he was nothing. It seemed to me, given this, that Mussolini should be a very interesting person to study, if you wanted to understand Hitler. But this notion seemed to be pretty much ignored. So I read a biography of Mussolini. What a shock. I read another. Confirmed. I read another. Same story. Mussolini was indeed Hitler’s role model and he copied him slavishly at first. As a minor German political figure he asked the Italian Embassy for an autographed picture of Mussolini. It was referred to Mussolini and he rejected it. That must have been a blow, to be rejected by the man you worship and adore.

Well, Mussolini was quite a different person than Hitler. In the first place, he was not an unknown person in his early life like Hitler. He was a well known and well documented person before the First World War. In fact, he was a person of consequence, a public figure. He was, among other things, a writer. His articles had appeared in not only Italy, but also Switzerland, Austria, France, and even the United States. He was a political leader of long standing. During World War I, the King of Italy found it politically wise to visit injured ordinary soldier Mussolini in the hospital.

So what did he write? What kind of political leader was he? He was the editor of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper. He was a Socialist Party Leader. His articles were left wing propaganda. He wrote prolifically for decades, much of it preserved, so what his thoughts were is not hard to determine. Most examples of his writings would meet with approval by Left Wing Liberal Americans of today, except for the parts that are so radically far left that they are even too much for them. Mussolini was far left.

Mussolini and Italian Fascism was the inspiration for Hitler and early Nazism. But Fascism was a variant of Socialism. During the World War I era, there was a split among Socialists. The first was the split off of traditional International Socialists by the National Socialists (patriotic socialists). Then later, after the Russian Revolution, Communists split off from International Socialists. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism are siblings.

Statistical Methods in Ancient Greece

2005-11-19T18:38:00.000-08:00

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book The Peloponnesian War about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

It is not all about war. Here is a story about Statistical Methods from about 425 B.C. No fancy formulas are involved, just common sense.

It was near the town of Plataea that the Persian Invaders many years before had finally been defeated once and for all by a combined army of Athenians, Spartans, Plataeans, and others, driving them from the Greek mainland (Battle of Plataea). This small but famous town was an ally of the Athenians and hence a potential target by the Spartans. Anticipating this, the Plataeans transferred their families and most of their people to Athens for safety, leaving behind a small guard. The Spartans were goaded on by their allies the Thebans to capture Plataea for them. Since the remaining Plataeans refused to surrender, the town was surrounded by a wall built by the besiegers. As their food ran down, the defenders plotted escape. The plan was to sneak out in the middle of the night, using ladders to get over the surrounding wall.

But how long to make the ladders to reach to the top of the surrounding Spartan wall? Thucydides described how they measured the height of the wall:

The Plataeans calculated the height of the wall from the number of layers of bricks. A great many of the Plataeans gathered on their own wall and each man counted the layers of bricks on the wall across the way. Although some would make mistakes, the count would be oftener right than wrong. They did it again and again. Thus, they were able to determine the length of the ladders by using the thickness of bricks.

I am a professional Statistician. These people 2400 years ago showed a better understanding of Statistical Methods and Concepts than many people today, who have to make important decisions. And this was an important decision. Most of the Plataeans got away safely, except for some who were afraid to try. Later those who stayed behind surrendered. The Spartans executed the prisoners.

How Liberals Built Western Civilization

2005-10-30T19:07:00.000-08:00

Modern Western Civilization has experienced four waves of liberalism. Each is characterized by its focal ideas. Their intellectual descendants can be recognized by these focal ideas like they are genetic markers. All four waves have had their part in the making of modern Western civilization, for good or ill. Primarily it has been good, but there is ill.

These waves are as follows:

The Renaissance
The Protestant Reformation
The Individual Rights Movement among English Speakers (Puritan Revolt)
The French Revolution

Some of these may not seem like “liberalism,” but at the time they were. Each was a major change and each has influence to current times.

Here are the key ideas of each wave…

The Renaissance was the founding event of modern Western Civilization. It’s key idea is not art or literature as typical history books claim. The key idea is that the truth about the observable world is discovered by observing it. That is, data rules, not authorities. Truth is determined by observation and experiment. Experts may be right, but the final arbiter is observed data. And anybody can observe. This is not something only for the elite. Everyone can learn the truth from observation of what happens. This is the basis of technological advancement. And technological advancement is the basis of modern Western Civilization and its strength.

The second wave of liberalism was the Protestant Revolt or Protestant Reformation. This rose out of the first wave. Note that the first wave rejected authority as the final arbiter of truth in the observable world. Extend that to the spiritual world. Note that the first wave went to the original source of fact. As spiritual truth was understood in 1400, the original source was the founding fathers of Christianity, the Christian Apostles and also the Jewish Prophets and Patriarchs. That is, the Bible was all that they had that was solid and observable to represent them, their very own writings. And anybody coud read it.

St. Paul in his epistles was the main source, especially the New Testament Epistle to the Romans. He said that salvation was a gift from the Savior to the individual, who could get it only by freely choosing to accept it. Salvation was not something bestowed by the Church Body upon the Congregational Body. Salvation was arrived at by a free will decision of an individual to believe in the Savior and to choose to accept his salvation.

The third wave of liberalism was the Individual Rights Movement. This movement took place over several hundred years (as did the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation). And it was largely confined to the English speaking world, at least the successful part of it. So it is not usually recognized as an global historical event. It was not global, but its influence was wide. Among the historical events involved are Scotland’s rejection of their Queen Mary, the Puritan Revolution in England, the unsuccessful revolt against James II in England by the Duke of Monmouth, the successful revolt against James II known as the “Glorious Revolution,” and the American Revolution. Yes, strange as it may seem to many people, the Puritans were liberals. In fact, English Puritanism and Scotch John Knox Presbyterianism is the origin of almost all of the ideas that we now think of as liberal. These are the ideas in the United States Bill of Rights. If an individual can choose salvation, then he can choose what to think, say, write, print. He can choose who to associate with. He cannot be compelled to confess to some crime and he cannot be held prisoner without a lawful accusation. And so on. These ideas were largely originated by Puritans, including the right to bear arms.

The final stage of the Individual Rights Movement wave was the American Revolution. This was an inspiration for the fourth wave, the French Revolution. But the French Revolution was different. It was a social class and an economic class revolt. This liberal wave is obsessed with class distinctions. Upper class is bad, lower class is good. To be rich is evil, to be of the Proletariat is to be a hero. The power of the Oppressor can only be beaten if the Oppressed unite together as one totally. The Oppressor is anyone not in the lower class, anyone with money (even the lower middle class). And those who support the Oppressor are also Oppressors. This latter includes the military and the Church. Originally the “Church” was the Catholic Church, which supported the King, the Nobility, and the established order. But eventually it came to be any Christian denomination convenient, and sometimes any religion. This wave can be recognized and separated from the Individual Rights Movement by these characteristics: obsession with class and distinct hostility towards wealth, military, and religion.

The heirs of the Renaissance are Scientists, Engineers, and Technologists. The heirs of the Protestant Reformation are Evangelical Christians, the “Religious Right.” The heirs of the Individual Rights Movement are pretty much the English Speaking World, but particularly the United States: most American conservatives and many American liberals. The heirs of the French Revolution are diverse but include notably European liberals, Third World liberals, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Baathists, Peronists, and the American far left (about 25% of the adult population).

It may seem strange to lump the Fascists and Nazis in with the “left,” but they are intellectual siblings of the left. I will elaborate on this item and all of this when I have more time.

Only the Brave

2005-10-29T16:43:00.000-07:00

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book The Peloponnesian War about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

I mentioned in an earlier item, that the most memorable described event for me was the Athenian reaction to the Revolt of the Lesbians: kill all the men and sell the women and children as slaves. The next most memorable event was the plight of the Spartans trapped on the island of Sphacteria. The Athenians had managed to trap some 400 Spartans on this small island just barely off the coast of the western Peloponnesus. The Spartans were desperate to rescue them. The Athenians were indignant at the failure of their generals to subdue and capture them. The Athenian demagogue Cleon taunted the Athenian military leaders saying that if he was in charge, he would have the Spartans dead or in chains in a week. Much to his surprise the Athenian voters decided to take him up on this. They voted him in charge.

There were few heavy troops available, so Cleon took light troops with him, archers and javelin throwers. With these he joined up with the heavy troops at the scene. The local commander Demosthenes had recently had a mind expanding experience. He had been in command of a force of heavy troops in rough terrain. He had been attacked by light troops who showered his men with javelins and arrows. His heavy troopers were unable to catch the light troops as they scurried out of the way and others closed in behind them. His force had been decimated.

So Cleon and Demosthenes applied this same idea to the Spartans on the island. They used their own heavy troops and the terrain to protect their light troops. The light troopers swarmed around the Spartan heavy troops, striking with javelins and arrows and then darting away. They tightened a ring around the Spartans and eventually exhausted them. In a hopeless situation, the Spartans surrendered. Spartans never gave up, so this was a shocking victory.

The Spartan prisoners were brought back to Athens. Here Athenian noncombatants could taunt them as though they themselves were great conquerors. They felt that they personally had defeated the Spartans. One Athenian civilian taunted one of the Spartan prisoners as a coward. After all, he had been captured while his brave comrades lay dead on the island. Spartans were famous for their sparse use of speech. The area where they lived was called Laconia. The English word “laconic,” meaning a spare use of words, comes from that. The Spartans were adept at pithy one liners, putting a lot of meaning into few words. The Spartan prisoner replied, “The arrow would truly be a great weapon if it killed only the brave.”

Don’t Need Leaders

2005-10-27T07:03:00.000-07:00

I have said before that Conservatives do not need or want leaders. Conservatives already know where the are and what they want. They do not need leaders to take them somewhere else that they are not. Conservatives want spokesmen to articulate the views they already have. If a would-be Conservative leader feels confident enough to try to lead Conservatives to new ground, generally they will balk, revolt, refuse to follow.

Followship is voluntary, not required. A leader cannot compel followers to follow. If no one follows, then he is not a leader. And basically Conservatives just do not have leaders. Frequently Liberals mistake Conservative Spokesmen for being Conservative Leaders. Sometimes popular Conservative spokesmen mistake themselves for Conservative Leaders, too. When they try to lead their "followers" to new ground, they look over their shoulder and no one is following.

President Bush has experienced this on his Immigration views. And it has come home to roost, as the Liberals say, with the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Liberals appear to be a little puzzled by the whole thing. Liberals tend to give their leaders overwhelming devoted support. For them, something doesn't add up here. The sheep aren't sheep. Who are the sheep?

Blame Those Who Wish to Serve

2005-10-26T20:49:00.000-07:00

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C. Thucydides fills his book with speeches purportedly given by people arguing one way or another. He admits that these are not their exact words but are the gist of their position. To construct these speeches, it appears that Thucydides is drawing on the body of ancient Greek proverbs, common wisdom, and cliché arguments. He piles these together in a speech for one side of the argument, then puts the opposite ones together for the other argument.

However, many of the quoted proverbs he used are pretty good, or at least thought provoking. Since he generally gives both sides of the argument, they often express opposite sentiments. Since human nature has not changed in 2400 years, many are not much different from what one hears today. Some are not heard today, but maybe they should be. Here are some of Thucydides’ sound bites from the middle of his book.

My favorite,:
I do not blame them for wanting to rule, I blame those who wish to serve.
[spoken to Sicilians, some of whom were submitting to the Athenians, others allying with them, which amounted to the same thing]

Mutual fear is the only firm basis of an alliance.

What can be more detestable than constantly changing our minds?

A nation whose laws are flawed but inviolable is better off than one whose laws are good but unenforced.

Simple persons make better citizens that brilliant ones.

When there are speeches, you use your eyes, but when action is needed, you use your ears.

Men despise those who flatter them but respect those who stand up to them.

If you impose the same penalty on those who willfully rebel and those who are forced to cooperate with the enemy, who will not revolt for any trivial reason?

Mercy should be reserved for the merciful and not thrown away on those who would have no compassion for us if conditions were reversed.

Forgiveness should be given to those who will be our friends after we are reconciled, not to those who will remain our enemies and hate us nonetheless.

If they were right in revolting, then you must be wrong in ruling.

The two worst things for making the right decision are haste and emotion.

When someone gives you a great benefit, you suspect that somehow he has gained more than he has given.

The question should not be what have they done and what do they deserve, but instead, what is our best interest?

We should be concerned not with the present but with the future.

Poverty leads to necessity and daring; wealth leads to pride and arrogance.

Do not hope to find safety in the severity of your laws but only in the vigilance of their execution.

It is better to suffer a wrong willingly than to punish those whom it is in our better interest to spare.

If we are enemies, then we have not wronged you by defending ourselves; if you think we were your friends, then it is you who have attacked us, and we are not to blame.

If you act wrongly and lead your associates into evil, then it is the leaders who are to blame, not the followers.

It is not ingratitude to refuse to return a kindness, however justly deserved, if it can only be done by committing a crime.

War is a hard master and tends to join men’s character with their condition.

The cause of all these evils was the love of power.

They were animated by a passionate desire for their neighbor’s goods.

I am Not Alone

2005-10-14T07:51:00.000-07:00

I was pleasantly surprised to see attention on a new book about the Peloponesian War. It is "A War Like No Other" by Victor Hanson. I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C. This is the original book about the Peloponesian War, written by a witness and participant 2400 years ago.

It is proper that there should be renewed interest in this period. For one thing, it is fascinating. But besides that, it is very relevant. How could 2400 year old history be relevant today? Consider this. Today’s national political situation is that of a more or less democratic republic, a government that to some extent responds to popular opinion. Furthermore, there are many other political states out there interacting with us. And a good number of them, at least the most important ones, are also more or less democratic republics, or some semblance of such.

Now as they say, we need to learn from history. But when have these conditions been the norm in the past? Well, it’s been like this for the past 50 years, less so for the 50 years before that, even less before that, and nonexistent before that, for a long time. The last time such conditions were even close before the modern era was during the period of Roman expansion. And then, monarchies and dictators and such were a bigger component than today, more like earlier in the early 20th century and just before. The last time conditions like today were really common was the fifth century BC and perhaps a bit afterwards, eventually merging into the Roman period.

This was the Age of Pericles, Aristophanes, Socrates, Sophocles, Plato, and the like, and the age of the Peloponesian War. These were not a bunch of ignorant primitive or backward people. Thucydides puts speeches in the mouths of many of his characters explaining their reasons, trying to sway people to their point of view. And their logic is pretty modern. Except that they fought with pointed sticks and long knives and ships that rammed each other, they were much like us.

Liberal Leaders and Conservative Spokesmen

2005-10-09T13:11:00.000-07:00

Liberals often ridicule the lousy leaders produced by Conservatives and point to the outstanding Liberal leaders as an example of their superior intellect. It is absolutely true that Liberals produce better leaders than Conservatives, but it has nothing to do with intellect.

As I pointed out in earlier postings, Liberals are intrinsically divided into interest groups and exist as a potent force only if they join together in a coalition. This is because by definition, Liberals are people who want to change things because they are unhappy with the way they are now. By the Anna Karenina Principle (explained by Jarod Diamond in his extraordinary book, Guns, Germs, and Steel) there are all kinds of ways for people to be unhappy, hence the natural divisions among Liberals.

Liberals need leaders. They want to go somewhere. They want to change. Liberals need leaders to focus and direct them to achieve this change.

Since Liberals are divided, they need leaders who can unite them. Each Liberal interest group needs leaders to drive their interests, but Liberals as a group need sort of super-leaders to coalesce the disparate interests groups into a single powerful party group that can get political power. Otherwise, they will amount to little. Without and overall leader, they will expend as much or more energy competing with one another as with pushing their agenda.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Liberals need leaders; therefore, they will produce them. And they produce good ones, and lots of them. By “good” ones, I mean, effective, successful, not necessarily morally good. Look at good or great leaders currently or throughout history. Nearly always they are Liberals. Not necessarily Liberals by the modern day list of issues and position, but Liberals in the definitional sense, they are leading change to the system. It is virtually a tautology.

Conservatives are quite different. Conservatives are people who are more or less happy and satisfied with the current structure and functioning of their society. They don’t want to change it, they want to preserve it and benefit from it as it is. They don’t want to go anywhere. They don’t need or want leaders.

In fact, in general, Conservatives don’t even like leaders, although they make claims to the contrary. Remember what leaders do, they lead. They lead you somewhere different from where you are. Conservatives are happy where they are. They are more or less satisfied with where they are. They do not need someone to take them somewhere else. As it turns out, if someone purports to be their “leader” tries to take them somewhere else, they balk. They reject the leader. They abandon him as followers.

What Conservatives want are not leaders but spokesmen. Conservatives want someone who will articulate their point of view well and make their case. This is something Liberals often fail to realize. Conservatives already know their views and opinions, their position on issues. They want someone who will express these views articulately and will give good explanations and justifications for them. They are not interested in someone telling them what to believe. When Liberals hear some Conservative “leader” like Rush Limbaugh express Conservative views and then find Conservatives adhere to those views, they mistakenly think that the Conservatives are “getting their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.” Not so, it is the other way around. Rush Limbaugh is getting his orders from them, in a sense. He is merely articulating very well their position. If Rush Limbaugh were to try to lead Conservatives to new points of view, they would abandon him.

Look at President George Bush’s attempts to lead Conservatives in different directions away from where they already stand. It hasn’t worked on immigration or any other such issue. However, they rally to him when he espouses their views.

Liberals on the other hand, do need someone to tell them where to go, what to believe. Being unhappy is not enough to clearly know what you want. Neither is wanting to change. Liberals need leaders to coalesce and direct their views and agenda. Furthermore, since Liberals as a group are a coalition, they are full of disparate and contradictory opinions. They need someone to somehow suppress all this and give them a clear vision. Such people are ready at hand. There are many volunteers. The best of them rise to the top. Thus Liberals have outstanding leaders, and lots of them

Revolt of the Lesbians

2005-09-17T09:40:00.000-07:00

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

In general accounts in textbooks about this war, two tragic events are always mentioned as the major events. The first is the plague that ravaged the cooped up Athenians early in the war. The second is the misguided aggression by Athens on Sicily to recoup their losses after losing the first phase of the war. But the event that most impressed me on my first reading of Thucydides many years ago was the Revolt by the city of Mytilene on the Island of Lesbos, and the Athenian response to it. So far in re-reading, that impression still holds.

Mytilene was an ally of Athens after the Persian invasions of Greece. Athens bit by bit turned her allies into subject states paying tribute. Mytilene on Lesbos and a few other allies remained “independent.” But it was clear that after Athens had subdued everyone else, there would be nothing to stop Athens from tightening its grip on Mytilene. So, when the war between Athens and Sparta broke out, the leaders of Mytilene saw it as an opportunity to get out from under the thumb of Athens. They approached Sparta for help.

As appears almost usual, the Spartans saw other people’s problems as just a lack of leadership. So instead of sending an army or a fleet, they sent one man, Salaethus. The Spartans did later send some ships, but they scurried away at the sight of the Athenian fleet. Apparently, the Spartans figured that one Spartan could provide the leadership that was lacking. Actually, on a number of occasions this seemed to work, one war, send one Spartan. But it does appear also that the Spartans wanted to avoid polluting and corrupting too many of their own by exposing them to the temptations of the outside world. On this score they were usually right, as Spartans who went abroad often succumbed to the different life.

Salaethus first tried to whip the Mytilene upper and middle class into soldiers to break the Athenian siege. This did not work. So he turned to the lower classes, figuring that they would be more used to submission and obeying orders. However, once armed, the lower class Mytilene became a free man, with ideas and opinions. The opinion was that the “leaders” of Mytilene had botched things. They wanted peace with Athens. They forced a conditional surrender to the Athenian commander Paches. The condition was that the fate of the city would be left in the hands of the assembly back in Athens. As it turned out, this was an easy decision for them: kill all of the men and sell all of the women and children as slaves.

After voting this and sending the directive back to Paches at Mytilene, the Athenians began to have a change of heart. Thucydides puts the debate into the mouths of Cleon and Diodotus. There were no longer any Conservatives in Athens it would seem, only Liberals and Liberal Extremists. Cleon, representing the extremist view, shows how easy it is to slip from a Liberal position into Fascism. Diodotus argues that the people of Mytilene should be spared, not out of compassion, but because it is expedient. They should not want people to feel they need to fight to the death against Athens because that is what they will get if they lose. On why Athenians should change their minds and rescind the order to exterminate the people of Mytilene, Diodotus says, “You punish those who advise you for their bad judgment, but you forgive yourselves for the bad judgment of following their advice.”

The Athenians vote “by a show of hands” to overturn the order to wipe out Mytilene, but it is close. A ship is sent to rescind the order and arrives only in the nick of time. Nevertheless, they kill all of the leading people of Mytilene, give over all of the land of Mytilene to Athenians, and turn the rest of the people into peasant renters. The democracy of Athens was a vicious little democracy. This isn’t to say the Spartans were any better. Their “democracy” was perhaps more equal than that of Athens but on a much narrower base of voters. But the Spartans were equally without compassion. They carried out the same fate on the Plataeans a short time later, when that city surrendered to them. Fortunately, most of the Plataeans had already escaped to Athens beforehand.

How Can Liberals Win ?

2005-09-11T11:04:00.000-07:00

I pointed out in a previous posting that Liberals tend to be fragmented into unconnected minority groups. On the other hand, Conservatives almost by definition are the largest natural subgroup of a community, either the majority or clearly the largest minority. That is because Conservatives want to preserve the current structure of society, which they perceive as beneficial to themselves. If they wanted to change it, then they would be Liberals. If the majority or the largest minority (when there is no majority group) wanted to change things, they would. So if things are not changing dramatically, then Conservatives are clearly dominant.

So how can Liberals ever win, if they are always just a bunch of disparate minority groups in a community? One way is to become the majority or the largest and dominant minority. One way this can happen is for the Conservative majority “leadership” to thoroughly overplay their hand, become incompetent, corrupt, and oppressive, driving some of their own to become Liberals and driving the Liberals into a combined group, forgetting their differences and focusing on the issue of the failed Conservative “leadership.” This is called a revolution.

Examples are the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and of course the American Revolution. Revolutions are singular notable historical events because they do not occur very often.

A handicap for Liberals is that Revolutions are precipitated by incompetence among Conservatives. That is, it is not Liberals who start revolutions but Conservatives. Nevertheless, idealistic Liberals are forever attempting to foment a revolution, wasting away their lives in bohemian coffee houses and such, arguing what they would do when they are in charge. When the young Benito Mussolini and one of his mistresses were walking down a tree-lined avenue one night after attending a rousing socialist meeting, Mussolini remarked, “These are the trees on which we will hang the pigs.” And his mistress laughingly replied, “And where are the trees on which we will be hanged?” Actually, they were about ten miles away.

Actually, sometimes Liberals are in the majority or nearly so, but not in control. The reason is that they are divided. By the Anna Karenina Principle (defined by Jarod Diamond) all the unhappy people who want to change society are unhappy for different reasons. Liberals are divided among various different interest groups, many of which are rivals. “Divide and Conquer” works for the Conservatives but rarely for Liberals.

The only way for Liberals to win is for them to unite. If the Conservatives decline to be sufficiently incompetent, corrupt, or oppressive to drive them to the unity of a revolution, then the Liberals must form a coalition. They must unite under one banner in order to take control. This means compromise. Different rival unhappy ethnic groups need to bury their animosities and take up the causes of their competitors. The unhappy poor and unemployed need to throw support behind ambitious rich Liberals who must condescend to embrace the masses for the sake of a rapid political advancement. Unhappy conservative minority regionalists must take up the cause of people they despise so long as they are in another province. This is not easy. It doesn’t happen often. That’s why they usually have to wait for a revolution or near revolution.

American Conservatives are pretty homogeneous. There are several kinds, but most belong to several kinds. There are Religious Conservatives, Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Intellectual Conservatives. Most Religious Conservatives are also all of the rest. Most Social Conservatives are Fiscal Conservatives. Most Fiscal Conservatives are at least sympathetic to Social Conservatives. Some non-Religious Conservatives do not like their religious comrades, but it is not a breaking point.

American Liberals on the other hand are pretty heterogeneous. Jewish and Muslim, Italian and Irish, Polish and Hispanic, Feminists and Blacks, the Unemployed and Labor Unions, preservationalist Environmentalists and alternative energy Environmentalists, animal rights activists and multiculturalists, atheists and religious ethnic minorities, and so on. They are not only different but rivals or competitors, or downright do not like each other. But to win, they must put aside these differences, bite their tongues, pretend to be friends, and shout the common party lines.

This is all pretty tenuous.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the existing Democrat Party coalition of the 70 years following the American Civil War, enlarged by a mini-revolution brought on by the Great Depression, and sprang Liberals into a dominant position. The existing coalition was a union of Southern Segregationalists, Northeastern Labor Unions, Western Farmers, Immigrant and Ethnic Communities, and so on. This coalition ruled the Presidency for 20 years and the Congress for longer.

In the late 1960’s the Democrat Party tore itself apart and in the next few years put itself back together again as a different animal. A new coalition was formed that long kept dominance of Congress but had a much harder time with the Presidency.

Clean, Cheap, and Plentiful

2005-09-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

A high tech company I am familiar with in Arizona had to shut down some of its manufacturing processes today due to Hurricane Katrina. It seems that the supply of hydrogen gas ran out and the regular just-in-time shipments stopped. The hydrogen gas comes from Texas. There it is made in chemical processing plants from methane. The methane comes from petroleum wells. The methane comes mixed in with the oil and is separated by gas processing plants. It also comes from gas wells. All of this has been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Methane gas is also plentiful in the Persian Gulf oil fields.

Hydrogen is said to be a clean, cheap, and plentiful fuel, and its use would free us from the oil industry and Middle East fuel dependency. Not today.

Talking About Women

2005-08-29T22:18:00.000-07:00

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

In Book I, Thucydides puts these words in the mouths of Corinthian ambassadors trying to talk the Spartans into taking the side of the oppressed against Athens:

“You don’t see that the best way to peace is to use your strength justly, but show that you have no intention to submit to injustice. For you justice seems to mean that you don’t bother anyone else and never strike back unless someone hurts you first. But this policy cannot be successful ….”

The Corinthians appear to be condemning the same policy that led to Nazi domination of Europe and Imperial Japanese domination of the Eastern Pacific and East Asia in 1930’s-1940’s. The Corinthians are urging the Spartans to take a Preemptive Policy. But it is really too late. In this case back in B.C., the Athenians had already come to dominate and exact tribute from much of the Aegean Greek world.

In his funeral eulogy of the war dead, Pericles says the famous line “Athens is the school of Hellas.” In my translation, Thucydides always calls the nation Hellas and the people Hellenes. “Greek” is from a much later Latin term. Also, he always calls the people of Sparta as Lacadaemonians, sometimes collectively with their allies as Peloponnesians.

In his funeral speech, Pericles says that it is a virtue for women “not to be talked about for either good or bad by men.” The ancient Greeks, at least the Athenians, were not into women’s rights.

In Book II Pericles gives a buck-up speech to the Athenians despairing over the course of the war. He explains why the Athenians are so hated: “ He who is less fortunate will envy us.” Thucydides, an Athenian himself, admires Pericles: “He led them [the Athenians] rather than was led by them….So Athens, in name a democracy, was in fact ruled by her greatest citizen.” And looking to the end of the war, without Pericles’ leadership, he says the Athenians “were at last overthrown, not by their enemies, but by themselves, and their own infighting.” Sounds familiar.

Why Liberals are Almost Always in the Minority

2005-08-23T21:11:00.000-07:00

Any community is divided into two kinds of people, those who are more or less happy with the way the community is organized and operates, and those who are not. Those who feel that they benefit and prosper in the community, or feel that they will do so, are happy with it. But there are others who are unhappy. They feel that they do not benefit from the community’s structure, that they cannot. They don’t like it and they want to change it in a way that will benefit them more, where they can thrive.

Those who are happy are called “Conservatives.” They want to preserve and conserve the community structure, organization, and operation pretty much as it is. It is one that they are happy with. They do or expect to prosper in it.

Those who are unhappy are called “Liberals.” Another word, perhaps, “Non-Conservatives” or “Changers” or “Rebels” might be more appropriate. But we appear to be pretty much stuck with “Liberals.” They want to change the structure, because they believe it is an obstacle to them. They are not happy with things the way they are now.

There is a principle that describes what happens. There is basically only one way to be happy with the situation. You like it, it fits you and the way you want to live and work. You are happy with it. However, there are many ways to be unhappy with it. It is not fair to you. Its rules are too restrictive. Resources are denied to you. They are against you. They keep you in the dark, hiding information from you. You are not like them, so they hold that against you. They never give you a chance. They are stupid, not smart like you, and they know it. They are afraid of you, so they keep you down. They lie to you. You are too young, too old, too short, too ugly, too different, something, and they don’t like you. There are all kinds of ways to be unhappy with the community’s system.

This principle is the Anna Karenina Principle explained by Jarod Diamond in his extraordinary book, Guns, Germs, and Steel . The Principle’s name comes from the first words of Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Rephrased, “There is basically one way to be right, but many ways to be wrong.” But perhaps this is too harsh on Liberals. Maybe, “There is one way to fit in the system, but many ways not to.”

The Anna Karenina Principle applies to politics in this way: A community breaks down into minority segments, each with its own gripe, and one group that is happy. The happy group isn’t exactly homogeneous, but it is more homogeneous than the others are collectively. The happy group will be the largest minority group, perhaps even a majority. This happy group is the Conservatives. Conservatives will therefore be the largest of minorities, or else the majority. Most people will be Conservatives. Generally, this will always be the case.

Now this sounds perhaps a bit self serving. Why couldn’t Liberals be more, even a majority. Because Liberals are unhappy. They want to change the community’s societal structure. If they are the biggest minority or the majority, then they would take charge and change it. Then it wouldn’t be something they wouldn’t like. It would be their way, their structure. Then they would be happy. They wouldn’t want it to change back or different. They would be the Conservatives. They would have become the Conservatives. So the Conservatives would be the largest group. The society might have turned over, but whoever is happy with it are the Conservatives.

Pericles was Not for Peace

2005-08-21T14:14:00.000-07:00

I have started re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.. I read it once before many years ago. There are certain parts I remember very well, others very vague. One thing I had very clear from my earlier reading was how Thucydides described the causes of the war. I have sometimes cited this in discussions with others. I am a little surprised to find that my memory was wrong. I must have been thinking of some other book.

I am part way through Book 2 of “The Peloponnesian War”. The first “Book” (really chapter, but I guess books were smaller back when they were on scrolls) is about the causes and events leading up to the war. They are pretty routine. People wanting to keep what they have, others wanting to have it. People wanting freedom, others wanting to control them. People understanding clearly what the treaty said, others clearly understanding it said something else. And some people just hotheaded.

I remembered that the first part of the Peloponnesian War was called the Archidamian War, but I did not remember why. Now I know. Achidamus was one of the Spartan kings (they had two at a time). What took me by surprise was that Archidamus in Book 1 was the leader of the “let’s not be hasty about this” party in Sparta. He spoke, according to Thucydides, about how the younger men are eager for war because they do not have the experience of the older men. He says that just because the Athenians live a more casual life than the Spartans, not to underestimate how formidable they were. He points out that they had more people, more resources, and plenty of courage. Let’s not rush into this, he said.

This is in contrast to what the Athenian leader Pericles says to his people. He tells them not to back off an inch. He echoes Archidamus by reminding the Athenians that they have the men, they have the ships, and by Athena, they have the courage, too. He tells them that they cannot lose. Victory for Athens is certain. In Book 2 he gives a funeral eulogy for those soldiers fallen so far that is along the lines of we are plenty strong and we can’t dishonor the fallen and our forefathers by letting go of what they sacrificed for.

The liberal Athenians were the aggressive ones while the conservative Spartans were the more reluctant. Perhaps surprising.