Inventing units and writing history

Rereading Hermann Hesse's Journey to the East, I came across this passage that captures well the feeling many historians must have when writing a book.

"Instead of a fabric, I hold in my hands a bundle of a thousand knotted threads which would occupy hundreds of hands for years to disentangle and straighten out, even if every thread did not become terribly brittle and break between the fingers as soon as it is handled and gently drawn.

"I imagine that every historian is similarly affected when he begins to record the events of some period and wishes to portray them sincerely. Where is the center of events, the common standpoint around which they revolve and which gives them cohesion? In order that something like cohesion, something like cohesion, that some kind of meaning might ensue and that it can in some way be narrated, the historian must invent units, a hero, a nation, an idea, and he must allow to happen to this invented unit what has in reality happened to the nameless." 

Alternate ending of The Lost Symbol

"Peter slipped away to his sister's secret noetics lab. After an hour, he returned to the capital building to rejoin Robert and Katharine, who were just then watching day break over the city. 

With a look of strength and renewal, Peter approached Robert briskly. Extending his right hand, he gave his old friend a warm and hardy handshake. His gold mason ring glinted in the early morning sun. A new day had dawned." 

This would have blown minds

Everything you know is wrong: Books to change your worldview

I've recently either read or reread several books that fundamentally transformed my understanding of US history, society, the economy, and foreign policy. Some are serious; some are jocular. All make it strikingly clear that our perceptions about so many historical and political phenomena are not only incorrect, they are shaped by social, political, and economic discourses that have very little basis in truth or facts. Everything you think you know about capitalism, the Cold War, the "roaring 20s," the Iraq wars (all 9 of them), terrorism, oil, Hugo Chavez, voter fraud, and much more IS WRONG.

Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States.

Noam Chomsky's 9/11.

Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power.

Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (and his newer book, Armed Madhouse).

Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine (this is the best book I've read is a very long time).

Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? (his The Wrecking Crew is also good).

Naomi Wolf's The End of America.

The Health of a Nation

In the end, the debate over health care reform is less about what is best for people's health or the economy and more to do with fundamentally differing views on what constitutes a strong, successful, and yes, a healthy nation.

On the right you have the argument that America is a strong, rich country because it has a large number of strong, rich individuals and corporations (albeit less of both lately). On the left, you have the view that a nation's overall success is best measured not by the wealth or well being of a few but rather the quality of life of the majority.

Besides the fact that the conservative position fosters inequality, I worry that such a world view--one that echos "every man for himself"--will lead to the creation of a society composed of people largely detached from those around them; individuals who, even if successful, are lonely, isolated, and pathetically, tragically selfish. Alas, such a condition would make for no real "society" at all. Moreover, we can be sure that the world would be a darker, more depressing place; where the misery of detachment is tempered only by the momentary thrills of consumption: more TV, more beer, a nicer car, a bigger house, a newer iPhone, more stuff, more things, more, more, more...

We must not fail to recognize that the underlying debate on health care reform is not just about health. It's about the health of a nation, one in which we either see ourselves as fundamentally linked by common hopes and dreams, shared histories and values, and a sense of community, or one where we do not. Which will you pick?

Thanks for commenting.

That Sinking Feeling on Health Reform

News that the Senate Finance Committee will be putting forth a health care reform proposal that omits a public option and does not compel businesses to cover employees is disastrous. If this report is accurate and a bill such as this goes forth, the insurance industry will have won, yet again, and the American public will be much worse off for it.

Mostly, I feel a deep sense of regret. Another small part of me, however, chuckles at the pitiful plight of Americans so enamored by the ideology of free markets that they are willing to hurt themselves to uphold the ideal. I honestly and earnestly hate to say it but they get what they deserve.

But what do you think?

Returning soon

I'll be returning to work next week and should be back to blogging regularly. Thanks for staying tuned.

Why didn't waterboarding work?

It seems increasingly clear that waterboarding was conducted to force a confession about ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. After all the recent accounts on how effective waterboarding can be in getting people to say whatever the interrogator wants, why didn’t it work? Why didn’t the Bush administration succeed in getting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to say he was involved with Al Qaeda, despite waterboarding him 183 times?

Perhaps they did get a confession yet knew it was inadmissible (or invalid) due to the circumstances under which it was elicited. But then why waterboard if the results couldn’t be announced proudly to the world: “IRAQI OFFICIAL ADMITS TIES TO AL QAEDA!”?

Perhaps the only explanation is that Bush officials honestly thought there were ties and that waterboarding worked. This is a defense but not a good one because it shows, in yet another way, how they were not listening to so many military and intelligence professionals who knew both.

What do you think?