Politics and history seem to have always interested me. I’m not sure when or how that interest began. My guess is that it has something to do with reading the newspaper as a kid. To be honest, the comics were the main draw, back when they had two full pages and each strip was printed at a size that didn’t require a magnifying glass to read the print. Classics like Calvin and Hobbes and the Far Side are what I cut my teeth on. To get there, though, since they were in the C section of the Deseret News, one had to work one’s way through the national, state, and local news, including the editorial pages. I read a lot of the stories. I am sure that I also heard my parents discussing elections and politics. We had this Dodge minivan as a kid, and I usually sat on the middle seat behind the driver. Back in the day when rear seats only had a lap belt, though, I would often extend it pretty much as far as it would go so I could sit on the edge of the seat, thereby having my head right up with the front seats, where I could hear my parents’ discussions. I learned a lot and probably said plenty of dumb things (and now think that those conversations and my parents’ willingness to let me be a fly on the wall are something I could learn from as my own kids get to those same ages). As for history, it has really just been inherently interesting, but things like war, exploration, and rebellion capture the mind of a young boy. It was always easy to put myself in the place of the famous patriots fighting the British or as a Union supporter and an abolitionist. Reading the news and wanting to understand politics showed me early on how history is necessary to understanding the situations we face today.
In The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century by Glenn Beck with Joshua Charles (ISBN: 978-1-4516-5061-7), an attempt is made at making history more accessible to the modern reader. The book is essentially a translation of the majority of the famous Federalist Papers from the archaic language of the XVIII century to more en vogue English. It’s still very high-level stuff, but it is simplified. A good comparison might be a King James Bible and a New English Bible. Glenn Beck has inserted some explanatory material at the beginning of each section (the papers are not presented chronologically, but in groups based on their major theme(s)) and in an infobox-like page for each paper. The Federalist Papers were written, mostly by Alexander Hamilton, but also by James Madison and John Jay, in an effort to support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which provided for a stronger central (federal) government than what the Articles of Confederation had. They are considered to be invaluable because of the insight they provide into just what the Founding Fathers thought when they wrote the Constitution.
The book was a great read, although not something that was necessarily easy to get through. The reader’s brain really must be fully engaged to get through the argumentation of the concepts that were so basic to America’s beginnings. It’s really a book that one studies more than simply reads. The commentary was interesting, but, for me, quite secondary to actual text of the papers. I checked on a few occasions how closely what I was reading aligned with the originals, and it seemed to be good, but there is no way I can guarantee that for the entire, rather thick, book. I thought the principles behind the Constitution were brilliantly argued. As I read, there were a couple instances where I didn’t think I agreed, but there were plenty of those for the people in the U.S. at the time, so I am really no different. Many of those who were in favor of the Constitution had reservations, but they recognized that it was as close as it was going to get to being perfect and did provide a solid, inspired foundation for our country. In the vast majority of cases, I agreed with the arguments. It was interesting to note, though, how different the Founding Fathers’ vision of government was from what we have now. The federal government’s roles and powers were severely limited. National-level bureaucracies like the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency were not part of the plan. The Founders abhorred taxes. They recognized them as a necessary evil to pay for the recognized powers of the government, but otherwise they hated taxes. They were religious men, who recognized the hand of God in our affairs (and those few who weren’t had no problem with those who were expressing those views and living according to their consciouses, even in the public arena). They valued the rights of local governments. Most people at that time saw themselves as citizens of their states first and citizens of America second. That local government was perceived, rightfully so, as more responsive to the voters, so the Founders saw that as where more governmental powers should be. It was all written in plain English, and even though these kinds of updated-language books really just make me want to go back to the originals, I thought the book provided a very clear idea of the way the writers of the Constitution thought. Were people in better tune with these ideas from history, I think, some of today’s political questions might not be so big and today’s politically driven contention might not be so intense.
In The Original Argument: The Federalists’ Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century by Glenn Beck with Joshua Charles (ISBN: 978-1-4516-5061-7), an attempt is made at making history more accessible to the modern reader. The book is essentially a translation of the majority of the famous Federalist Papers from the archaic language of the XVIII century to more en vogue English. It’s still very high-level stuff, but it is simplified. A good comparison might be a King James Bible and a New English Bible. Glenn Beck has inserted some explanatory material at the beginning of each section (the papers are not presented chronologically, but in groups based on their major theme(s)) and in an infobox-like page for each paper. The Federalist Papers were written, mostly by Alexander Hamilton, but also by James Madison and John Jay, in an effort to support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which provided for a stronger central (federal) government than what the Articles of Confederation had. They are considered to be invaluable because of the insight they provide into just what the Founding Fathers thought when they wrote the Constitution. The book was a great read, although not something that was necessarily easy to get through. The reader’s brain really must be fully engaged to get through the argumentation of the concepts that were so basic to America’s beginnings. It’s really a book that one studies more than simply reads. The commentary was interesting, but, for me, quite secondary to actual text of the papers. I checked on a few occasions how closely what I was reading aligned with the originals, and it seemed to be good, but there is no way I can guarantee that for the entire, rather thick, book. I thought the principles behind the Constitution were brilliantly argued. As I read, there were a couple instances where I didn’t think I agreed, but there were plenty of those for the people in the U.S. at the time, so I am really no different. Many of those who were in favor of the Constitution had reservations, but they recognized that it was as close as it was going to get to being perfect and did provide a solid, inspired foundation for our country. In the vast majority of cases, I agreed with the arguments. It was interesting to note, though, how different the Founding Fathers’ vision of government was from what we have now. The federal government’s roles and powers were severely limited. National-level bureaucracies like the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency were not part of the plan. The Founders abhorred taxes. They recognized them as a necessary evil to pay for the recognized powers of the government, but otherwise they hated taxes. They were religious men, who recognized the hand of God in our affairs (and those few who weren’t had no problem with those who were expressing those views and living according to their consciouses, even in the public arena). They valued the rights of local governments. Most people at that time saw themselves as citizens of their states first and citizens of America second. That local government was perceived, rightfully so, as more responsive to the voters, so the Founders saw that as where more governmental powers should be. It was all written in plain English, and even though these kinds of updated-language books really just make me want to go back to the originals, I thought the book provided a very clear idea of the way the writers of the Constitution thought. Were people in better tune with these ideas from history, I think, some of today’s political questions might not be so big and today’s politically driven contention might not be so intense.
| This work, including all text, photographs, and other original work, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 License and is copyrighted © MMXIV John Pruess. |
Visions of Freedom: Wilford Woodruff and the Signers of the Declaration of Independence by Michael de Groote and Ronald L. Fox (ISBN: 978-1-60861-227-7) is a book about Wilford Woodruff’s visions (he had two of them on this subject) and the men that appeared to him. The first part of the book discusses the history behind modern vicarious ordinances in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (anciently, the Bible contains
Putin’s Olympics: The Sochi Games and the Evolution of Twenty-First Century Russia (ISBN: 978-1-315-81728-6) is a book by Robert W. Orttung and Sufian N. Zhemukhov that brings both of those interests together. It takes a deeper look than the usual press on the subject at the Sochi Olympics and their greater context in Russia’s domestic and international politics. The book looks at the problems surrounding the hosting of the Olympics in Sochi, which included corruption, a marginalization of civil society, problematic international relations, and the relation of security during the Olympics and its connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The viewpoint of the book was from that of the Olympics being something the authors defined as a “mega-project” and how Russia’s rulers, especially President Putin, tried to use that to their own advantages, both personally and to bring Russia’s standing up on the international stage. The authors come to what I consider mixed conclusions, noting that the Sochi games were secure, did result in much-needed infrastructure upgrades in Sochi, and, from Putin’s standpoint, his position was secured because Russians saw the Olympics as a positive for their country, although, as the Shenderovich quote above notes, this is not necessarily a good thing. On the other hand, the successes came at a great price, both monetarily and in prestige internationally, where Russia was hurt by the scandals surrounding the games.
Hero of Hacksaw Ridge: The Gripping True Story That Inspired the Movie (ISBN: 978-1-629131-54-2) by Booton Herndon is an abridged version of the story of Desmond Doss, a medic who served in the U.S. Army during World War II and saw action in the Pacific theater as the army advanced on various Japanese positions. What makes the story unusual is that he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and not once during his training or active duty did he use arms since he was a Seventh-day Adventist and believed it was wrong to bear arms. The story chronicles his time in the military from his joining to his discharge after being wounded in action in Japan. Doss is unwaveringly strong in his religious convictions, including an extremely temperate and patient attitude with those around him. He displays great faith in standing up for his beliefs when those around him threaten him and ridicule him at every opportunity. He doesn't hold a grudge when it comes time to perform his duty, and more than once wile fighting in the Pacific, he helps and saves the lives of others, usually at great risk to himself. The story ends with what truly are “gripping” details of battles on Okinawa where he saved likely around 100 lives while himself being injured. He is then awarded the much-deserved medal and is able to return to civilian life. The book also includes a post-script with information about Adventist beliefs (many are similar to those held by members of the
To do that, I read the Qur’an (ISBN: 978-0-19-953595-8), translated by Abdel Haleem. The Koran (there are lots of possible spellings for this) is Islam's holy book, purported to be a recording of revelation given to the prophet Mohammed (lots of spellings for his name, too). It focuses on the nature of God as the only God, as opposed to idols, pantheons of pagan gods, or even God as Christians know him, the Father of Jesus Christ. The Koran talks about Mary and Jesus, but Jesus is not God’s Son. It talks about Muslims’ duties to the poor and orphans. It discusses the afterlife and the resurrection. It warns evildoers against their course of action. There are some details about domestic life, finances, and there is the well-known injunction to prayer, which results in the call to prayer that happens five times a day wherever there is a functioning mosque. There are some instructions regarding Muslims’ dealings with non-believers, or infidels.
Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War (ISBN: 978-0-679-76389-5) by Peter Maass is a collection of notes from the author’s time in Bosnia & Herzegovina as a journalist during the Bosnian War, but since the stories are all told from his point of view, it reads like a memoir. There isn’t a lot of continuity, and it just jumps from one story to another, but roughly follows the timeline of the war. The bit of continuity that is there is Maass wondering how people can forget so easily the need to respect those around them. The stories are very real and personal, as Maass interacts with fellow jouranlists, soldiers on both sides, government officials, and what would normally be called everyday people, but can’t be in this situation because there was no such thing as normalcy in the Bosnian War. Maass interviewed a Serb sniper, Bosnian soldiers, dealt with a Serb checkpoint — ultimately unsuccessfully, had Christmas dinner with a Croat family in Sarajevo, experienced what it was like to be under attack while in a gas station, and was, like most who dealt with the Bosnian War, flabbergasted by the impotence of the so-called world superpowers to get anything accomplished in Bosnia. His account holds nothing back and it presents the war in all of grizzly horror that is war.
Gulliver’s Travels (ISBN: 0-14-143949-1) by Jonathan Swift is an interesting novel that was originally published as political satire. Now far removed from the contentious political scene of XVIII-century Great Britain, it has withstood the test of time and continues to be popular. This is mostly thanks to the first part of the book, where the book’s hero, Lemuel Gulliver, visits Lilliput, home to a humanoid race only inches tall. Gulliver has a number of adventures in this part of the world, including participating in a battle and putting out fires, which saves the island’s royalty. He also ends up being trapped in some distant land where the inhabitants are giants, which also provides for some adventure, but mostly being carried around in a box by a girl. Gulliver’s third voyage features a few different islands and a people who have figured out how to live on a machine that perpetually floats in the sky, landing only if the inhabitants are trying to crush the people on the ground below. Finally, Gulliver finds himself in a land where the ruling inhabitants are horses. The most inferior race in this quarter of the world are essentially humans, but in a wild and feral form. In each place, Gulliver is exposed to differing methods of government and people. He seems to learn from each, although always very patriotic when it comes to his homeland. Finally, after his visit to the land of the horse beings, he is disgusted with mankind, claiming it to not think and to be disgusting and wild in nature.