A review of Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

Long before I watched this film, I watched another PBS documentary about Benjamin Franklin. This earlier film was by Muffie Meyer, who has made a few documentaries for PBS. These included “Alexander Hamilton,” “Dolley Madison,” and “Liberty! The American Revolution.” The Muffie Meyer film is an excellent film in its own right, which is some three hours long. This Ken Burns film is even longer: some four hours long. But I had low expectations going into this Ken Burns film. That is, Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson” was practically a hatchet job on Mr. Jefferson. Specifically, among other things, it had great emphasis on the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s slaveholding. I actually agree with a number of their criticisms of Jefferson, but still found their take on him to be excessively negative. Thus, I was expecting to get the same kind of treatment in this later film about Benjamin Franklin. And, at first, it seemed like this film would be in the same vein as Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson.” But, surprisingly, I ended up liking “Benjamin Franklin” a lot. I may like Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” even better than Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin.”

A review of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”

I am a big fan of the original “Cosmos” TV series, made by Carl Sagan in 1980. Thus, when I heard that there was a 2014 reboot of the series, I had great interest in seeing it. It turned out to be not as good as the original series, although the newer series had its moments, and justified the cost of the purchase.

A review of PBS's “Influenza 1918” (American Experience)

“I had a little bird
Whose name was Enza,
I opened the door
and ‘in-flew-Enza.’ ”

– A popular ditty sung by children, at the time that the deadly epidemic was still going on

Two-thirds of a million Americans died from a deadly influenza strain called “Spanish flu” …

In the United States, more than two-thirds of a million Americans died in an influenza epidemic in 1918 – a particularly deadly strain of it that Americans call the “Spanish flu.” This is more American deaths than from all of the wars of the twentieth century combined. As a percentage of our population, we didn't lose as many people in World War One as many of the other nations did. For some other nations, World War One was actually more devastating than the flu epidemic. But the Spanish flu (not to be confused with common flu) was a worldwide epidemic, and killed comparable percentages of the population in many other nations. Nonetheless, this documentary focuses on the United States, as you might expect from a series calling itself “American Experience.” They show the full horrors of the Spanish flu epidemic, and bring them to life for a generation that have seldom heard of them.

A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)

The greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history (the Black Death) …

It is still the greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history. Some estimate that the plague killed 30 percent of the European population, but many others place it around 50 percent. To many Europeans of this time, the apocalyptic Plague seemed like “the end of the world,” and there may have been reason for them to see it this way. No war has ever killed as many people as the “Great Plague” did, and the death toll was easily numbered in the millions. Small wonder, then, that this massive outbreak of the fourteenth century is sometimes known simply as “the Plague,” as it is called in this documentary's title.

How did the Cold War lead to the Space Race?

“Poyekhali!” (“Let's go!”)

– Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, at the moment of the Vostok 1 rocket launch that first sent him into space

An anecdote about the German rocket scientists, and whose sides they were on in the Cold War

At the end of World War II, it turned out that the best rocket scientists in the world were in Nazi Germany. As Nazis, these scientists had been using their skills to send V-2 rockets tearing into London (and other Allied cities). But after the war, they would be drafted into the rocket programs of their respective conquering nations, and end up using these rockets for more peaceful purposes. The lucky ones worked for the Western Allies, and particularly for the Americans. But some of them were in East Germany, and thus had to work for the Soviet Union instead (a somewhat harsher fate). For both sides, these German scientists would form the core of their future rocket programs, and thus participate in the Space Race on one side or the other of this coming conflict. The boundaries of the Cold War – which went through postwar Germany – thus decided which side they were on in this conflict, and many of them would rather have chosen the West if they'd been able to do so. The Space Race was thus destined to be an integral part of this coming Cold War.

Wernher von Braun, one of the most famous of the German rocket scientists (who was on the American side)

A review of the BBC's “The Story of Maths” (by Marcus du Sautoy)

“Maths is the true language that the universe is written in – the key to understanding the world around us.”

– Marcus du Sautoy, in the conclusion of this series

In America, we often shorten the word “mathematics” to just “math.” In Britain, they retain the pluralization of “mathematics” to make it “maths,” even when shortening it in this way. Thus, no one from Britain would ever be likely to say just “math,” and would probably consider it an Americanism that would sound a little strange to them. But whatever you call it, I've been tutoring people in the subject since 2012, as a professional “math” tutor (and I am an American, as you may have guessed from my spelling of this word).

Some thoughts about math education

“4 out of 3 people struggle with math.”

– A joke of unknown origin

As some of you know, I've been a professional math tutor since 2012. This is the first post where I've really talked much about my job. (I may or may not do others on this subject.)

A review of “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” (PBS Empires)

“To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness. Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence.”

– Dedication of Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532)

When people today think of the “Italian Renaissance,” they usually think of accomplishments in the arts and sciences – or sometimes, philosophy. They would not often think of power politics, or the squabbling among the Italian city-states of the time. But this era was marked by ferocious power politics in Italy, which created great turmoil on the Italian peninsula. Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” was the product of this time, and so was its disturbing view of ethics and politics. There was much to fear for Italians of this time.

The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained from banking

During this time, one family in particular rose to prominence in Italy – and more specifically, in Florence. In its heyday, this family produced kings, queens, and even three popes. That family was, of course, the Medici; but it did not start out as a royal family. Rather, it made its name through banking; and amassing wealth by means of the private sector. The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained in this way. They actually started out their ascendancy as a family of Italian merchant-bankers, and continued to be such even during their political rule. They were among the earliest bankers in Europe, and were great pioneers in the banking industry. Their depositors stored their money in the “Medici Bank,” and the Medici then loaned out this money to people who needed it. The interest from these loans actually brought great wealth to the Medici family, and allowed them to pay some small interest to their depositors as well. It helped to create the family fortune, which brought them to political prominence in Italy. Money was often the greatest weapon in the Medici arsenal, and was a great driver of the politics of the Renaissance (as it was for every other era of human history).

Cosimo de Medici, the Italian banker who became the first of the Medici dynasty

Reflections on studying the history of languages (and how they change over time)

So I recently read a book called "Historical Linguistics" (3rd edition), by Winfred P. Lehmann, which talks about the way that languages tend to change over time, and the way that modern scholars investigate this change. There's a strong emphasis on methodology in this book, but there are enough historical examples from actual data that I felt like I learned some interesting historical content as well - particularly from the regions I'm currently interested in most, which are the various parts of Europe. (Although there is a significant amount of content from India as well.) I feel like I learned a lot from the book.

The textbook that I read

The difference between skepticism and close-mindedness

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

Open-mindedness is defined as a "read[iness] to entertain new ideas" (which is positive)

It's long been fashionable for people in the Western world to claim they are "open-minded," and so this is claimed even by people who are not that way at all. (No one says with pride that "Yeah, dude, I'm closed-minded!") Yet closed-mindedness seems to be as common as it ever was, with people refusing to entertain any number of ideas they don't agree with. But what does it mean to be "open-minded," anyway? The website of Princeton University defines the word open-minded as "ready to entertain new ideas," and this seems to me to be appropriate. How does one know if an idea is false, if one has not heard it? (Or in the words of the Princeton definition, "entertain[ed]" it?) How does one know if they will like this food, if they haven't tried it? And how does one know if this idea is wrong, if they haven't heard it out?

Aristotle

A review of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage”

"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be ... "

- Opening lines of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage"

Let me start out with an up-front disclaimer that I am not an expert on natural science. I am a layperson when it comes to this subject, as I have never even taken an introductory class about astronomy. But expertise in the subject matter is not required to enjoy this documentary, as my love of it demonstrates. This is a good documentary for laypeople as well as subject experts.

This is not to say that I agree with everything that Carl Sagan says. He is both a liberal and an agnostic, which means that I disagree with him about politics and religion. But when he sticks to the science, his documentaries have much to offer. And his exposition of his views tends to be interesting, even when I do not agree with him. I have enjoyed classes from a number of liberals that I disagree with, and learned a lot from even the most far-out ones.

What history can tell us about economics

I've had a number of people tell me over the years that with my interest in history, I should have been a history teacher. Thus, it's often surprising for them to hear that I majored in business instead. I also got a certificate in economics, which might likewise seem very different from history. And it's quite true that economics and history are two very different majors. But there is actually some overlap between the subjects - more than you might think - and so your average economics class has more history content than one might suppose.

What is the overlap between history and economics?

What is the overlap between these things? In short, there are two main areas where they intersect: the history of economics, and the economics of history. The history of economics is the history of economic thought - or the history of the social science of economics, and how people have attempted to find answers to important questions about economics. It has roots going back far before Adam Smith, but the modern social science of economics began with this great individual's magnum opus in 1776 - a book called "The Wealth of Nations." It is one of the great books of history (up there with Isaac Newton's Principia), and it has had an enormous influence on the way that people think about economics. (Here's my blog post about it, if you're interested.)

Adam Smith

The economics of history is about historical case studies in economic policy

The economics of history, on the other hand, is about the various economic problems that societies have faced; and their various attempts to find solutions to these problems. History is rife with economic case studies that show us which policies work and which ones don't. A good economist tries to learn from these lessons of economic history. I have talked about the history of economics in a number of posts, so I will instead focus this post on the economics of history - about the economic case studies that my classes have talked about, and about what history has to offer us in the way of practical experience with economic policy.

Why is my stats class so focused on bell curves?

I would wager that many a student has taken a statistics class, and been introduced to bell curves without having the slightest idea why they're used. That was me, to some extent, when I took my first statistics class. I was told they were useful, and was willing at the time to take their word for it. But it was not until a second statistics class, many years later, that I learned why bell curves are used.

Some fun facts about our solar system

Most of us know that the years on other planets seldom (if ever) correspond to the years on our own. Here are some fun facts about the years of our solar system's outer planets:

Adam Smith and the Pin Factory

"The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment, with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour. The effects of the division of labour, in the general business of society, will be more easily understood, by considering in what manner it operates in some particular manufactures."

- Opening lines of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (Book I, Chapter I)

If your parents have ever divided household chores among you and your siblings, then you know what the division of labor is. So-and-so mops the floor, so-and-so does the vacuuming, and so-and-so cleans the toilets. (Lucky for them, huh?) The labor gets divided among multiple people, with each person getting a certain kind of task.

The concept is not a new one, and labor has been divided among several people for centuries. But it was not until comparatively recently that its advantages were systematically explained. The Scottish economist Adam Smith explained it well more than 200 years ago, and his words about its importance still have relevance today. There are advantages to dividing the labor, and these advantages have great importance for society. So with that in mind, I will now turn to what he said about this concept.

Adam Smith

Why Adam Smith is still relevant today

" ... every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

- Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," Book IV, Chapter II

People still talk about Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" to this day

People still talk to this day about an economics book that was published in 1776. And though the year I'm talking about is rightfully associated with America, this book was actually published by someone in the mother country that we were then at war with. Adam Smith (the author of this book) was a Scotsman, which meant that he was also British.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

Historical note: Adam Smith sympathized with the American Revolution

But his views about the American Revolution were actually fairly sympathetic to the Patriot side. He favored giving the American colonies either representation in Parliament, or independence from the mother country. (For evidence of this, see this blog post.) Because I discussed this subject at length in my other blog post referenced above, I will not go into it further here. Instead, I will now launch into my discussion of his political and economic ideas, and how they apply to our world today.

Adam Smith

My positive experience with psychology

One of the great surprises of my education was how much I liked psychology. This would have surprised me in my younger days, as I thought of psychology in terms of counseling and clinical psychology - things that I would not have been good at. To be sure, those things are a part of psychology, but psychology was so much more than that, something I little suspected in my youth.

My love-hate relationship with economics

"Let's start with what economics isn't.  Economics isn't a meal ticket to make lots of money in the stock market, although economics helps you understand how stock markets and other markets work. Economics also isn't a business degree, although economics teaches important business skills. Economics, first and foremost, is a social science.  As such, economics helps to explain the mysteries of how people and society operate ... Economics is defined as the study of how people choose to use their scarce resources in an attempt to satisfy their unlimited wants."

- A webpage that influenced my decision to study some economics in college

I did not fall in love with economics, the way that I fell in love with history and politics. This is not to say that I didn't like the subject, but it didn't excite me in the same way. There are parts of it that I find quite fascinating, and others that I find quite boring. But it is definitely one of my interests, and I'll talk a little bit here about my love-hate relationship with economics.

Benjamin Franklin: Renaissance Man

"I may as well confess it, since my denial of it will be believed by nobody ... perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own vanity. Indeed, I scarce ever heard or saw the introductory words, 'Without vanity I may say,' etc., but some vain thing immediately followed. Most people dislike vanity in others, whatever share they have of it themselves; but I give it fair quarter wherever I meet with it, being persuaded that it is often productive of good to the possessor, and to others that are within his sphere of action; and therefore, in many cases, it would not be altogether absurd if a man were to thank God for his vanity among the other comforts of life."

- "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin," section covering 1706-1757

Few men epitomize the concept of the "Renaissance Man" better than Benjamin Franklin. He achieved great success in many different fields; including the occupations of being a writer, journalist, postmaster, scientist, and inventor. He had a great wit, and had a persuasive ability that was part logical argument and part masterful diplomacy. And his achievements as a statesman are notable even by the lofty standards of America's Founding Fathers.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert about his life, but after watching a three-hour PBS documentary about him, I was inspired to read his famous autobiography. I have read it cover to cover, and "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" is now one of my favorite books. It was one of the first American books to be taken seriously by Europeans as literature.

Why I am against a minimum wage (or a maximum legal price for healthcare)

It seems like the most charitable of things to do: to legally set a minimum level of earnings for workers, or a maximum price of healthcare for consumers. These two things might not seem connected, but they are each a form of the same thing: price controls.

If people understood the laws of supply and demand, I wouldn't have to explain why price controls are bad. But because our education system has been so deficient in teaching this concept, I feel I must do so now.