Ben-Hur: My favorite Hollywood movie of all time

"And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

- The New Testament, "The Gospel According to St. Luke," Chapter 23, Verse 38 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

It's well-known to my friends that I post a lot about documentaries, particularly about history. Thus, someone reading my blog posts might conclude that I don't like Hollywood movies as much, because I don't write about them very often. (I had only written two movie reviews at the time that this post was first published, but I have since written some others.) Actually, I'm a great fan of many Hollywood movies, and the main reason that I spend more time reviewing documentaries is because there are more history documentaries than history movies. (I may start reviewing some classic history movies, from Hollywood as well as the documentary world. More on that later.)

Fictional story with a historical setting ...

But my favorite Hollywood movie is actually not a history movie; because although it depicts real events, most of the characters are fictional; as this is based on a work of literature. Besides that, it depicts Bible events like Jesus's miracles, which lend themselves less to verifiable fact than other kinds of history - like certain areas of military history, where we can have verifiable data like numbers of troops, their positions during any given battle, and the tactical results of the engagement. I wish to make it clear that I believe in the reality of Jesus's miracles, but any media depicting them is not, in the strictest sense, a history. Rather, this is a work of cinematic literature, based on a literary work from the world of books. The movie is the 1959 classic "Ben-Hur," which was nominated for 11 Academy Awards. For me, this is the movie that most brings the New Testament to life.

Does communism cause poverty? (The two experiments that prove it does)

Karl Marx, the chief founder of communism

Does communism cause poverty? And how can this be tested?

Karl Marx

What counts as "testing"?

The short answer is "yes": it does cause poverty. But as far as testing goes, it depends on how you define "test." When hearing the word "experiment," most people have the mental image of a laboratory; but I should acknowledge in advance that experiments are hard to do in economics and politics. Even the possible ones usually require major government actions which may be unpopular, and people generally don't like to be guinea pigs. This is true of any experiment about whether communism has negative effects on prosperity.

Karl Marx

The experiments that no one wanted ...

So is there such an experiment? It turns out that there are two on a large scale, but not ones initiated by any government or university. They are natural experiments, or ones in which "the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature, or by other factors outside the control of the investigators." (source citation) While they were set in motion by human beings rather than nature, their purpose was not experimental at all; but the result of complicated political negotiations following a major war. Both sides in these negotiations - who had been allies during this war - would have preferred that their own system of government be established in the territories of their former enemies; but neither had the military power to do so for all those territories. The result was a compromise, which began two of the most epic natural experiments in the history of economics - two experiments neither side wanted, but which both sides got; and which clearly show a causal relationship between communism and poverty.

Yalta Conference, 1945

Potsdam Conference, 1945

Why the distant past isn't talked about

"One might also say that history is not about the past. If you think about it, no one ever lived in the past. Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, and their contemporaries didn't walk about saying, 'Isn't this fascinating living in the past! Aren't we picturesque in our funny clothes!'

"They lived in the present. The difference is it was their present, not ours. They were caught up in the living moment exactly as we are, and with no more certainty of how things would turn out than we have."

- David McCullough's "The Course of Human Events" (2003)

If you turn on the TV or go to a cinema, you'll most likely see movies and shows focused on the present. This is as it should be - the present should be lived in and understood. But one might assume from this that people aren't interested in history. To some degree, they aren't; but even though shows about the past are in the minority, you still see a sizable number of movies about World War II and other recent history. Once in a while, you even get a movie about some older history - anything from a John Adams miniseries or a Lincoln movie, to films about the Roman Empire or the Middle Ages.

But they're not as common as media about more modern history, like World War II or Vietnam. Even in the documentary world, talking about the more distant events is rare. Why is this?

The English Lesson

I don't know where I came across this poem, but I thought it was clever.

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

My love-hate relationship with computers

"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes, biology is about microscopes or chemistry is about beakers and test tubes. Science is not about tools, it is about how we use them and what we find out when we do."

- Michael R. Fellows, Ian Parberry (1993), "SIGACT trying to get children excited about CS," Computing Research News, January 1993

Those who first met me in my adulthood might be surprised to hear that I was once really into computers. In my generation, I was introduced to computers at a very early age, and I often enjoyed going to my dad's office to play with his computer. When our family got a computer at home, my sister still enjoyed going to my dad's work and being in his office, but my interest in this suddenly waned (as my dad often mentions with a smile). I decided to play with my computer at home instead.

Personality

I have long been interested in personality. I read an informal book called Please Understand Me when I was a young boy, which was a popular book on the subject of personality. When I became an adult, I found and read its sequel, and enjoyed that as well.

These treatments of personality are not as scientifically valid as some others, as people often test as a different type when they retake the tests. Nonetheless, in their informal way, these have been among the more valuable books I've read for understanding others.