Historical fiction is like time travel. The reader gets to visit another time and place, meet new people, share their lives, and experience their hardships  and joys. Best of all, at the end we can retreat safely to the comforts of the present, better informed and a little wiser. In her first novel, Cushing, Marylou Miner makes the trip a luxurious one with her rich, flowing prose and lush turns of phrase.

Set against a formative period in Canadian history, 1850-1934, the story follows real events. Using Cushing, Quebec, as the foundation of her novel, Ms Miner shows us the power of place in all our lives. Opening the book is the unfortunate end to an unpleasant man.  It is not until the final chapter that our suspicions are answered  about how and why and by whom.  In between, the tale charts the triumphs and misfortunes of James and Annabelle Wallace and their four daughters over several generations . The unseen narrator moves the story along at a rapid pace, weaving among the actors and actions with philosophical asides on life and family.

Highly recommended

Available through Smashwords for all e reader formats

BUT I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND.

Last night’s State of the Union Address revealed a new Obama. Let’s call him OBAMA 2.0. The new Obama is a significant upgrade over OBAMA 1.0. Key features, included:

• He was positive
• He was passionate
• He provided a credible and coherent blueprint to restore the American economy and its people.
• He was the leader we’ve been waiting for

OBAMA 2.0 provides a roadmap for practical change we can believe in. His vision recognizes both the power and limits of markets. It recognizes both the power and limits of government. It recognizes most of all that it’s people coming together and working together that will fire the great American engine once again.

It provides a formidable alternative to the cartoon capitalism espoused by the aspiring Republican presidential candidates.

It’s a winning position.

Free speech is essential condition of a free society. But when does a major media corporation cross the line?

A useful case study is ABC’s interview of Marianne Gingrich, the embittered, angry, vengeful second wife of former Speaker of the House and Republican candidate for President  Newt Gingrich.

Consider the facts:

• The interview was aired January 19, 2012 two days before the South Carolina Republican Primary on January 21.
• The interview did not contain new information. Marianne Gingrich has hung out her version of Newt’s dirty laundry from their nasty divorce in the 1990s before - notable to Esquire magazine in 2010. It is clear the marriage ended badly. Most of us know that the narratives of couple who have split up are heavily coloured by emotion rather than fact. And to a person it is a self-serving narrative.
• No facts were presented beyond the fact that Marianne Gingrich is a living testament to the truth that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Was the public interest served? Only in the sense that it revealed ABC inserting itself into the political process. It is now a participant, not an independent observer, not an honest reporter. It was attempted character assassination by the woman, aided and abetted by ABC. While her motives are obvious, ABC’s are not.

Is there a need for the public interest to be served by all media? Arguably not. The public interest is served in allowing free speech.

Is there a need for the public to be advised of the political interests of the network and program and/or moderator/participants? Arguably yes. Just as financial advisors are required to declare their connections with companies they promote, media participants should be required to declare their political connections.

Was ABC’s interest served? Probably not. Whatever the motivation for the segment, it clearly backfired.

Was democracy served? Not at all. ABC’s move reinforced a growing cynicism that the political system is not transparent and unknown players with power and/or money are manipulating it.

Homer tells us in graphic detail the horrors and brutality of war. When Achilles kills Hector, his soldiers gather round Hector’s dead body to gloat and stab Hector’s body themselves.

The Biblical story of David and Goliath show David desecrating the slain Goliath by cutting off Goliath’s head and holding it up to the Philistines in a show of defiance. After the Philistines ran off, David took Goliath’s head back to Jerusalem. For his efforts, Yahweh made David King of Israel.

Obviously Piers Morgan has never read Homer or the Bible. Nor should he. He would be horrified.

When we ask people to kill for our country, we ask them to give up their humanity.

We take law-abiding citizens and transform them into soldiers with a license to kill the enemy. This requires the soldier to dehumanize another human so that they can kill them with a clear conscience. Once dead, the residual body is nothing more than a potential health hazard that must be discarded quickly.

A related story this week was Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who had been labeled by insurgents as “the Devil of Rahmadi.”  Chris made an appearance January 14, and signed copies of his new book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.” Chris has more than 150 kills to his name, and is the recipient of several medals for bravery, including two Silver Stars, and five Bronze Stars.

Why is Chris Kyle a hero for murder, while the four hapless marines urinating on dead Taliban may be facing charges?

How can we claim a dead body is more sacred than a live one?

What is the ideal?

Perhaps robot soldiers who kill living souls efficiently but then treat the corpse with tender loving care and send warm letters of condolence to family and friends.

happy family at School, Toronto

Great dinner at Simple Bistro.

Some blogs are well-focused, some are random reflections, some well thought out, some not.

Twitter has helped the blogosphere by providing a home to those of limited thought to reach out to those of limited attention span. Twitting is to communication what candy floss is to nutrition. Initially a quick hit, but, in the end, unsatisfying. Yet this is a welcome evolution in the blogosphere, because it implicitly reserves blogging to those who think before they speak, who want to reach out to those who reading appetite extends beyond the candy floss.

An economist by training, and whose interests are diverse and eclectic, the challenge for me is to develop a coherent terms of reference for my blog. Indeed, what attracted me to the discipline of economics was the balance of perspectives, the macro and the micro view of the world, the theoretical and the empirical, the political and the historical, all with a policy and problem-solving bent to help improve the world, a region, a country or a company, and arguably the individual. I share the view of John Maynard Keynes  that an economist “must be mathematician, historian, statesman and philosopher.” And he must write well enough to stir the imagination of lay readers. “Words ought to be a little wild,” he said, “for they are the assaults of thoughts upon the unthinking.”

I have finally discovered my inspiration in Benjamin Franklin’s Junto Society in drafting a terms of reference for my blog.

 In 1727, Benjamin Franklin convinced 12 of his friends to form a club dedicated to mutual improvement. Meeting one night a week, these young men discussed the topics of the day. The group lasted for 40 years and eventually became the nucleus of the American Philosophical Society.

Junto, pronounced who-n-toe, was a private forum for discussion and as a surreptitious instrument for leading public opinion. One of the functions of the group was to brainstorm publicly beneficial ideas.

Franklin described the Junto this way in his Autobiography

“I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had formed most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the JUNTO; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy [physics], to be discussed by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positive opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time”

The blogosphere offers a different sort of meeting place. The guiding principle for this blog is to develop essays on any subject or point of morals, politics, science or philosophy.

To frame the discussion beyond the guiding principles, Franklin set out 24 questions to act a guideline, which I have reduced to four

• What is the most interesting thing that you have read, seen or heard in the last month, particularly in the arts, sciences, humanities travels or other parts of knowledge?
• What is the most interesting thing you have learned about life in the last month based on the success or failure of persons or organizations?
• What social goal, strategy, policy or law is most in need of reform in order to improve general welfare of the community, region, country or world?
• What matters of practical ethics have come to your attention in the last month, including manners of living (temperance/intemperance, imprudence/prudence, passion, vice, folly/moderation, virtue, wisdom, actions) with both intended and unintended consequences?

The benefits of this approach for me are several. Developing an essays forces one to develop an argument in a logical and yet persuasive way. It forces one to test the initial enthusiasm they may have toward a subject and to place it before a public forum for comment and discussion. Even without comment, authors are one step ahead in their own development. Indeed, if my experience is not unique, the mind continues to examine an argument even if others do not, such that the author may ultimately challenge and evolve their own position. That others participate in any of several ways, to comment, to brainstorm, to disagree or discuss will further increase the benefits.