Steve Harris
  • Home
  • About
  • Courses
  • Research
  • Other Sites
  • Contact
  • Condemned to Repeat It

Five Blog Years

8/29/2025

1 Comment

 
Five Blog Years

Next month marks the fifth anniversary of my first blog essay. That makes the tally almost 250,000 words (the size of a good-sized book). In my initial pieces, I took on the nature of History (critiquing Santayana’s famous quote) and wrestled with how the COVID pandemic was an unsurprising manifestation of the long-term process of globalization. Since then, I’ve talked about democracy and the US Constitution, a variety of international relations issues, questions of law, and the difficulties of modernity. I’ve reflected on my own life, work, and travels, the state of the nation and the world, and tossed in a few recommended book lists. It’s been fun and I plan to continue.

To mark this auspicious anniversary, I’ve looked back over this mass of output and, with the help of a (friendly, if sometimes hallucinatory) AI called Google’s Notebook LM, consolidated and restated what I’ve said. Over the next month, I will post these recapitulations in four installments:

Sept. 5—Personal Reflections, The Interpretation of Truth, Proposals for Change
Sept. 12—The Modern World, Critiques of Modernity, The Nature of History
Sept. 19—Democracy and Governance, The State of States, Imperialism and Nationalism
Sept. 26—The 20th Century, Climate Change

While you’re more than welcome to read all of the backlist, these essays will hopefully capture the more important and interesting perspectives in a reasonably succinct manner, even if—as a partial product of AI—they may lack some of the dynamic wryness of my usual prose. 

It’s been an interesting experience to review and edit the AI’s output. In part to study how it works, but more for the self-reflective aspect; seeing what I’ve said, how consistent I’ve been, and how my ideas have evolved over time.

This week, by way of introduction, I attach two lists, the first contains all the books and thinkers whom I’ve referred to over the past five years. The second contains all the dated events I’ve referred to. Neither is “curated” (at least not intentionally), but they may spark some interest in digging deeper. In particular, the latter is not a “history of the world,” since it, too, was not consciously generated and offers no interpretation of our past. It does, however, provide an interesting set of points along the way, much in the way of looking up at the stars and constructing constellations and stories to go with them.

As ever, I appreciate your attention and encourage comments and questions, whether posted or private.

Thx, smh

1 Comment

Sources and Authors

8/29/2025

0 Comments

 
 here is a comprehensive list of the books, articles, and authors referred to:


Asimov, Isaac
    * The Feeling of Power:   "AI, vay! Is the Borg coming* Is resistance futile*" 
      on August 6, 2021 and "Duelling AIs" on May 23, 2025
    * The Foundation (series/trilogy):   "The Laws of History" 
      on December 4, 2020 and "Revival of the Fittest" on May 6, 2022
    * The Last Question:   "Duelling AIs" on May 23, 2025
    * Nightfall:   
• Bakewell, Sarah
    * How to Live:   "How To Live" on July 14, 2023
• Beard, Charles
    * The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:   "History and Truth" on June 25, 2021
• Bobbit, Phillip
    * The Shield of Achilles:   "Global Wars of the 20C" on December 15, 2023
• Bradbury, Ray
* The Martian Chronicles: "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022 and “Calculators: July 25, 2025
• Bricker and Ibbitson
    * Empty Planet:   "A Democratic Crisis" on October 9, 2020
• Card, Orson Scott
    * Ender’s Game:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
    * Speaker for the Dead:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
    * Xenocide:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Carlyle, Thomas
    * On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History:   "Vox Polluli" on June 10, 2022
• Carson, Rachel
    * Silent Spring:  “The Word for Our World is Forests” on December 24, 2020
• Chiang, Ted
    * Exhalation (collection):   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
    * Stories of Your Life (collection):   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Clark, Christopher
    * Revolutionary Spring:   "These Revolutions Were Not Televised" on February 16, 2024
    * The Sleepwalkers:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Clarke, Arthur C.
    * 2001:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022 and “2525” on January 17, 2025
    * Into the Comet:   "Duelling AIs" on May 23, 2025
• Darnton, Robert
    * The Great Cat Massacre:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Defoe, Daniel
    * Journal of a Plague Year:   "Journal of a Blog Year.3" on September 15, 2023
• Dickens, Charles
    * David Copperfield:   "Entitlements" on September 8, 2023
• Diderot, Denis and d'Alembert, Jean le Rond
    * The Great Encyclopédie:   "A History of the Future" on April 15, 2022
• Elmore, A.E.
    * Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:   "Gettysburg" on July 2, 2021
• Fermor, Patrick Leigh
    * A Time of Gifts:   "Uncharted Territory" on April 12, 2024
    * Between the Woods and the Water:   "Uncharted Territory" on April 12, 2024
    * The Broken Road:   "Uncharted Territory" on April 12, 2024
• Grossman, Vasily
    * Life and Fate: "Stalingrad" on May 10, 2024
    * Stalingrad:   "Stalingrad" on May 10, 2024
• Harari, Yuval
    * Sapiens:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Herbert, Frank
    * Dune:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Hirschman, Albert O.
    * The Passions and the Interests:   "The Nature of the State" on April 26, 2024
• Hitler, Adolf
    * Mein Kampf:   "The Fire This Time" on July 11, 2025
• Hutchinson, Dave
    * Europe in Autumn (first of “Fractured Europe” series):   
      "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Jemison, N.K.
    * The City We’ve Become:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Kahneman, Daniel
    * Noise:   "Thinking Fast and Slow" on July 30, 2021
    * Thinking Fast and Slow:   "Thinking Fast and Slow" on July 30, 2021
• Kay, Guy Gavriel
    * Children of Earth and Sky:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Kelly, Amy
    * Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings:   
      "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Kennedy, Paul
    * The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:  
       "The Laws of History" on December 4, 2020 and 
      "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• King, Carole
    * Tapestry (album title used as metaphor):   "Tapestry" on June 21, 2024
• Le Guin, Ursula K.
    * The Left Hand of Darkness:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
    * The Wizard of Earthsea:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Liu, Cixin
    * The Three Body Problem:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Maier, Charles
    * Consigning the Twentieth-Century to History:   "Uncharted Territory" on April 12, 2024
      and in "When Does History Become Ancient" on September 6, 2024
• Mandeville, Bernard
    * The Fable of the Bees:   "Smith, Sieyes, and Darwin" on August 5, 2022
• Mann, Charles
    * 1491:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
    * 1493:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Mantel, Hilary
    * Wolf Hall (trilogy):   "Historical Fiction and History" on June 18, 2021
• Marsh, George Perkins
    * Man and Nature:   “The Word for Our World is Forests” on December 24, 2020
• Mazlish, Bruce
    * In Search of Nixon: A Psychohistory:   "Unspoken Assumptions" on February 2, 2024
• McNeill, John
    * Mosquito Empires:   
      "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021 
      and "Vox Polluli" on June 10, 2022
• Mieville, China
    * Perdido Street Station:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Miller, Walter
    * A Canticle for Liebowitz:   "Revival of the Fittest" on May 6, 2022
• New York Times (NYT)
    * 100 Years from Now, This is What We’ll Say Got Us Through the Pandemic":   
      "The Fallacy of Instant History" on April 14, 2023
    * article on increased distribution of English-language novels:   
      "Linguistic Empire" on August 30, 2024
    * article on exploitation of sugar workers in India:   "Drugs in History" on April 12, 2024
    * article on the Chinese Communist Party’s clamp down on entrepreneurial spirit:   "Entitlements" on September 8, 2023
    * article on the harmful effects of El Nino weather pattern:   
      "Entitlements" on September 8, 2023
• Older, Malka
    * Infomacracy (first of “Centenal Cycle”):   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• O’Brien, Phillips
    * How the War was Won:   "Vox Polluli" on June 10, 2022
• Orwell, George
    * 1984:   "Little Brother is Watching" on March 25, 2022
• Pope Pius IX
    * Qui pluribus (encyclical):   "Too Early to Tell" on August 27, 2021
• Scott, James
    * Against the Grain:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Scott, Walter
    * Ivanhoe:   "Historical Fiction and History" on June 18, 2021
• Shakespeare, William
    * Richard II:   "This Sceptered Isle" on May 16, 2025
• Shapin, Steven
    * Leviathan and the Air-Pump:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
    * The Scientific Revolution:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr
    * The Gulag Archipelago:   "Stalingrad" on May 10, 2024
• Stephenson, Neal
    * The Baroque Cycle:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
    * Seveneves:   "Revival of the Fittest" on May 6, 2022
    * Snow Crash:   "A Few Good SF Books" on January 28, 2022
• Tolstoy, Leo
    * War and Peace:   "Historical Fiction and History" on June 18, 2021
      and "Stalingrad" on May 10, 2024
• Tuchman, Barbara W.
    * The Guns of August:   "A Few Good History Books" on September 17, 2021
• Vinge, Vernor
    * Technological Singularity:   "Age Expectancy and Horizons" on January 14, 2022
• Wilkerson, Isabel
    * The Warmth of Other Suns:   "Great Migration" on June 13, 2025
• Wills, Gary
    * Lincoln at Gettysburg:   "Gettysburg" on July 2, 2021
• Yates, Frances
    * The Art of Memory:   "Duelling AIs" on May 23, 2025



Authors/Thinkers/Figures cited or quoted:
• Adams, John, John Q, and Charles
• Agnew, Spiro
• d'Alembert, Jean le Rond
• Allman Brothers (The)
• Arendt, Hannah
• Aristotle
• Arne, Thomas
• Asimov, Isaac
• Ataturk, Kemal
• Attila
• Augustine
• Bacon, Francis
• Bakewell, Sarah
• Banks, Ian
• Bazalgette, Joseph
• Beard, Charles
• Biden, Joe
• Bismarck, Otto von
• Bloch, Ivan (Jan)
• Bloom, Harold
• Bobbit, Phillip
• Bolsonaro, Jair
• Bradbury, Ray
• Braverman, Suella
• Brennan, Justice William
• Bruce, Lenny
• Bryan, William Jennings (implied reference to Scopes Trial/anti-evolution)
• Burke, Peter
• Cain
• Caillaux, Henriette
• Card, Orson Scott
• Carlyle, Thomas
• Carson, Rachel
• Carville, James
• Cerda, Idelofonso 
• Chaing, Ted
• Charles I
• Charles III
• Cher
• Chou En-lai
• Churchill, Winston
• Cicero
• Clark, Christopher
• Clarke, Arthur C.
• Cromwell, Oliver
• Cronkite, Walter
• Cronon, William
• D’Agostino, Tony
• Darnton, Robert
• Darwin, Charles
• Defoe, Daniel
• De Gaulle, Charles 
• Deighton, Len
• De Maistre, Joseph
• Dickens, Charles
• Diderot, Denis
• Douglass, Frederick
• Duterte, Rodrigo
• Eden, Anthony
• Einstein, Albert
• Eliot, T.S.
• Elmore, A.E.
• Erdogan, Tacip
• Farage, Nigel
• Fermor, Patrick Leigh
• Fidel Castro
• Ford, Gerald
• Ford, Henry
• Foucault, Michel
• Franklin, Benjamin
• France, Anatole
• Frommer, Arthur
• Fussell, Paul
• Gandhi, Mohandas 
• Gerry, Elbridge
• Getz, Trevor
• Godel, Kurt
• Gore, Al
• Graf, Jim
• Gray, John
• Grossman, Vasily
• Harari, Yuval
• Hartley, L.P.
• Hayakawa, S.I.
• Hegel, G.W.F.
• Heisenberg, Werner
• Herbert, Frank
• Henry VIII
• Hirschman, Albert O.
• Hitler, Adolf
• Ho Chi Minh
• Hobsbawm, Eric
• Hume, David
• Hutchinson, Dave
• Huxley, Aldous
• Ibbitson
• Irving, David
• James II
• Jefferson, Thomas
• Jemison, N.K.
• Joll, James
• Jones, Charles
• Kahneman, Daniel
• Kant, Immanuel
• Kay, Guy Gavriel
• Kelly, Amy
• Kennedy, John F.
• Kennedy, Paul
• Khan, Ghengiz
• Kierkegaard, Soren
• King, Carole
• Kissinger, Henry
• Koch, Robert
• Kurzweil, Ray
• Le Guin, Ursula K.
• Lenin, Vladimir
• Lewis, Sinclair
• Lincoln, Abraham
• Linnaeus, Carl
• Lippmann, Walter
• Lister, Joseph
• Liu, Cixin
• Locke, John
• Louis XIV
• Louis Napoleon
• Luther, Martin
• MacCulloch, Diarmaid
• Machiavelli
• Madison, James
• Maier, Charles
• Mandela, Nelson
• Mandeville, Bernard
• Mann, Charles
• Mantel, Hilary
• Mao Zedong
• Marsh, George Perkins
• Marx, Karl
• Marx, Groucho
• Mazlish, Bruce
• McNeill, John
• Mieville, China
• Miller, Walter
• Mohammed
• Montaigne, Michel de
• Montesquieu
• Musk, Elon
• Mussolini, Benito
• Napoleon Bonaparte
• Nehru, Jawarhalal
• Newton, Isaac
• Nietzsche, Friedrich
• Nixon, Richard
• O’Brien, Phillips
• Older, Malka
• Orban, Viktor
• Orwell, George
• O’Sullivan, John
• Pasteur, Louis
• Patton, George
• Pence, Mike
• Piketty, Thomas
• Pinker, Steven
• Pius IX, Pope
• Plato
• Power, Samantha
• Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph 
• Putin, Vladimir
• Raleigh, Sir Walter
• Ranke, Leopold von
• Reagan, Ronald
• Renan, Ernst
• Robinson, Kim Stanley
• Robespierre, Maximillian
• Rock, Chris
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
• Sackler (family)
• Sandel, Michael
• Santayana, George
• Sartre, Jean-Paul
• Scott, James
• Scott, Walter
• Scott, George C.
• Serling, Rod
• Shakespeare, William
• Shapin, Steven
• Shelley, Percy Bysshe
• Sieyes, Emmanuel
• Smith, Adam
• Smith, Will
• Snow, John
• Solomon
• Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr
• Stalin, Joseph
• Stephenson, George
• Stephenson, Neal
• Streisand, Barbra
• Sunak, Rishi
• Sun-Yat-Sen
• Swift, Taylor
• Tojo, Hideki
• Tolstoy, Leo
• Toqueville, Alexis de
• Truman, Harry S.
• Tuchman, Barbara W.
• Turchin, Peter
• Vinge, Vernor
• Victoria, Queen
• Voltaire
• Wallace, George
• Washington, George
• Webb, Jack
• Weber, Max
• Welles, Orson
• Weyrich, Paul
• Wilhelm II, Kaiser
• Wilkerson, Isabel
• Wilson, Woodrow
• Wills, Gary
• Woods, Rosemary
• Wordsworth, William
• Yates, Frances
• Zager and Evans (musical duo)
• Zoroaster
• Zuckerberg, Mark


0 Comments

Timeline

8/29/2025

0 Comments

 
As a thought exercise, skim through the following list and construct (in your head) a history of human civilization out of just these items. What do you have? What have you learned?

Actually, this is just a list of the dated events I’ve talked about over the past five years (according to my AI de jour). The many events to which I have referred without associating a particular date are not included. The list is of course pretty spotty as a consolidated history of just about anything. It is, nonetheless, a great illustration of the “constellation problem” in history (i.e., we find a bunch of data points and then construct a story around them). In other words, the list says more about me (the blog author) and about Notebook LM (the AI) than about “what actually happened” and what’s significant. 

Pre-10th Century
* Thousands of years ago: Indigenous people (mostly Inuit) inhabit Greenland.
* Before 20th Century: Hundreds of ethnic groups, chiefdoms, and polities exist in Africa before European imposed nation-states.
10th Century
* 10th Century: Norse explorers, including Eric the Red, arrive in Greenland, bringing it into the European orbit.
11th Century
* 1066: William sails from Normandy and takes over parts of Britain.
* 11th Century (Mid): Geoffrey of Monmouth writes his account of the legend of King Arthur.
* 11th Century: China develops paper money.
13th Century
* 13th Century: Greenland becomes part of Denmark.
* 13th Century: Tintagel Castle is built in Cornwall, England, on the site of the King Arthur legend.
* 13th Century: Salisbury Cathedral is built in Salisbury, England.
* 13th Century: Europe develops paper money.
14th Century
* 1300s: The Black Death.
15th Century
* 1453: Gutenberg invents the printing press and publishes his Bible, revolutionizing information distribution.
* 1453: The English lose the Battle of Castillon to the French, effectively ending the Hundred Years' War.
* 1453: The Ottoman Turks conquer Constantinople, forcing Europeans to seek new routes to Asia.
* 1453: Donatello completes a significant statue in Padua, marking a starting point for the Renaissance.
* 15th-20th Century: European powers engage in conquest and exploitation of indigenous peoples in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
16th Century
* 16th Century: Early Modern Europe sees the emergence of capitalism and the coherent, bureaucratic "State."
* 16th-17th Century: European wars of religion take place, following the Protestant Reformation.
* 16th Century: The Ottoman Empire conquers Palestine and surrounding areas.
* 16th Century: Concept of "common carriers" as a regulatory model emerges in England.
* 1526: This year marks 250 years before the Declaration of Independence, a time of the Protestant Reformation and Magellan's journey.
17th Century
* 17th Century (Late): John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, is a major statesman and military commander in England.
* 17th-19th Century: Rise of the modern nation-state, characterized by territoriality, decline of feudalism, rise of nationalism, and advancements in surveying/mapmaking.
* 17th Century: Louis XIV famously declares "L'etat? C'est moi!" ("The state? It's me!").
18th Century
* 18th Century: The concept of "the political" as distributed power among a "public" emerges.
* 18th Century: Inter-imperial fights between France and Britain leave Britain in charge in North America.
* 18th Century: The Enlightenment flourishes in Europe, promoting reason and human understanding.
* 1774: The First Continental Congress convenes, an initial effort by British North American colonies to address tensions with Britain.
* 1776: The Declaration of Independence is adopted in the US.
* 1784: Immanuel Kant publishes his essay "What is Enlightenment?".
* 1787: The US Constitutional Convention is held in Philadelphia, crafting a new governing document.
* 1789: The French Revolution begins, marking a shift in ideology from religious to political.
* 1790s-1800s: The young American republic faces foreign policy crises, including President Jefferson's embargo on trade with Britain (1807).
* 1791-1815: The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars occur in Europe.
* 1795: Condorcet publishes ideas about human-driven progress, animating much of European "civilization."
* 1798: Malthus publishes his concerns about population growth outstripping food supply.
19th Century
* 19th Century: Development of demographics as a science, driven by population growth concerns.
* 19th Century: Rise of "social Darwinism" in international relations.
* 19th Century: Urban planning emerges, initially focused on remedying existing problems.
* 19th Century: Modern discipline of History arises in response to increased social change and inadequacy of Scripture-based narratives.
* 19th Century: Nationalism spreads across Europe, leading to the unification of Italy and Germany and independence movements in the Balkans.
* 19th Century (Early): British pioneer a "new style" of informal empire in Latin America and India.
* 1805: Tolstoy's "War and Peace" begins its narrative, set during the Napoleonic Wars.
* 1812: Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia begins.
* 1812: The War of 1812 between the US and Britain.
* 1815: Napoleon is exiled to St. Helena. The Congress of Vienna establishes the "Concert" of European Great Powers.
* 1848: A wave of uprisings and revolutions occurs across Europe.
* 1850s-1860s: Italy unifies as a nation.
* 1850s (Late) - 1875: Joseph Bazalgette oversees the construction of London's comprehensive public sewage system.
* 1851: The Great Exhibition (first "world's fair") is held at the Crystal Palace in London.
* 1857: Indian uprising against British rule.
* 1859: Charles Darwin publishes his work on evolution, challenging notions of divine intelligent design.
* 1860s: Britain adopts a new model of empire, granting increasing autonomy to Canada.
* 1860s-1870s: Germany unifies as a nation.
* 1860s-1910s: Christian components of the Ottoman Empire gain independence in the Balkans.
* 1864: George Perkins Marsh publishes "Man and Nature," raising concerns about human impact on the environment.
* 1869: Tolstoy publishes "War and Peace."
* 1870: French fight Germans.
* 1870s: British wring their hands over the "Bulgarian horrors" in the Ottoman Empire.
* 1880s: Computer technology begins to impact phone systems.
* 1895: H.G. Wells publishes "The Time Machine."
* 1890s: Isaac Newton, as Master of the Mint, attempts to curb counterfeiting.
* Late 19th Century: The US extends its reach beyond its shores, picking up the torch of empire from Britain.
20th Century
* Early 20th Century: Cell phones burst onto the scene.
* Early 20th Century: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is established (1909).
* Early 20th Century: Terminology for mental conditions like "moron" and "imbecile" are considered scientific.
* Early 20th Century: Rise of "futures studies," scenarios, and efforts to conceive of potential future developments.
* 20th Century: Bureaucratic practice spawns a great volume of memoranda documenting conversations.
* 20th Century: Europe faces significant challenges: two World Wars and the Great Depression.
* 20th Century: The "short 20th century" ends with the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
* 20th Century: The US becomes a global power, but its dominance is anomalous in historical context.
* 20th Century: Many countries gain independence from European empires, leading to the creation of micro-states.
* 1905: Einstein publishes his theory of relativity. The (first) Russian Revolution occurs.
* 1906-1968: Britain maintains a protectorate over Swaziland.
* 1908: The Young Turk revolt attempts to modernize the Ottoman Empire. Oil is discovered in Iran.
* 1911: The Standard Oil Company is broken up due to antitrust laws.
* 1912: China experiences a revolution, ending the Qing Dynasty.
* 1914: WWI begins with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
* 1915: T.S. Eliot publishes "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." The Armenian Genocide occurs.
* 1916: Coleridge's poem "Kubla Khan" is published.
* 1917: The Russian Revolution occurs, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union.
* 1919: Lincoln Steffens visits the new revolutionary Soviet state, proclaiming "I have seen the future and it works!"
* 1920s: Jazz music becomes an important part of the US music scene.
* 1921: Our house on Filbert Street is built.
* 1922: Mussolini comes to power in Italy, initiating a radical agenda through legal means.
* 1923: Hitler's failed "Beer Hall Putsch."
* 1925 (July): Mein Kampf is published.
* 1927: Heisenberg proposes the uncertainty principle.
* 1930s: British and French political leaders rationalize accommodation with Hitler due to fear of another war.
* 1930s: Social Security is established in the US as part of social policy restructuring.
* 1931: Dominions like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa are more or less recognized as independent states.
* 1933: Hitler comes to power in Germany, initiating a radical agenda through legal means.
* 1935 (September): Hitler promulgates the Nuremberg Laws.
* 1938: Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast causes panic. Hitler marches into Czechoslovakia. Oil is discovered in Saudi Arabia.
* 1939: WWII begins in Europe.
* 1940 (May): Hitler invades France.
* 1941: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, leading to US entry into WWII. Hitler gratuitously declares war on the US.
* 1944: IBM's Mark I computer is developed.
* 1945: ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) is developed. WWII in Europe ends.
* 1945-1971: The British Empire disaggregates, with over forty new countries gaining independence.
* 1947: The UN begins its trusteeship model.
* 1949: China experiences a communist revolution.
* 1950: The US has 6% of global population and 28% of global GDP.
* 1950s-1970s: The "Space Age" spawns science fiction and optimism.
* 1951-1955: Winston Churchill serves his second term as Prime Minister.
* 1956: Isaac Asimov publishes "The Last Question."
* 1956: British invasion of Egypt during the Suez Crisis.
* 1957: Gold Coast becomes independent as Ghana.
* 1958: Isaac Asimov publishes "The Feeling of Power."
* 1959: The Cuban Revolution occurs.
* 1960: A movie version of "The Time Machine" is released.
* 1960s: General commercial mainframes become available. China and India begin a series of "low-level" fights.
* 1960s (Mid): Anniebell Shepherd joins my family’s household as a servant.
* 1960s (Late): Race riots occur in Detroit and other US cities. Distinctive rock music hits emerge.
* 1962: Rachel Carson publishes "Silent Spring," raising environmental concerns.
* 1964: ATT Picturephone is a highlight of the World's Fair. The Supreme Court rules in Reynolds vs. Sims ("one-man, one-vote" rule). Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
* 1965: Winston Churchill dies at age 90.
* 1969: The song "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans is a hit.
* 1969-1982: A "great bulge" of inflation occurs, averaging over 5%.
* 1970s: Our friend Karma grows up in the village of Bemji, Bhutan. Latest round of terrorism flourishes.
* 1972: Don McLean's "American Pie" is at the top of the charts.
* 1973: Monarchy in Afghanistan is overthrown in a coup.
* 1974: The Ford Administration's Justice Department sues AT&T under antitrust laws.
* 1976: I get my first first new car. The US Bicentennial celebration of American independence is held.
* 1979: The Iranian Revolution occurs.
1980s
* 1980s: Personal computers (PCs) become widespread. The Falklands War occurs.
* 1982: I was Special Assistant to the General Counsel of the FCC when the AT&T break-up plan is announced.
* 1983-1998: I worked for AT&T and Pacific Telesis Group.
* 1984: AT&T's break-up is implemented. Pacific Telesis Group secures a license for cell phone services in Los Angeles for the Olympics. 
* 1984: Upper Volta changes its name to Burkina Faso.
* 1985: Orson Scott Card publishes "Ender's Game."
* 1987: I move to San Francisco to Pacific Telesis Group headquarters.
* 1988: "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," a film mixing live and cartoon characters, is released.
* 1989: The World Wide Web is developed.
1990s
* 1990: Fall of Communism.
* 1991: Inflation is over 4%.
* 1992: Neal Stephenson publishes "Snow Crash," creating the concept of the metaverse.
* 1993: Vernor Vinge writes "Technological Singularity," forecasting superhuman intelligence within 30 years.
* 1994: We buy our current house.
* 1995: The Oklahoma City bombing occurs.
* 1996: The last major telecom legislation is approved in the US.
* 1997: Hong Kong is returned to China by the British.
* Mid-1990s: Anniebell Shepherd stays working for the narrator's family.
21st Century
* Early 21st Century: The "English Empire" of language permeates global cultures.
* Early 21st Century: US military actions occur in Afghanistan and Iraq.
* 2000-2005: Many of my latest SFSU students are born.
* 2002: Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report" uses AI capabilities to foresee and prevent crimes.
* 2003: William Gibson states: "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."
* 2004: NASA's Mars Rover "Spirit" begins its mission.
* 2005: Ray Kurzweil publishes "The Singularity is Here," popularizing the concept of technological singularity.
* 2008-2009: Financial institutions face a debacle, leading to a shift in their fortunes.
* 2009: Discovery of 23,000-year-old human footprints in New Mexico.
* 2009-2013: Obama "surge" in Afghanistan, increasing US troop levels.
* 2010: Official US government term for "mental retardation" changes to "intellectual disability."
* 2011: Siri is introduced. The Arab Spring uprisings occur.
* 2012: Obama declares the use of chemical weapons in Syria a "red line." The average price of a new car is $30k.
* 2013: The Boston Marathon bombing occurs.
* 2014: The British Library celebrates the 100th anniversary of WWI with ceramic poppies at the Tower of London. The narrator makes a third visit to Bhutan. NASA's Mars Rover "Opportunity" begins its mission.
* 2016: Theresa May declares "Brexit means Brexit." The Brexit vote occurs in June. Mitch McConnell "stiff-arms" the Merrick Garland nomination.
* 2018: Swaziland changes its name to Eswatini. The NYT reports on 13,000-year-old human footprints in North America.
* 2020 (January): Final agreement on Brexit.
* 2020 (September): The Blog begins.
* 2021: COVID-19 pandemic impacts the world. Inflation rises. MAGA-ites involved in January 6th events.
* 2022: A clear majority of British voters indicate support for rejoining the EU.
* 2022 (July): World population reaches 8 billion.
* 2022 (September): Boris Johnson resigns, Liz Truss takes over as PM.
* 2023 (January): Satirically, SpeakerGPT is "elected" Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
* 2025 (June): Greenland plans an independence referendum.
* 2025 (July): Mein Kampf's 100th anniversary of publication.
* 2029: Proposed "Emergency Action and Government Efficacy Restoration (EAGER) Act" to address political damage.
* Mid-21st Century: AI-designed and produced video series are expected.
* 22nd Century (Late): Expected problematic legacy of current and prior generations on the world.
* 2525: The year referenced in the song "In the Year 2525."


0 Comments

Intellectual History

8/22/2025

1 Comment

 
Even for a registered historian, I’ve read more than my share of “intellectual history.” It’s a term (according to one intellectual historian) that refers to “the study of intellectuals, ideas, and intellectual patterns over time.”  I’ve read books that range from (the extravagantly abstruse) “An Atheism that is not Humanist Emerges in French Thought,” to (the recent, charming, and accessible) “Humanly Possible” (Sarah Bakewell’s survey of humanism).

As a historian who wrestles with issues around democracy, nationalism, and the state, I guess I qualify to some degree as an “intellectual historian.” I still vividly recall a class in Modern European Intellectual History that I took at Brandeis in about 1975 in which Prof. Izenberg held me in rapt attention for most of a semester. My head was spinning with the ideas of Marx, Nietzsche, Rousseau, Burke, and Sartre (to name just a few). 

However, I’ve long had trouble with the concept of “intellectual history” on several fronts. First, it has a tendency to turn into an abstract jousting of ideas from the “great thinkers” of different eras and cultures without regard to the vastly different contexts in which those ideas were developed. This sort of “dueling philosophers” history all too often ignores that Virgil and Adam Smith faced very different lifestyles when they each wrote about what we might now call “economics.” Current intellectual historians use such set-ups more to demonstrate their own dexterity and sophistication than to say much useful about either one. Historians, even “intellectual historians,” can’t ignore context.

This used to be a bigger problem than it is in the last few decades. A movement (the “Cambridge School” as it’s known in the trade) argued very hard and generally successfully that language—the specific words used by the subjects of intellectual history (e.g., Plato’s references to “the people”) had to be read in context and that their meaning typically migrated over the decades/centuries. To compare and connect Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Carl Schmitt requires some serious work to parse the meaning of (e.g.) “democracy” in a particular time and place.

Speaking of language, intellectual history is also susceptible to getting caught up in jargon. Such esoteric language sometimes sounds impressive, but quickly becomes more about demonstrating the author’s erudition than with actually communicating something meaningful to the reader.

More fundamentally, intellectual historians all too often conflate the ideas they’re studying with the broader culture from which they emerge. For example, studying the insights of David Hume (18C Britain) is all well and good. He was a really smart guy (and, apparently, quite charming). An active participant in what we now call the “Enlightenment,” he challenged a raft of commonly-held ideas about politics and religion. However, the literacy rate in his neighborhood was still in the low double digits and even fewer had the time, money, and inclination to read philosophical texts. So, to hold Hume out as an exemplar of the broader culture of mid-18C Britain is quite deceptive. Similarly, Gianbattista Vico, a Neapolitan of the early 18C, wrote a highly insightful book (“The New Science”) in 1725, but it wasn’t translated into German or French for a century, and so had limited impact on the Enlightenment (Hume would have been quite interested). In terms of intellectual history Ie.e., the actual transmission of ideas), then, Vico might belong more to the 19C than his own 18C.

One of the underlying causes of this approach to history is that smart, intellectual historians tend to focus on, write about, and (perhaps) overestimate the significance of smart intellectuals from the past. It’s a bit too much of the guys in the club patting themselves on the back, as if only “intellectuals” (remember, this is a very small group even today!) could be a source of important ideas. Instead, we might reflect that considering that the ideas and beliefs of the (great unwashed) masses of people (who, by the way, didn’t have the time to write books) actually constitutes a better assessment of the culture. It is (almost literally) superficial. It’s as if an alien spacecraft were to survey the Earth, note that 70% of the surface was water and conclude that we lived on a watery orb, when in fact, water constitutes only .02% of the total mass of material in our planet. 

At one level, discovering who was the first to publish an idea is an important historical function (remembering that 1) he (almost always a “he”) was not necessarily the first to think that idea, and 2) even if someone else came up with the idea and wrote it down, unless it was preserved over the centuries we wouldn’t know about it). From another perspective, it’s as if we were only measuring high tides, not the overall average water level (to run another maritime metaphor). There is ample evidence that human culture takes a long time to change, and the distance from the creation of an idea to its widespread acceptance is often a matter of centuries. “When (if ever) did the great bulk of Europeans (or Africans for that matter) believe in the second coming of Jesus?” seems far more important than when some late antiquity synod made such a declaration. Ditto for democracy; folks have been talking about it for 2500 years (+/-), but as we look around, there’s only intermittent evidence that it has sunk in.

Of course, it’s hard to know what the unlettered and unpublished think. So the focus on the few who did think (and publish) is one way in which history falls prey to the fallacy of availability as a substitute for significance. The flip side of this last point is that we have to remember that most intellectuals were writing to other intellectuals, not to the unlettered. Grand ideas of utilitarianism, socialism, epicureanism, etc. are fine for those who choose to wrestle with them; but most folks don’t. Most folks don’t have the time/interest/preparation to engage in such pursuits. (it’s one reason intellectual history so often seems disconnected from the periods in which such ideas were broached). 

With rare exceptions (e.g., Marx-Lenin-Russian Revolution), it’s usually pretty hard to track ideas directly and immediately into the “real” world where most folks don’t get beyond working and living and eating. But, even if we can’t pin the significance of ideas down very much, we feel certain that they’re important (especially if we’re already intellectual).



1 Comment

True AND False

8/15/2025

1 Comment

 
As we all know from experience, the normal answer set on tests is: “True OR False,” but that’s a forced, reductive, set of options. It’s indicative of a culture that insists on categorization and classification and, most importantly, grasps for the certainty of binary options. As we also all know from experience, real life is almost always more complicated than that.

We like to think that some overarching truth is out there and, for a long time in many cultures, religious belief provided that sensibility and comfort. For many people today, it still does. However, for many more, religious beliefs—particularly those around gods, creation, and teleology—have been discarded. Much of that space has since become occupied by science and (to some degree) history, but neither is fully satisfying. Some critics have pointed to this gap as demonstrative of the hollowness of modernity and have attributed all sorts of moral and cultural emptiness/ennui/angst to it. They’re not wrong.

A considerable amount of leading-edge intellectualizing in the late 20C went into ideas of “deconstructionism” or “post-modernism,” emphasizing the artificial nature of these narratives of modernity. In some of my talks about the nature of history, I have joined them, at least to the extent of pointing out that of the quadrillions of historical “facts” out there (e.g. “Henry VIII had six wives,” “Jefferson owned slaves,” “Colin Powell told everyone that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction,’” or even that “Jesus preached”) one can construct multiple themes of connection or narratives and that they reflect the stance and beliefs of the historian overlaid on top of the raw historical facts. 

These narratives are not false, but they’re not uniquely true, either. Only a secondary part of their value lies in their “truthiness” (to use Stephen Colbert’s felicitous phrase); their main purpose is to provide us with a means of ordering the world and quieting our existential fear of chaos. For a while, constellations of stars met this purpose; after all, the three stars of Orion’s belt are actually nowhere near each other, they just look that way from where we’re standing).

Scientific narratives/theories are no different. Indeed, the premise of modern science is that we compile a bunch of data and observations and come up with a theory that makes sense, until we stumble across other information which belies that. Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” was all about the messy and contingent ways in which those models (narratives) change. So, there’s actually no claim to definitive truth in science, merely “here’s the best story we have so far.”

Even when a new model comes along, it takes a while for folks to come to terms with it; especially for non-scientists and especially when the old theory seems to work well enough. Protestantism wasn’t born in a day. A hundred years after relativity and quantum theory, almost all of us a more than content to live in a Newtonian world which—despite its fundamental inaccuracies—seems to work well enough in our daily lives. As to both history and science, we seem comfortable living in a world which is described falsely (or, at least, not entirely truthfully). [No small part of the current political disconnection in the US and many other places arises from sharp differences about which narrative to use in connecting the raw data of current life.]

Thus, while it is easy to say that we should “stick to the facts,” or live “in the real world,” or exalt the “truth,” no one actually does.  I draw two conclusions from this. First, a bit less of the all-too-common “holier-than-thou” attitude towards other’s narratives wouldn’t be a bad thing. Second, in turn, maybe a bit less emphasis on “truthiness” in general would be helpful. Science and History are supposed to be humble and tentative by nature and their adherents should theoretically find this an easier step. However, religion is not the only site of dogma and many such traditions also stress an openness and toleration of other views. 

Beyond that general stance, we need to take into account the essential human need for some mode of narrative to cope with the apparent nonsensicality of the universe. The deconstructed science or History may be more accurate depictions of “reality” than our more familiar (“undeconstructed”) narratives, but if we’re unhappy at a personal level and our societies are fracturing as a result, I have to ask if it’s worth it. My college’s motto (Brandeis U. ’76) is: “truth, even unto its innermost parts;” exemplary of the modern, Enlightenment-inspired, mentalité; which is all well-and-good, … eventually. Just as it’s arguable that we need a bit less acceleration of technology, so we may need to slow down our digestion of “truth,” to a socially and psychologically manageable pace. It won’t do our civilization any good to be “right” and extinct.



1 Comment

1776

8/8/2025

0 Comments

 
Three weeks ago, I talked about the significance of the year 1453 as a landmark in European history and how it fit into my periodization of “Early Modern Europe” for a course I’m currently giving. Today, I’m going to talk about 1776, less as an end point of that elusive concept of “Early Modern” Europe than as an illustrative year, a point at which the differences from 1453 can be more clearly seen and enable us to see the extent of the changes only vaguely foreshadowed in the 15C.

I won’t reiterate my discussion of periodization generally, merely note that there’s less debate about the end of the period than there is about the beginning. Of course, the very phrase “Early Modern Europe” presupposes the existence of a “Late Modern Europe” and the need to demarcate the two. Traditionally, that demarcation is carried by the French Revolution and the beginning of the period of rapid global economic and technical development usually labelled the “Industrial Revolution.” Even if we use the storming of the Bastille (July 14, 1789) as a convenient marker for the former (it arguably ran for ten (some say twenty-five) years), there is no comparable date for the increased changes in industrialization which began in England. Those changes were demonstrably incremental and cumulative and, so, isolating one step along the way (even the launch of Watt’s famous steam engine) is somewhat arbitrary.

One of those incremental steps in Watt’s engine development did occur in 1776 when a reasonably mature design went into production. As with Donatello’s 1453 sculpture and the Renaissance, this development is illustrative of a larger phenomenon: continual improvement, interconnection of technologies, and a fundamental shift in the relationship between human labor and things produced. Still, that’s not the principal reason why I picked that particular year to illustrate the end of an era.

Speaking to an American audience, I naturally have to go with the Continental Congress’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 as one key development of that year. Of course, no one knew then whether the noble sentiments in Jefferson’s essay would come to fruition (indeed, whether the members would all be hung within a year!). But, despite precarious circumstances, things (more-or-less) worked out and we’ll all be ready for the big 250th bash next year. In terms of impact, the creation of a new entity—a republic! and a modestly democratic republic at that—which came to become a political role model and the leading global power for the last 100 years is sufficient reason for inclusion. The unlikelihood of a French Revolution in the following decade without the success of American independence underlines its global impact, not to mention the reinvigoration of the British Empire having seen off this challenge.

A few months before the action in Philadelphia, Adam Smith in Edinburgh published a massive tome entitled “The Wealth of Nations,” part of a robust period of intellectual development which we call the Enlightenment. It had a critical impact in creating not only the modern science of economics (then called “political economy”) but also in becoming the theoretical touchstone of the mode of organizing business and trade which we call “capitalism.” Smith’s work is among those which are far more cited than read and, as with the other examples cited for 1453 and 1776, cannot be fully appreciated without contextualizing them amid their interlocutors. As with Watt and Jefferson, while they might recognize their progeny in the world of today, they could not have imagined the paths which we have taken to get here. As with all important thinkers and doers (Columbus and Marx come to mind, not to mention Jesus), we can’t hold them personally responsible for what subsequent thinkers and doers did in their names.

Still, leaving Smith personally to the side, his 1776 publication is an excellent marker for the domination of capitalism (i.e., an epistemology which is based on calculation, money, and efficiency) across the modern globe. 

Those paths—capitalism, industrialization, democratization—are the core of the story of modernity—in Europe and around the world. The demarcation of the “early modern” and “late modern” periods is thus one of recognition of the starting points of the latter; sufficiently recognizable as driving the past 250 years as they are clearly products of an earlier age.

The last item on my list for 1776 is the third voyage of James Cook, the British naval officer and explorer who left Plymouth, England that July (before word had arrived from Philadelphia) and whose crew returned over four years later (he was killed in Hawaii). This imperial expedition was not just about conquest and glory, it also embraced the acquisition of knowledge of the natural world and the shape of the planet. Moreover, Cook, himself, seems to have been at least somewhat aware of the European tendency towards arrogance and domination vis-à-vis the indigenous peoples with whom he interacted. Cook’s legacy was another illustration of the Enlightenment and the European exploration of the world. He sought (and brought!) a degree of order to our understanding of the shape of the world, with detailed maps and observations. It was a fitting capstone, 250 years after, to Magellan’s initial circumnavigation and a fitting foundation, 55 years in the future, to Darwin’s voyage and his own reconceptualization of our world. 

The strands to and from each of these are multitudinous and thick. They highlight that the historian’s effort to compartmentalize the past into manageable chunks of chronology is inevitably arbitrary and often distorting, even if often convenient and practically necessary.

In the midst of what seems to be a tumultuous and striking year, it’s good to remember that we don’t know at the time (and maybe for a long while later) what will prove to be epochal and what will come to be seen as transitory. 

0 Comments

Tip of the Iceberg

8/1/2025

0 Comments

 
Who cannot recall being told at some point that 90% of an iceberg is underneath the waterline and that we therefore can only see its proverbial tip? We are cautioned thereby not to conflate appearances with reality—whether we are talking about physical realities or more ethereal concepts and proposals.
 
The same is true of course for the very oceans in which the aforementioned icebergs sit (float?). There’s about 139 million square miles of oceans on this planet, with an average depth (according to reliable (?) AI sources) of 12,100 feet. By my rough calculation, that means that more than 99.99% of the water is more than 10 feet deep (we’ll call it roughly 318 million cubic miles). So, if we’re looking for metaphors for the discrepancy between appearance and reality, we’re better off using the oceans rather than the icebergs, even if (at least since the Titanic (1912)) icebergs present a more dramatic threat.
 
While that 99.99% number is likely to go up a tad with the advent of global warming and glacier melt, this is not basically a blog on hydrology, so I will get to my point which is, as usual, more in a historical and sociological vein.
 
One of the basic challenges in any project of historical research and understanding is that we are usually at risk of conflating the evidence we find with the facts of what actually happened. When reading an ancient text, there are always issues of authors’ bias (Can you really rely on Caesar’s assessment of Gaul or Cheney’s assessment of WMD in Iraq?), crumbling documents, and the absence of tape recordings of the debates at the Council of Trent (mid-16C). But more to the point is the historian’s bias (and discipline of History’s bias) towards written records. This is often described as the “streetlamp problem” (A drunk loses his car keys. A policeman accosts him as the drunk searches for them under a streetlamp. When asked where he lost them, the drunk points to a spot fifty feet away. “Well then, why are you looking over here?” “Cuz this is where the light is!). In other words, historians do our research where there are documents, regardless of what the full set of historical causes might be. As a result, history tends to overemphasize rationales supported by written evidence and, importantly, by those who wrote those documents.
 
This is a problem since for most of historical time, those records were produced by elites and by males in particular. Since literacy was pretty limited until the 19C, this severely skews our sources, making it difficult, for example, to fully understand the experience of African slaves, female servants, or the vast majority of humanity that spent their time as agricultural workers. Thus, R.G. Collingwood, the mid-20C English philosopher of history, had it wrong when he said that “all history is the history of ideas.” By defining the entire field according to the recorded output of a small fraction of the people who participated in that history, we have left a lot on the table. We can guess and infer and interpolate (and often do!), but most of the past is unrecoverable (even if X-ray scanning microscopes can now read the charred remains of scrolls from Pompeii) and there isn’t much to be done about it.
 
A variant of this problem arises in the field of “intellectual history” or the “history of ideas” faces this issue in spades. I will return to this topic in a few weeks, but this sub-field in particular tends to conflate the most intellectual slice of society for the whole of a culture, much like our oceanographic example above.
 
A parallel problem arises in considering the state of modern democracy. Much of the theory of democracy (whether from intellectuals or more common pundits) tends to assume a society of these self-same intellectuals. The concept gets idealized and when you insert the great mass of ordinary folks who not only don’t know or care about Aristotle’s ideas but aren’t even interested in the latest heat wave killing people in their city or their tax bill.
 
Yet, democracy is built on the aspiration of an informed and engaged electorate.  The theory assumes that we’re all bright, well-read, and civic-minded. But a key part of the problem with fixing this type of problem with political structure is that it relies on the same perspective with which I started today: that of conflating the top ten feet of the ocean with its entire depth. Democratic theory has been created by a collection of smart and usually well-intentioned people who project their own interests, capabilities, and morality onto the population as a whole. If I truly believe that the best society is governed by the collective determination of each adult, then I have to take those folks as they are. I can’t make them into intellectuals or virtuous people and assume that a proper democratic system will thereby run its due course, inching towards perfection. I have to allow not only for different tastes and political priorities, but also for and respect different levels of engagement. Democratic theory can’t be well built on foundation that not only presumes, but mandates that its citizens bring education, engagement, and commitment to the resolution of our shared issues.
 
American designers of democracy (aka the “Founding Fathers”) were aware of this, of course, and built a system that kept the great masses at some distance from comprehensive power. Over the past 250 years, many of those systemic features have been eroded, mostly in the past 50 years (e.g., too much money in politics, hypermedia hoopla, superannuated office holders, partisan primaries). There is a whole raft of other problems with contemporary democracy, to be sure, but most are (relatively) easily fixable if we can deal with the underlying premises.
 
History and democracy are but two aspects of this problem of focusing on the “tip of the iceberg;” much of our culture (and media!) pays little attention to ordinary folks unless they make a particular effort to be heard.
 
 
 
 

0 Comments

    Condemned to Repeat It --
    Musings on history, society, and the world.

    I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

    Archives

    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020

      Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

      Enter your email address and click 'subscribe.'
    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly