DDickey

I work for this company. (My friend owns it.)

Wow. It actually makes so much sense now, that I happened to have been born on the most depressing day of the year. Talk about being born under a bad sign.

I think that's the problem. People are too obsessed with their own self interests. You hear it all the time when people confront prospective presidents: "But what are you going to do for me?" The government isn't here to do anything for us in the individual sense; it's only here to help us collectively. The government isn't here to hand-feed us, or to give us handouts. It's here to provide us with the security we need so that we can independently pursue life, liberty, and happiness. We are, after all, a Republic, not a socialist nation-state. Constitutionally speaking, the government doesn't have to give us anything. The Bill of Rights exist only so that they--specifically congress--can't detract from our pursuits. Our founding fathers were wary of the idea of a congress, feeling that, under the right circumstances, a congress can be as tyrannical as a dictator, hence the strong anti-congress language throughout the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall not," etc. Demanding handouts from the government, or demanding that individual politicians promise to fulfill our own self-interests is anathema to the founding principles of this country.

I don't think it is possible. The culture demands facetiousness. Voters want to be coddled. They want hand holding; they want to be pacified; also voters are solipsistic; they're not concerned with what they can do for our country; they're only worried about what our country can do for them. This mindset does not encourage honesty. It only encourages populist capitulation and deception. Also, religion: In America, roughly 90% of its citizens are theists; only 10% are atheists. But atheists are wrongly and ignorantly accused of being somehow morally or intellectually deficient because they don

That's the problem with Obama...he's a proven liar. Forgive a Brit poking his nose in, but I have yet to come across any politition - at all - who ISNT a proven liar! I hear that argument a lot. And, to be honest, calling it an argument is overstating its logic. Stating that all politicians are liars does not, in any conceivable way, excuse Obama. He is, as is often said, an avatar for change. How does he expect to facilitate change when, as I've previously pointed out, he is a proven liar--thus, as you've pointed out, marrying him to the culture of lying politicians that precede him? That, my friend, does not exhibit a desire to be new, a desire for change; it simply proves that he is in no way different or unique; that, contrary to what he says, he is no different, and there will be no change.

I've read most of Asimov's major Empire, Robot, and all of his Foundation books, focusing specifically on his works that shed light, so to speak, on the Foundation series--which can be tricky, of course, because in his later life Asimov tied in a large bulk of his science fiction books to the Foundation universe. I also read the Foundation trilogy approved by his estate and written by the so-called 'killer bees'--Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, and David Brin--and those books were, to me, deeply disappointing. I often, when recommending the Foundation series, expressly mention those books and only suggest reading them if, having read all of Asimov's work, one still hungers for the world created in Foundation. (By the way, for my money, The Mule from Second Foundation, is, without a doubt, the coolest character in all of science fiction.) Like you, I recommend the Foundation books to anyone interested in science fiction. I also recommend the Lensman series by E.E. "Doc" Smith. These novels, written in the late thirties, I believe, are generally considered to be the first space operas. They are fun stories filled with non-stop action, though they haven't, to a large part, aged well and seem fairly primitive in terms of hardcore science fiction. Still, they're great reads and an interesting insight into sci-fi's early beginnings. As for the Ace Doubles, I have a few, albeit more obscure sci-fi titles. I'd love to get my hands on a Philip K. Dick one. Speaking of obscure science fiction titles, have you ever read Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald? It's a post-apocalyptic tale written as a series of diary entries published in the late 50s. It's been out of print forever, and is extremely difficult to find, but it is a fantastic little gem of a novel. If you can find it--and haven't read it--definitely give it a read. As for Humanoids (With Folded Hands) by Jack Williamson: I haven't read it but I'll definitely add it to my amazon wish list. Have you read Rudy Rucker? He's a mathematician as well as a writer, and his books are so imaginative that they will, at times, boggle your mind--and I am not exaggerating. If you haven't read him, I recommend two books: Master of Space and Time and Frek and the Elixir. Like I said, both are wonderfully imaginative tales.

I liked Rubicon, I just felt that, for me, there wasn't as much analysis as I would have liked. But apparently I may not be in the majority there. I remember reading a customer review on amazon.com for Goldsworthy's Caesar in which it was stated that Goldsworthy's book didn't have as much historical analysis as Rubicon, of which I believe the opposite is true. As for Asimov: Yes! I encourage you to read his works. When I re-read them recently, I only re-read the original three books. There are a total of seven novels in the foundation series; I'm not certain which I would recommend, however; reading the original three or the entire series. Either way, they are fun reads, and I always encourage reading Asimov.

Yeah, these radical environmentalists can be scary. I've long contended that there's a race between environmentalists and fundamentalist theists over which group is going to wipe mankind from the face of the Earth.

If I'm not mistaken, this is based on a book that came out a year or two ago; the author is a radical environmentalist who thinks humans should be wiped off the face of the planet for the express purpose of returning nature back to 'normal,' whatever that means. Again, I could be wrong, though. When I have a free moment, I'll look up the author's name and book and verify the validity--or lack thereof--of my claims.

Thanks for the compliment!

Unfortunately I do own a television, but it hasn't been on since, roughly, a week before Christmas. I am a HUGE movie geek, and own hundreds of DVDs--in the previous years I was a professional film critic, which was nice because I received a lot of free DVDs--but lately my reading has become even more obsessive than normal; and more recently I've been working on a series of essays about the Roman Republic, particularly the magistracies, government, assemblies, constitution, etc.; so that has consumed all of my free time.

I'm a huge, self-proclaimed book nerd. I read dozens of books in 2006 and decided, late that year, to begin cataloging, so to speak, every book I read in '07. In the end I read 104 books, which, more or less, was about the same amount of books I'd read in '06--I'm assuming; I can't, however, verify that. I decided to post the list of books I read here just for the hell of it. 2007 Reading List: 1. The Young Hemingway

I've been listening to the History of Ancient Rome, and, man, I am not disappointed. It's pretty spectacular. I also order the lectures on the historical Jesus by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman and those, too, are pretty amazing. I'll definitely be ordering more lectures before this sale is over. I already have two or three that I'm eyeballing. I'd love to have the one on the history of the United States, which is a whopping eighty four lectures, but, even with the sale, it's still well over a hundred dollars.

That's the problem with Obama. I don't even think he knows what he stands for. He keeps saying he's going to bring change, but what the hell does that 'change' entail? He's been absent for most of his tenure as senator; his voting record is atrocious; and he's a proven liar. Shortly after being elected to the senate, he made his speech at the Democratic National Convention; that speech alone made him and thrust him into the national limelight. From then on people were talking about, and speculating on, his prospects as president. But he roundly rejected the notion and told Illinois voters that he would not even consider running for president until his tenure as an Illinois senator had ended. Instead, he's pretty much ignored his function as a senator for nearly half his tenure in office to run for president. He held the office of senator, it seems, not to try to make any 'changes' as senator, but simply to put it on his resume, so to speak, and use the office to try to propel himself to the White House. He is a man of fierce ambition and absolutely no substance. Listen to one of his speeches, and I mean really listen. He will talk for fifteen minutes and say absolutely nothing--which, granted, isn't exclusive to him; all politicians do it; but he's somehow exempt from that because people find him 'exciting.' Why do they find him exciting? No one really knows. They just know that he's different than other politicians. How is he different? Again, no one knows. Obama is all hype with no substance.

Has anyone downloaded lectures from iTunes U? First, they're free; you don't have to pay anything; no strings attached. Stanford University has a great ten part lecture on Hannibal available for download via iTunes. Each lecture lasts between one to two hours, with the majority averaging about an hour and a half. I recommend them if you haven't checked them out. There are a couple great lectures in which Hannibal's route over the Alps are heavily analyzed. Also, if anyone's interested, Standford also offers a fantastic ten part lecture on the historical Jesus.

I just started Pompey the Great: A Political Biography by Robin Seager. After that, I plan on reading The Roman Art of War Under the Republic by F.E. Adcock, which I picked up on eBay for two bucks.

I know I'm late here, but I've got a copy of Caesar's Women here. If anyone wants it, I'd be happy to send it out for the cost of shipping it. Message me if anyone's interested.

Thanks a lot. I took the plunge and ordered it. I'm also eyeballing a few of the lectures on Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman. I'm a huge fan of all of his books and would love to hear his lectures.

I noticed the calendar for January has only one event marked. Caligula was assassinated on the 24th of January. I only know this because that's my birthday. I didn't want to go in there and add it myself, because I didn't think it would be appropriate, so I thought I'd suggest adding it here. EDIT: Thank you for moving this. Again, sorry about that.

I, too, have been considering trying my hand at learning Latin. I did find this site, and I was wondering what any of you think about the texts they have.

Moderators: I wasn't sure were to put this post, so feel free to move it to the appropriate forum. The Teaching Company is having a sale on a lot of their lectures until the end of January. I've been thinking about scooping their History of Ancient Rome while it's still on sale. Any thoughts? Has anyone out there purchased/listened to these? Thanks.

I think without Octavian around, there would have been a possibility that Antony and Cleopatra

I see no mention of Polybius, of whom I'm a huge admirer. I heartily recommend his Histories, especially book VI, for his insights into the Roman 'mixed constitution,' and for his insight and observations of the Roman army in the second century BC. There is plenty of great material to be found in his books, which are heavily focused on the Second Punic War.

I’m currently reading “Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor” by Anthony Everitt and I am not impressed. Aside from his somewhat pedestrian writing style, his interpretation and use of some of the ancient sources is suspect. He sprinkles the text with rumors and gossip from sources such as Suetonius without always indicating that they are, in all likelihood, nothing more than later gossip or propaganda. To clarify, however, so the preceding sentence isn’t entirely misleading, I should say that he often does suggest that a nugget of information, could, in fact, be gossip, but he’s inconsistent in regards to pointing out such things. Also, the book is littered with inaccuracies and oversimplification to the point that it’s misleading. One small inaccuracy that I just found by thumbing through the book tells us, on page eleven of the paperback, that Suetonius wrote his works in the first century BC. Granted, this is, in all likelihood, a simple typo, but I’d say it’s a pretty big one. Also, he seems to interpret some of the events with hindsight, which is, to my mind, a big no-no. For example, in discussing Octavian’s father’s marriage to Atia in or around 70 BC, Everitt illustrates how important it was for Octavian’s political career to marry into the family of, and to be associated with, Caius Julius Caesar. Granted, for Octavian’s father it was a coup to marry into an old patrician family, but to suggest that he would be conscious of benefiting from marrying into THE Julius Caesar’s family in the early 70’s BC is overstating the issue considerably, I think, and interpreting it with hindsight—because, as we know, Caesar was at the beginning of his political career at that period, and hadn’t established himself as anything other than a charming person, a talented speaker, and an up and coming politician (and I guess we could even dispute the latter point, given the period), yet Everitt paints an image that this is the renowned Caesar who was later deified. Also, according to Everitt, in the early 30's BC, "[...] and on the Campus Marius the extremely competent commander Titus Statilius Taurus built Rome's first stone amphitheater." What about Pompey the Great's amphitheater? As for his writing style, allow me to give you a taste—from page 129: “Another dark night of traveling through mountains ensued—and, surely, a dark night of the soul, too; for this was the worse crisis of Octavian’s career.” Now, some may not find that passage as obnoxious as I do, but I find it outright atrocious. I’m honestly, seriously, considering abandoning this book. So if anyone’s interested in trading a couple books, I have this and Everitt’s biography of Cicero—which I bought at the same time, and probably won’t read following this experience.