It was written a few months ago - it suggested three effective political parties in the US - the Democrats, GOP establishment and the GOP authoritarians. That is changing back to two as the GOP establishment is falling in line with the authoritarian side.
Many draw comparisons between the Republican Party now and in 1964 ... there were some important differences. I've linked to the audio of one of his book chapters, here's an adaptation of a fine John Dickerson piece on the subject.
But nobody knows what loose used to mean either. In the radio interview alluded to earlier, it became obvious to me that although Mrs. Clinton correctly characterized Donald Trump as a “loose cannon”, neither she nor her interviewer actually knew what a loose cannon is—or rather was, since we no longer have the problem. They seem to think it means something along the lines of “scatter-shot”. If you yourself are in the dark on this important matter, I cannot too highly recommend the Horatio Hornblower books by C. S. Forester. Early European artillery had a few fixed pieces, but most cannons were essentially long movable barrels to be lugged from one emplacement to another. Poor guys were forever being ruptured, maimed, or crushed trying to move these things about. Using such guns on warships was particularly hazardous. The weight of the smallest cannons, designed for a projectile of about two pounds, was approximately six hundred pounds. Weights increased dramatically for larger shot. The “big guns” (twenty-four and thirty-two pounders) could easily weigh a couple of tons. Now imagine you are in the cramped, dark, and smoky gun deck of the Fighting Temeraire, and one of its ninety-eight monstrous metal cylinders breaks or is blown free of its restraints and starts rolling around at gravity’s caprice with every haw, heave, pitch and roll of the ship’s motion. Such a loose cannon, having worked up the momentum of a long roll, is perfectly capable of breaking through the hull; but more immediately it is likely to squash, bisect, or decapitate any seaman in its way, with special preference given to those whose desperate assignment is to retake control of it. The danger posed by a loose cannon has nothing to do with its firing projectiles. It is in the weight, mobility, and unpredictable movement of the instrument itself.
From the beginning of the U.S. entry in the war, the movie industry wanted to shape its films to help bring victory; it just didn't want the government to tell the studios how to do it. But any studio executive who thought he could avoid government direction was mistaken. In June 1942, the White House created the Office of War Information to build public support for the war—basically a propaganda effort. The government's existing Bureau of Motion Pictures came under the new agency. A separate Office of Censorship was created to oversee censorship of films, and there also were military censors.
There were furious debates between Hollywood and government agencies. There was internal warfare between the agencies. It all focused on how much control the government should exercise, according to a book by Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black: Hollywood Goes To War: How Politics, Profits and Propaganda Shaped World War II Movies. But by mid-1943, there was a truce. "Government and industry discovered they needed each other," the authors wrote. "From a mixture of patriotism and the profit motive, Hollywood became a compliant part of the American war machine." Once the industry realized "censorship would be smart showmanship, the industry was only too eager to cooperate."
A curious thing about slavery is that it was on the decline in the US until the Industrial Revolution created an enormous demand for cotton. The cotton gin and a few other inventions made massive plantation farming using slave-labor practical and inexpensive.
You don't need to be a mathematician to follow Wolfram's blog - probably somewhere between the movie and the real thing, although closer to the movie in level:)
I’m no historian of math, so I can’t judge, but it seems excellent. Of course Wolfram can’t resist plugging Mathematica a bit, but that’s probably reasonable here. It is a great tool for ‘experimental’ math.
In articles, blog posts and Facebook threads, scholars have debated whether “Hamilton” over-glorifies the man, inflating his opposition to slavery while glossing over less attractive aspects of his politics, which were not necessarily as in tune with contemporary progressive values as audiences leaving the theater might assume.
The conversation has yet to erupt into a full-fledged historians’ rap battle. But some scholars are wondering if one is due to start.
“The show, for all its redemptive and smart aspects, is part of this ‘Founders Chic’ phenomenon,” said David Waldstreicher, a historian at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York who last September sounded an early note of skepticism on The Junto, a group blog about early American history.
Amid all the enthusiasm for “Hamilton” the musical, he added, Hamilton the man “has gotten a free pass.”