Impeccable Logic September 2, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in politics, Uncategorized.Tags: stimulus package, The Great Recession
1 comment so far
One of the main talking points of Republicans in this election year is that the stimulus didn’t work to generate jobs so we have to go back to conservative, supply-side economics—cutting taxes for the wealthy and eliminating regulations on business.
In fact, Carly Fiorina made this argument in her debate with Senator Boxer on Wednesday.
But this argument makes no sense. Here is Steve Benen’s explanation of why its nonsense—his logic is impeccable.
“…in early 2009 there were basically four main approaches.
(1) Pass a massive, ambitious economic stimulus.
(2) Pass a trimmed down economic stimulus that could overcome a Republican filibuster.
(3) Do nothing.
(4) Pass a five-year spending freeze proposed by confused congressional Republicans at the time.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can safely say that (1) was the best option, but we ended up with (2). The policy was effective and worked as it was intended, but it was too small to generate a robust, sustained recovery.
But let’s be clear about this — the shortcomings of (2) doesn’t discredit (1). That’s actually backwards. For that matter, those who thought (4) was just a terrific idea — i.e., almost every single Republican serving in the United States Congress — aren’t in a position to complain about (2), since (2) was an infinitely superior approach to (3) and (4).
Some folks, at this point, get to say, “I told you so.” Every Republican critic of the stimulus isn’t in this group.
You see. This is not really that hard to figure out.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
Consciousness Explained? September 2, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Philosophy, Philosophy of Human Nature, Science, Uncategorized.Tags: Antonio Damasio, Mind body problem
2 comments
David Hirschman at Big Think summarizes recent views on the nature of consciousness:
Dr. Antonio Damasio, a neuroscientist from the University of Southern California who has studied the neurological basis of consciousness for years, tells Big Think that being conscious is a “special quality of mind” that permits us to know both that we exist and that the things around us exist. He differentiates this from the way the mind is able to portray reality to itself merely by encoding sensory information. Rather, consciousness implies subjectivity—a sense of having a self that observes one’s own organism as separate from the world around that organism.
“Many species, many creatures on earth that are very likely to have a mind, but are very unlikely to have a consciousness in the sense that you and I have,” says Damasio. “That is a self that is very robust, that has many, many levels of organization, from simple to complex, and that functions as a sort of witness to what is going on in our organisms. That kind of process is very interesting because I believe that it is made out of the same cloth of mind, but it is an add-on, it was something that was specialized to create what we call the self.”
It seems to me there is something missing from this all-too-brief summary of Damasio’s account. To have a self (and thus to be robustly conscious) is not just to be a “witness to what is going on in our organism” or to recognize that one’s own organism is separate from the world.
To be conscious is to have the felt sense that something matters—has significance or import. A sophisticated computer might know that it exists, that things around it exist, and that there is a difference between it and the world. But I doubt that such a machine would have a felt concern for something because it is not a biological organism with needs embedded in feeling states. Self-awareness is not merely a “witness” but an active sorter of what to attend to and what to ignore in light of what matters. It is hard to imagine a consciousness without this sorting ability.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
The Demise of Democracy August 31, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin
add a comment
As a philosophy professor I am very seldom without words; but this video clip leaves me speechless.
Last weekend Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin staged a “rally” in Washington, DC. From reports, it isn’t obvious what the rally was about.
Here is a clip full of interviews of people in attendance. After watching the clip I am even less sure what the rally was about.
I challenge anyone to find a shred of reasoning here. Political thinkers often say that democracy requires an educated public.
How about a public that maintains some connection with reality?
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
A Good Idea, But… August 30, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Uncategorized.Tags: The Great Recession, William Galston
add a comment
Democrats and Republicans have competing views on how to end this recession. Democrats want more stimulus and government spending to increase demand for goods and services; Republicans want to cut taxes to encourage more spending on consumer goods.
But there is reason to think neither strategy will work.
Over the past 30 years, consumers have been spending more by going into debt assuming that increased value of assets such as homes will keep them solvent. But that created artificially high prices, especially in real estate and real estate-backed securities, that collapsed when the financial crisis hit. Thus, there has been a massive loss of wealth since the beginning of the recession which makes it harder for people and businesses to borrow money and makes it harder to service the debt they have already incurred. Until the level of debt held by individuals is brought into line with current income levels, spending will be sluggish no matter what the government does. According to some economists, it may take 10 years to work of the excess debt in the economy.
So what to do about the recession? William Galston has the right idea:
A different era … How long will it take our policy makers and political parties to absorb the implications of that stark, undeniable phrase? When they do, they will realize that we have only two strategic options: Either we accept years of sluggish growth and high unemployment, or we shift to a new model that mobilizes the record level of private capital now sitting on the sidelines for public investments that will boost economic activity and employment in the short term, and economic productivity and growth in the long term, while generating rates of return sufficient to interest investors.
This is why we need a national infrastructure bank as the linchpin of a public investment strategy driven by economic analysis rather than congressional politics. Rather than bridges to nowhere, we need a bridge to the future. It’s time for hide-bound appropriators to get out of the way.
Our nation’s infrastructure is old and deteriorating. Now is the time to mobilize capital to rebuild it and put people back to work as well.
But what Galston fails to mention is that conservatives are likely to see a government supported infrastructure bank as more “socialism” since the idea is coming from Democrats.
Why would they be more welcoming toward this idea that any of the others Democrats have floated?
The problem is not a lack of ideas; the problem is Republican intransigence fed by public ignorance.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
What Do Republicans Want"? June 17, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Republican economic policy
3 comments
Now that the primaries are over and the focus will gradually shift to the November mid-term elections, it is time to insist that Republicans come clean about their agenda.
We know they want to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce the size of government. But what exactly does that mean? What government service do they want to discard? Which taxes should be cut and by how much? Where specifically is the waste, fraud and abuse they talk about? Now of course I imagine there is some waste, fraud and abuse in government. But where is it in a sufficient amount that its elimination would reduce the deficit?
I can’t think of a single Republican politician who has a specific answer to these questions; instead we get platitudes and silliness such as House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s “YouCut” gimmick.
We hear from the prognosticators that Republicans will make large gains in the House and Senate in November. Will they make these gains without anybody saying a word about what they actually want to accomplish in office. Or have modern elections been reduced to a head count of angry children whining because “my life’s not better yet”.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
Reporting the Flotilla Massacre June 6, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Media Bias
1 comment so far
If you listen to the mainstream media narrative regarding the attack on the Gaza aid flotilla by Israeli forces, you would think that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip is a necessary policy for protecting Israeli security aimed at disrupting the flow of weapons to Hamas, a benevolent Israel supplies all the aid Gazans need, and the killing of nine aid activists a legitimate defensive response to unprovoked attacks by the activists. In other words, the mainstream media simply repeats Israeli propaganda.
The reality is a lot more complicated. While the blockade may be a security measure, it is much more as well. It is an attempt to undermine Hamas with the hope that a more moderate leadership might then take power. Meanwhile Gazans are starved of basic necessities of life and the massacre of nine activists a war crime. Via M.J. Rosenberg
Here are the facts about life in Gaza today — facts that only can be changed by breaking the blockade. These data come from the American Near East Relief Association (ANERA), which provides relief to Gazans to the extent permitted by the Israeli (and American) authorities. ANERA is neither “pro-Israel” nor “pro-Palestinian.” It has no political agenda at all. It merely determines what human needs are and tries to respond to them.
8 out of 10 Gazans depend on foreign aid to survive.
The World Food Program says Gaza requires a minimum of 400 trucks a day to meet basic nutritional needs – yet an average of just 171 trucks worth of supplies enters Gaza every week,
Clothes that were held in the port of Ashdod for over a year were released into Gaza but arrived covered with mold and mildew, unusable.
95% of Gaza’s water fails World Health Organization standards leaving thousands of newborns at risk of poisoning.
Anemia for children under the age of 5 is estimated at 48%.
75 million liters of untreated sewage are pumped into the Mediterranean Sea every day – because piping and spare parts are not permitted.
During the 2009 bombing:
More than 120,000 jobs were lost as Gaza’s industrial zone was destroyed… 15,000 homes and apartments were damaged or destroyed… 1/3 of all schools were destroyed.
None of these can be rebuilt, because construction supplies are kept out by the Israeli authorities.
As to the attack on the flotilla, eye witness supports suggest it was nothing but premeditated murder. Via Juan Cole,
As The Lede points out, the more Mavi Marmara passengers who talk to the press, the more the Israeli official narrative about their landing on the deck of the ship is challenged.
Accounts of Israeli troops shooting passengers between the eyes are particularly chilling.
Aljazeera English broadcast an interview with Jamal ElShayyal , a journalist aboard the Mavi Marmara. In it, he asserted that the Israelis opened fire as they were boarding the vessel, and that one passenger took a bullet through the top of his head. Many passengers have now confirmed that they were fired on even before the commandos had boots on the deck. Presumably it is this suppressive fire that killed or wounded some passengers and which provoked an angry reaction and an attack on the commandos.
And here are more eyewitness accounts:
Abbas al-Lawati says that Monday’s attack on the Mavi Marmara came in three stages– first stun grenades were tosed on deck; then an attempt was made to board from the sea, which failed. And then rubber bullets were deployed from above, which, however, killed or injured aid workers, enraging some of them…
Shane Dillon of Ireland, who was on one of the other ships, “said the Israelis had used stun guns, assaulted people with the butt ends of rifles, pushed people to the ground and stood on them.”
There has been world-wide condemnation of Israel for its intransigence and violence. And in Israel, there is actually a robust debate about the policies that led to the massacre.
But in the United States, discussion of our support for Israeli policy is muted by a press corps uninterested in publishing facts.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
Another religious threat to education April 11, 2010
Posted by michaelmussachia in Uncategorized.Tags: Education, politics, religion
6 comments
Simon Gardner posted a commentary on RichardDawkins.net (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=110266) about a proposed “Religious Bill of Rights” in the U.S. senate:
“Colorado Senator, Dave Schultheis proposed a bill, SB089 (1), this past week, which would have undermined important democratic institutions. Fortunately, poor negotiating skills made killing the bill in committee possible(2). The vehicle for this subversion was a Religious Bill of Rights, that, in addition to being an insult to the First Amendment, was deemed generally redundant to the ‘real’ Bill of Rights.
This Bill was purportedly necessary for the protection of religious persons from attacks on their religious rights in the public school system despite the fact that there was no evidence or even anecdotal testimony to support such ridiculous claims. The particulars of the Bill and it’s outrageous demands have been well covered (3)(4). The two most controversial areas of concern are first, that teachers would not have to teach anything that may disagree with their religious views, and that they could openly display their own religious material in their classrooms and, second, that students could refuse or oppose course material for the same irrational reasons(1). The part of the story that I would like to draw attention to is the resulting affect any such Bill would have on the ability of the elected officials of the school board to implement the wishes and demands of the electorate. What is the affect on our democracy if the curriculum of our public school system is influenced by dictates from either one, or even several competing, religious theologies?”
While it looks as though the bill isn’t going anywhere, it’s nature reveals the degree to which religious zealots in this country are still trying to undermine education. It’s 2010. We’ve sent space probes beyond the solar system, explored the nature of matter down to the subatomic level, and gained tremendous insight into the evolution of life, including ourselves, and yet we still have to defend scholarship, science and reason against religious fundamentalists. I wish some of these people could crawl back to the Dark Ages where they would feel less threatened in their beliefs.
Emeg vs. Moonbeam March 29, 2010
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Uncategorized.Tags: Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman
1 comment so far
Ed Kilgore has an informative account of the California Governor’s race. Here are some highlights.
He begins by questioning why anyone would want the job.
California’s bad case of political self-loathing goes beyond a terrible economy, the state’s chronic monstrous state budget deficits, and the endless gridlock over virtually all major decisions in Sacramento. On the structural level, California’s permissive ballot initiative system has inserted voters—or, to be cynical about it, the special interests backing initiatives—into matters normally left to governors and legislators, resulting in constitutional limits on property taxes; excessive reliance on recession-sensitive income taxes; a crippling two-thirds vote requirement for legislative enactment of a state budget or for increasing taxes at any level of government; and a variety of spending mandates. Polls consistently show that a majority of citizens oppose tax increases and most spending cuts (they do favor cutting spending on prisons, which are operating under court rules and stuffed with inmates who have run afoul of the state’s many mandatory sentencing laws, some imposed by initiative). “Waste” is where Californians seem to want lawmakers to look for the massive savings necessary to balance the budget. Too bad California already ranks near the bottom among states in per capita state employees and infrastructure investment, and below average in per-pupil spending on education.
He goes on to characterize the two main candidates for this highly sought after position:
The second GOP candidate, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is running far ahead of Poizner, floating her campaign on an extraordinary sea of early money. Three months before the June primary, and eight months before the general election, Whitman (or eMeg, as local political journalists often call her) has already spent $46 million, mostly from personal funds on her campaign, and has threatened to spend up to $150 million if necessary.
EMeg’s strategy is to buy the election with her almost limitless personal fortune.
Whitman’s ads mainly convey, with numbing repetition, her claim to offer a fresh start for the state, delivered by a rock-star business executive committed to cuts in spending, tax cuts, and education reform.
And how is this to be accomplished in a state in which the population routinely says no to spending cuts and taxes?
She’s also bought herself grief by refusing, until very recently, to answer press questions or elaborate beyond the happy talk of her biographical ads about her positions on various issues. All in all, she’s in danger of earning the reputation of being something of a robo-pol like her political mentor, Mitt Romney.
So far there are no ideas coming from EMeg and no experience in government either. That sounds like “Governator” redux to me.
On the other side of the aisle we have Jerry Brown, known as “Governor Moonbeam” 30 years ago for his unorthodox style. He has experience in spades:
…Brown was first elected to statewide office 40—yes, 40—years ago. After a term as secretary of state, he was governor for eight years, and later state party chair, mayor of Oakland, and currently attorney general of California. He also ran unsuccessfully, and somewhat fecklessly, for the U.S. Senate once and for president three times.
But, although the anti-politician sentiment is raging, Brown may not be handicapped by it.
You see, Jerry Brown is a tough challenger because he is hard to confine to the standard political and ideological boxes. His long political career may be a handicap in some respects, but it has also helped him defy typecasting and create unusual coalitions. Long an ally of Democratic liberals—in the 1990s, he had a show on the lefty Pacifica radio network—Brown governed California as a fiscal hawk in the wake of the property tax-slashing Proposition 13 (which he had opposed) in 1978. Similarly, as mayor of Oakland from 1999 to 2007, he became known for a strong law-enforcement record, and for his championship of charter public schools, including one controversial military school. He can be broadly characterized as a social liberal and fiscal conservative, which is a good fit for his state. But his leitmotif as a politician has always been unpredictability and a knack for anticipating and sometimes embodying the zeitgeist. […]
He seriously studied Zen Buddhism in the 1980s, underwent training for the Jesuit priesthood, and worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. Not surprisingly, he conveys a certain aura of ironic detachment and self-control.
Indeed, over four decades of engagement in public life, Jerry Brown has developed a remarkable knack for displaying a sense of his own—and government’s—limits. He began his gubernatorial first term in 1975 with an off-the-cuff “address” that ran seven minutes; replaced the traditional inaugural ball with an informal dinner at a Chinese restaurant; traded in his gubernatorial limo for a 1974 Plymouth from the state car pool; rented a small apartment instead of living in the governor’s mansion; and reportedly slept on a mattress on the floor. (As governor, Brown was far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes and spending several times. His austerity, which created vast budget surpluses, prompted one Reagan aide to joke that the Gipper “thinks Jerry Brown has gone too far to the right.”)
How will Governor Moonbeam do this time around?
Short of having their own grossly rich and relentless attack dog in the race, Democrats are probably blessed to have Brown, who can be expected to shrug off Whitman’s certain assault on his record and land a few coolly delivered blows of his own. He’s already reminding voters that California hasn’t had a particularly good recent experience with “outsider” governors promising to come in and clean up Sacramento by sheer force of will. […]
And it’s not as though Jerry Brown is likely to present Whitman with an unmoving target. As protean as California itself and as wily as any other 40-year veteran of political wars, Brown nicely defined himself in an interview with Calbuzz just after officially announcing his candidacy: “Adaptation is the essence of evolution,” he explained. “And those who don’t adapt go extinct.”
Indeed, such adaptivity may be the only thing that can serve California’s needs right now.
I don’t know who will win. Californians have proven that they are willing to elect a wealthy, empty suit with a big mouth to run the state.
But one way or another, our next governor is likely to be a clown.
Dwight Furrow is author of
Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
Comics of Interest II January 27, 2010
Posted by iduckles in Art and Music, Uncategorized.add a comment
Continuing on my theme of philosophically interesting comics books, I intend to devote this entry to an examination of what people normally associate with the form: the cape and cowl style superhero. Rather than discuss the genre generally, I want to focus on a specific series, The Brave and the Bold volume 3, issues 27-30 written by J. Michael Straczynski with art by Jesus Saiz. The Brave and the Bold is published by DC comics and features team-ups between various characters in the DC Universe. I will examine the four most recent issues of this series (still available at your local comic book shop) because the creative team behind the book is really doing an amazing job. Each of these four books is an out of continuity one-shot (meaning that each book tells a self-contained story that can be understood on its own without having to have read other comic books or even be familiar with the characters in the book), which makes them a perfect starting point for people who are new to the comic book medium.
Each of the four books features a team-up between a well-established superhero and a more obscure character(s) from the DC Universe. What sets these books apart from more generic super-hero comics (not that there is anything wrong with that) is the way Straczynski uses these team-ups to explore themes and issues that transcend the normal fare found in comics. I want to briefly discuss each of these books in turn. As a quick note, I won’t be discussing the art in these books but suffice to say Saiz does an outstanding job.
Issue #27: Batman and Dial H for Hero. At this point, Batman needs no introduction, but Dial H for Hero is an old-style rotary phone dial that turns the user into a superhero when he or she dials the letters H-E-R-O. In this story, the owner of the dial is visiting Gotham City (Batman’s hometown) when it is stolen by a petty thief named Travis Milton. Milton uses the dial and is transformed into a Superman like character named The Star. When the Star rescues a window cleaner who has fallen off the scaffolding, Travers realizes that his new-found powers provide him an opportunity for redemption and an escape from his life of crime. Of particular interest is the way Strazcynski uses this set-up to explore the nature of heroism in comic books, and he suggests what might motivate someone in this fictional world to put on a costume and start fighting crime. The psychological profiling of superheros and villains has been done (often poorly) by many in the wake of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons Watchmen, but Strazcynski is able to give a more optimistic spin on this well-worn trope.
Issue #28 begins when the Flash (the fastest man alive) breaks his leg while inadvertently traveling back in time to the Battle of the Bulge. Because he needs to run at super speed to return to his own time, the Flash is trapped in the past until his leg heals. While there he encounters the Blackhawks (a multi-national group of WWII flying aces) who themselves have been accidentally dragged into the battle when they were ambushed while on R&R in Belgium. In the DC universe, the general criterion that distinguishes heroes from villains is that heroes do not kill while villains do. This creates a dilemma for the Flash as he finds himself in the middle of a war, teamed up with an elite band of soldiers. The way in which the Flash resolves this dilemma provides the core of the story and the way in which Straczynski uses this framework to explore notions of heroism and the obligations of citizens during wartime is fascinating.
Issue #29 one again returns to Batman, this time teaming him with an obscure 60’s counter-culture superhero: Brother Power the Geek. Straczynski uses this match up to contrast the values of the 60’s (particularly the hippies and the counter-culture) with the values of contemporary America. This is a story that has already been dealt with in many contexts, but Straczynski is nevertheless able to find an interesting and compelling take, particularly as he contrasts the ideals of the Summer of Love with America in 2009.
Issues #30: My personal favorite of the four and the most obviously “philosophical,” this issue teams the Green Lantern with Dr. Fate. Very quickly, the Green Lantern’s powers come from a ring that is fueled by the user’s will power. Dr. Fate, as the name suggests is a servant of the forces of fate and destiny. Straczynski uses this team-up to explore the classic philosophical debate of free will vs. determinism. What I particularly appreciated about this book was that, in true philosophical fashion, Straczynski does not provide any answers, but instead raises issues and questions about this topic as he uses these characters to explore many of the different perspectives one can take. This book in particular would work as an excellent way to get students to think about these concepts and some of the issues and consequences of the various positions one can occupy in this debate.
Comics of Interest (Part I) January 20, 2010
Posted by iduckles in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
This being San Diego, the land of Comic-Con, I thought it might be interesting to look at some recent philosophically-minded comic books. I intend this initially as a three-part series, but we shall see how far I actually get.
I want to begin by looking at a fairly obvious choice for this: Apostolos Doxiadis’s and Christos H. Papadimitriou’s (with Alecos Papadatis and Annie di Donna on art) Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth. This 300-page graphic novel with an extensive appendix tells the story of Bertrand Russell and his quest for a firm foundation for mathematics and logic. In the process, the story covers every major logician and mathematician and their ideas of the first half of the 20th Century (including, but not limited to: George Boole, Georg Cantor, Gottlob Frege, Kurt Gödel, David Hilbert, Giuseppe Piano, Henri Poincare, Alan Turing, John Von Neumann, Alfred North Whitehead, and Ludwig Wittgenstein). In addition, the story also cuts to the creators themselves (and Doxiadis’s dog Manga, whom, we are informed in a footnote, is not named after the Japanese comic form) as they wander through Athens and discuss the creation of the graphic novel. This latter storyline is not a post-modern conceit but is, instead, as the authors themselves reveal, an exploration of the notion of self-reference without which any discussion of 20th Century logic is incomplete.
Being somewhat familiar with the story covered in this work thanks to an excellent year-long class I took from Penelope Maddy my first year in graduate school, the authors do a good job covering the ideas and issues Russell and others struggled with in their quest to find a secure and uncontroversial foundation for mathematical (and by extension) logical truths. However, as we learn from the authors themselves, these philosophical ideas are secondary to the story of the individuals and personalities (primarily Russell) who engaged in these investigations.
It is this aspect of the story in which the book really excels as the creators are able to give one a real sense of the concerns and motivations and obsessions that propel the protagonists on their quest, in many cases to the exclusion of everything else, as well as the profound disappointments (and in at least one case ecstatic joy) when it is proven that the goals of said quest are unobtainable. The authors, perhaps, try to psychologize this quest a bit too much by explaining the various philosophical ideas as an extension of biographical details of the philosophers, but it is certainly the case that a surprisingly large number of the major thinkers who explored these issue were ultimately driven insane (or perhaps it was a certain predisposition to insanity that led and enabled these individuals to take up these issues in the first place. That, at least, seems to be the conclusion of the authors).
My one major complaint about this otherwise excellent and fascinating work is that the authors do not exploit the medium of the graphic novel as effectively as they could in explaining some of the more significant logical and mathematical ideas. One thing I really remember from the aforementioned class with Professor Maddy was her ability to graphically explain many of the more difficult and abstract logico-mathematical concepts. As just one example, I still vividly remember how she was able to graphically explain the idea that some infinitely large sets can be larger or smaller than other infinitely large sets. In many respects I think it was a missed opportunity on the part of the creators to not exploit the graphic medium to explain things like infinities or Turing machines. In the creators defense, this work is not intended as a logic for dummies text, or even a history of ideas, but instead an examination of characters and personalities. In this respect Logicomix succeeds admirably, and I highly recommend this fascinating work.
