Liverpool can turn it around...somewhat.

There are a number of fixes that Liverpool can do to get their season back on track. Whether Klopp is considering these or similar one's is not yet clear.

1. Move to a genuine central defense pairing - Kabak/Phillips would be the first choice. Ben Davies or Rhys Williams can be rotated into the team as is necessary but you need to have central defenders playing in this specialized role. While Fabinho and Henderson have done relatively well their presence here is not a long term solution and by their very absence in midfield, have indirectly handicapped Liverpool. I realize that on the surface this new defense looks to be a patch on last year’s options but we will never know their full potential until they are properly used. You work with what you have.

2. Make better use of Kostas Tsimikas and Neco Williams as stand-ins for AR and TAA respectively. The latter look exhausted at times and the backups may be necessary.

3. Move Fabinho and Henderson into midfield and use Curtis Jones in a greater role in the middle of the park as well. Gini W. needs a rest. Focusing the attack through Thiago looks to be a losing proposition over the full ninety minutes. Oxlade- Chaimberlain can play in this role as can Jones (or Keita if he is ever fit) and if necessary one can drop Firmino further back and have Salah swap into his place. Jota can fill the Firmino role on his return.

4. Continue using Shaqiri off the bench. I suspect as well that Thiago will be more effective as a second half substitute.

5. Focus less on possession. Better to augment the Red's counter attack skills. This worked well against both Spurs and West Ham United. Drop the backward buildup in the face of strong press teams such as City.

6. Consider dropping Alisson if he has lost his head (although I suspect this was a one off).

 

Western History 165: What were some of the principle inventions of the First Industrial Revolution?

The time period between 1760 and 1840 largely spans what has become known as the First Industrial Revolution (although the boundaries aren’t always that clear). There was an obvious and abrupt movement away from  the traditional cottage/domestic mode of manufacturing, especially in the field of textiles, towards large scale industrial production. The factory had come of age.

The Revolution which was trans-formative on both an economic and social level (not always for the better in the short run) and appears to have arisen from the fusion of English/Scottish Enlightenment thinking, the Age of Exploration and the Scientific Revolution.

Great Britain is widely seen as the hub of the First Industrial Revolution although there was a rapid spread to the continent as well as the North-Eastern United States soon afterward. John Jay’s Flying Shuttle and James Hargreaves’ Spinning Henry revolutionized the textile industry by increasing production rates. Richard Arkrwight’s Water Frame spinning machine as well as Samuel Compton’s Spinning Mule continued this trend that was further boosted by Edmund Cartwright’s Power Loom.  Across the pond American Eli Whitney reduced the intensity of labour required in the same field by his invention of the Cotton Gin. All of these breakthroughs improved the efficiency of their respective processes that in turn translated to a net profit windfall for the factory owners.

The Spinning Jenny source: Britannica.com

However it wasn’t just textiles that dominated the First Industrial Revolution. Scotsman James Watt greatly improved on the Steam Engine of Thomas Newcomen with his integrated system of gears and cranks. His work here would not only find applications  across many several factory platforms but would also inspire the emerging Age of the Locomotive (a topic I will look at in another question entry). Indeed transportation stood front and center in the Industrial Revolution. John McAdam laid down the foundation (no pun intended) for the modern method of road construction that now bears his name with canal building projects supervised by the prolific James Brinkley opening water transport structures across the British Isles.

A Schematic of the Watt Steam Engine source: interestingengineering.com

Soon to follow were improvements in  material manufacturing such as the Bessemer Steel Process and before that the invention of concrete by Portland cement. The Bessemer Process (named after Henry Bessemer) itself was the latest development in a series of metal production innovations that logically followed from Henry Cort’s technique of converting pig iron into wrought iron.

The Bessemer Process and its use ion Modern Steel production source: Sabel Steel.

Telecommunication capacity was augmented by the invention of the telegraph. The First Electromagnet was built in the 19^th century on the heels of such work done by such luminaries as Christian Oersted, Andre-Marie Ampere, Dominique Francois Jean Arago, William Sturgeon and Joseph Henry. The Electric Motor would follow suit as would the Dynamo/Generator that made use of Faraday’s Principle of Electromagnetic Induction (again another topic question). 

The Morse Telegraph (named after its inventor the American Samuel Morse) source: Maglab

In addition there were other advances that saw the invention of the Mackintosh raincoat, friction matches, street gaslights, the development of the food canning process, the camera obscura (first photograph camera), the typewriter, the Hydrogen Fuel Cell, the light bulb, dynamite and of course the Internal Combustion engine. Oh yes... I forgot. The humble sewing machine  (invented by the German-born engineer called Charles Fredrick Wiesenthal) has its origins in the First Industrial Revolution. It was later on improved by Isaac Merritt Singer whose name graces its fair share of machines today.

An early sewing machine source: Smithsonian Magazine.

Source for detail: Industrial Revolution Breakthroughs

Western History 164: Besides the Revolutions in France and Germany what other revolts engulfed Europe in 1848?

The 1848 Revolutions were largely directed against the autocracies of the old  order and were framed by liberal  nationalist and socialist sentiments. The multi-national Habsburg Empire that was centrally controlled from Vienna was  hit by revolutions in Austria, Hungary, Galicia, Croatia, Czechia and Slovakia. In addition Habsburg domination was challenged within the Italian Peninsula. Much of the latter (which Count von Metternich once dubbed a being nothing more than a geographical expression) was driven by nationalistic motivations that provided a precursor for a future Italian Unification, that would follow later on in the century. 

In Austria von Metternich was forced to flee (in a laundry carriage) after which s  series of short-lived liberal governments popped up across the polyglot Empire. However in a counter-revolution the regime of King Ferdinand was restored in Vienna with the support of the military figure General Joseph Radetzky von Radetz. The popular revolts in Italy and the Czech lands were soon neutralized as well.

General Joseph Radetzky von Radetz.  source: alchetron.com

In Hungary revolutionary fervour engulfed the region starting in March of 1848.The 12 Demands were put forth by the Hungarian rebels which stressed freedom of the press, a democratically elected  assembly and more autonomy for Budapest. Lajos Kossuth, a Hungarian noble would spearhead Revolution that paralleled the turmoil in Vienna.

Lajos Kossuth - Hungarian Revolutionary Leader. source: spartacus-educational

Demands for more civil liberties by the Hungarian Diet were agreed on by the Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand who appeared (at least on paper) as though he was willing to tolerate more autonomy in exchange for a continued personal union of Hungary with the Empire.. The Diet pushed ahead with more reform however this encouraged more demands for full independence (a pattern that seemed to repeat itself elsewhere). Fearing a breakdown of the Empire the Habsburgs ordered an invasion of Hungary and with the support of Russian forces, ordered in by Tsar Nicholas I, brutally crushed the revolution. Kossuth would flee into exile and was later executed as martial law gripped the country.

Nevertheless the events of the Revolution would play a role in the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and the beginning of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Outside of  Habsburg dominated territory there were revolts as well in Sweden that were predictably dispersed. In Switzerland the Sonderbund War saw several Catholic cantons take up arms against the dominant Protestant cantons. This too would fail although the treaties that followed from the war helped establish the federal nature of Switzerland. Romania, Poland and Ireland experienced revolts as well with some necessary reform in the context of  enhanced civil liberties emerging in Poland.

Troops during the Sonderbund War  Source: MilitaryHistoryNow.com

By 1849 the dust seemed to have settled on most of the revolutions that had impacted Europe. Political gains were few but what emerged was a harbinger of  what the future would hold.  Nationalism, liberalism and socialism were in the ascendancy and it was clear that they their presence on the continent as forces framing a new dynamic would soon be realized.

 

Why do scientists want to know how the universe originated?

My answer on Quora.

This is largely as a result of a realization that such a question is potentially answerable within the scope of the fundamentals of physics and is not strictly metaphysical. 

Once it was determined by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 that there was a theoretical basis for expansion within General relativity (that was later given experimental credence by Edwin Hubble) it was only natural to ask the question - What is it expanding from?

Potential solutions to this new question including a very successful model posited by a Belgian priest and Astrophysicist Georges Lemaitre (what we now call the Big Bang) speak to a point of origin. As it stands the likelihood of such a conclusion appears well supported by the Empirical evidence.

Western History 163: What were the Revolutions that broke out in France and Germany in 1848?

1848 surpassed 1830 as the year of revolutions. In fact this infamous year is also known as the Springtime of the Peoples. Social and political upheaval impacted most of Western Europe with the exception of Spain, Portugal and Greece. Much of this unrest was driven by the forces of liberalism, nationalism and socialism.

Full Map of the Springtime of the People Revolution source: Inquiries Journal

In France the constitutional monarchy of Louis-Philippe  I was overthrown in  February 1848 and finally replaced following two successive revolution in the same year, by what would eventually become the Second Republic (it would last from 1848-1851). Louis-Philippe had governed as a moderate and had popular support with the Bourgeoisie. However there were political undercurrents that were fermenting among the Lesser Bourgeoisie that were demanding more power sharing. In addition the radical left who included in their ranks such Revolutionary thinkers such as the socialist Louis Blanc and the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon advocated for both social and economic change and had popular support with the Artisan class.

The 1848 Revolution in France source: Historyextra

Alphonse de Lamartine, a well known poet and novelist briefly headed a Liberal Government and introduced necessary reform that included universal male suffrage and unemployment relief (via National Workshops) but the economy continued to struggle inspiring Conservative political growth. Eventually Louis Napoleon-Bonaparte (the nephew of the Great Emperor) would win the Fourth Presidential run off in December 1848 defeating Eugene Cavignac (candidate for the Party of Order), Francois-Vincent Raspail (a champion of the working class) and Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin (who represented working class interests).  Louis-Napoleon didn’t govern for very long along democratically with the Republic transitioning into the Second Empire in 1852 and Louis-Napoleon taking the title Napoleon III in 1852.

Revolutions engulfed the German states in March 1848 with students demanding German unity, freedom of the Press and freedom of assembly. The political anger was firmly directed against the myriad of states in the German Confederation that were run by Aristocratic elites. There was some initial success earlier on with the Prussian King, Frederick Wilhem IV,  agreeing to Revolutionary demands. Baden, Saxony and the Palatine were particular regions that were engulfed by Revolutionary activity. Soon afterwards a National Assembly (largely filled with intellectuals) was called in Frankfurt to represent a unified Germany.  Frederick Wilhelm IV was offered the crown as Emperor of a United Germany but turned it down. He did not in his own words want a crown from the “gutter” that had the “disgraced stink of revolution, defiled with blood and mud”

Revolution in Germany (the Modern German Flag has its origins here) source: Max-Planck Institute

Soon afterwards the Revolution went into disarray and the lack of cohesion between various revolutionary movements was easily exploited by the ruling establishment who crushed further development  forcing its proponents  of the Revolution (the so-called Forty-Eighters) to flee into exile. 

Nevertheless the drive for German Unification had been very much rekindled and would play a vital role in German history for the remainder of the century.

Facebook sinks further into the sludge.

I experience like so many others a symbiotic relationship with Facebook that I would in the long run wish to abort. The site's obvious positive is that it serves as a conduit for communication with a whole host of friends that I have come to know during the saga of what purports to be my life. 

However I really loathe the way that Facebook's 'moral' guardians  selectively police what it deems appropriate. There is a sinister feel to all of this especially when the 'faceless' army of outsourced checkers go after facts that have merit but sit outside the context of the preferred narrative. Their political bias is all too obvious here. 

One can argue that the company has the right to do just that. Perhaps. Certainly if they actively viewed themselves as part of the press. However Facebook isn't.  They are a platform carrier with added legal protection that is distinct from the media. They are supposed to be neutral with respect to content. This is a crucial difference. 

However it doesn't end here. Facebook is head of the Hydra that is social media and consequently enjoys de facto control over the ever more valuable currency of information. In terms of oligopoly power it is the grandchild of the old school robber barons.

Its presence is everywhere and in collusion with other players (Amazon, Apple etc) it can easily crush competition (as we saw with Parler) thereby weakening alternatives that pose competition.  In this regard it is the medium that carries the message and for those that value freedom of  speech, Facebook's presence as a gatekeeper for what it deems to be correct- speak is extremely problematic. In fact it is downright worrying.

What we need is a viable alternative platform that will be allowed to germinate while nefarious Goliaths such as Facebook, who seem to flout legal safeguards with impunity, are kept in check by the necessary Anti-Trust Legislation. Will the US Congress deliver this? I am not convinced that they are brave enough to do so especially with a Democratic Party majority. The price that one pays could be immense. Reputations in the online can be eviscerated in seconds and crossing the beast has consequences. Herein lies the problem.  We await a much needed David to arise.

Hail El Presidente

Joe Biden's whirlwind use of Executive Orders over the last few days to set in motion policy that circumvents legislative debate have all the hallmarks of the dictatorial impulse. This should concern both sides of the aisle as the slap-in-the-face that it offers Congress is apparent. Since FDR the executive has been gaining ground against the legislative and it is an extremely serious concern. The very notion of checks and balances so envisioned by the Founding Fathers looks to take a backseat if the trend continues and in all likelihood it will. 

However it is hardly surprising as the centralization of power is a mainstay of progressive ideology that defers power to a rule by an elite (who are of course better than the rest of us). At its epicenter this speaks towards totalitarianism. Barack Obama reaffirmed the template for the modern age in his abuse of  power in the way he authorized military action in Libya overriding Congress. He did the same with the 'Dreamer' initiatives.

The controlled media which has abdicated its role as necessary voice of dissension (dragging much of the population with it)  gave him the free pass that was demanded. Democracy does indeed 'die in darkness'. It will get worse.