I’m often humbled at the end of a good book.

As I set it down, I take a moment to peer into my own soul and ask, “What have I done to touch the world the way that book touched me.”

Alas, the answer is, “not much.” 

The book I just put down is “A little History of The World,” by E.H. Gombrich. If you’re familiar with it, you know that I’m a little slow, once again. It was 2005 when “A Little History” was first tranlated into English and made a splash in America. Four years late is about on par for me.

No one told me about his book. I was wandering the aisles at Borders when I saw it on a “sale” table. The cover said it was “an international bestseller.” I like history, so why not?

I’m a big believer in serendipity, and here’s another reason why. “A Little History” is like a little nugget of gold or precious jewels, hiding among the self-help books and mystery novels. I’m a richer man for having uncovered it.

There are many reasons this little book touched me, but I’ll only mention two - American ethnocentrism, and the “river of history” metaphor. 

Imagine this scenerio. A young Austrian, just out of college in 1935 and wondering what to do with his life, is asked to translate a children’s history book from German to English. Needing a job, he agrees, but when he reads the book he complains to the publisher that it’s poorly written. So the publisher invites him to write his own version, and gives him six weeks to complete it.

This young man sits down to tell the history of the world, in language intended for a bright 12-year-old. For six weeks he spends his days in the library and writes one chapter each night. When he’s through, he has written, not a history book full of facts and figures, but a sweeping vision of history that seamlessly ties the great tides of human experience into one gently flowing river.

Which is where the river metaphor comes in. In the final chapter he draws that picture himself, asking the reader to imagine flying along in a small airplane above the river of time. It would sound corny and cliched, if you hadn’t just read “A Little History,” which succeeded in doing just that.

I also mentioned American ethnocentrism. In the good ol’ USA, we tend to think of the world as revolving around us. But “A Little History” was written by an Austrian, in Vienna in 1935. It covers the history of the world with only a couple brief mentions of America. More words were spent on the Spanish conquest of Mexico City than on the creation of a new nation in North America.

The Civil War merited a few paragraphs, and the U.S. entry into World War I drew a few more sentences.  But that was about it.  In the eyes of an Austrian in 1935, America was a minor footnote in the grand scheme of things.

I must admit, I was a little hurt at first. While I attribute the birth of democracy and the grand concepts of human rights and equality to Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, he talked at length about The Enlightenment and the great French and English writers who championed those causes.

It’s good medicine to see the world through someone else’s eyes.

In this case, you get a rare opportunity to view the entire history of the world. 

Oh, and don’t be put off that it’s written for children. That may very well be what made this particular version of history so compelling.  In order to make it easily understood, Gombrich had to cut through all the complications and details that often bog down history lessons.

He told it like a story - a grand, sweeping tale with no real beginning and no real ending - like a river that starts over the horizon in one direction and flows beyond sight in the other.

In the process, it provides remarkable insight into who we are today and how we got here.

I’m not an expert on Nicholas Sparks’ books, or on making movies from novels.

Generally, I’ve avoided jumping on the ”hate-the-movie-because-it-didn’t-do-the-book-justice” bandwagon.

I try to enjoy both, for what they are. You can’t replicate the reading experience in a theater. So I try to just relax and not be judgmental.

That was the case last night when my wife, Kathy, and I watched ”Nights in Rodanthe,” the latest Nicholas Sparks novel turned to movie. Kath read the book several years ago and enjoyed it so much she suggested I read it, too.

As with most of his novels and movies, ”Rodanthe” is definately targeted at women. Romance and tragedy. Tragedy and romance. That’s what he writes about, and he does it well.  In this case, it involves middle-aged love with real passion, something you don’t find much in movies.

I have a sensitive side, too, and I enjoyed both the book and the movie. I got misty eyed at the appropriate places.

What struck me was that Richard Gere and Diane Lane, whatever the critics may think of their performances, succeeded in capturing the spirit of the book - including the gut-wrenching pain and soaring joy that come with life and love.

Of course, Sparks’ books obviously adapt well to movies. “The Notebook” and “Message in a Bottle” were big hits in recent years. He knows how to spin the anguish of life into bittersweet love.

And while Rodanthe is light on depth and heavy on sentimental cliches, it succeeded in providing a wonderful way to spend Valentine’s Eve.

Voices from the past have a way of clarifying the future.

I’ve been thinking for weeks about what to say in reaction to the Detroit newspapers’ announcement that they’re suspending home delivery  except Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays.

Then today I ran across a name from the past, which led me down a thought process that seems to be helping - at least helping me think.

The Nieman Reports, the work of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard, recently came out with a new look at the future of journalism. It’s fascinating and thoughtful and sheds little light on the future - just what you would expect.

I noticed that one of the writers’ names  - Steven A. Smith - was familiar, but I couldn’t place from where. So I followed the link to his blog, “Still a Newspaperman,” and the memories came flooding back.

Steve Smith studied journalism at the University of Oregon at the same time that I was at Oregon State University. That makes us enemies, you understand. Kind of like Spartans and Wolverines. He was a Duck; I was a Beaver.

If I recall correctly, which is unlikely, since it’s a long time ago, we both worked for our respective student newspapers, and we both also wrote as correspondents or part-timers for The Oregonian, the state’s big newspaper. We were rivals of sorts. 

Ironically, we both also retired from the newspaper business last year. I had some fun commenting on his blog, noting that irony.

But more valuable for me was reading a post on his blog, written just as he left his job as editor of the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review.  It was titled, “Still a Newspaperman,” and offered a colorful description of typical journalists of the last century, with more than a little remorse that they seem to be a dying breed.

In my response, I offered to share a toast to the journalist of the past. But I also included my fervent hope that we’ll be able to pass on to the new generation of  journalists emerging in the Internet age the best of the skills and principles that motivated yesterday’s newspapermen.

 What’s that have to do with the Detroit newspapers, which are shedding those old-time journalists at an alarming rate, right along with all the other mid- and big-city newspapers across the country?

Stay tuned for a future post. Steve Smith’s voice from the past pushed me off the fence. Now I know what I want to say - I just need another day or two to let it ferment.

I didn’t get any sleep last Thanksgiving night.

And I was about as thankful as a person can be.

I won - I had to fight for it - the right to stay up all night with our newest grandchild for the second night of her life.

From about 10 a.m. to about 6 a.m., I held little Kaylee, walked her around the hospital floor, laid her on my lap and generally enjoyed every minute.

Our family has grown by three this fall.

We got a new grandson on the first day of the fall semester, a new granddaughter on Nov. 1, and another granddaughter the day before Thanksgiving.

All three babies and all three mothers came through in great health.

We only have three children, so it was a three-for-three fall. Our oldest, a daughter, and her husband had their third child and first daughter. Our second oldest, a son, and his wife had their second child, both girls. And our youngest, a son, and his wife had their first, a son.

Because one lives in New York and one in South Carolina, we had quite a fall of traveling. But it was worth it. And we were able to spend Thanksgiving weekend close to home; our daughter lives in Saline.

I’ve always wondered why some men think they’re too macho to participate in the birth process, helping with all the little details of nurturing a new life through those first days.

They don’t know what they’re missing.

I’m amazed at how many people seem to know what is inside Barack Obama’s head.

The problem is, most of them can’t be right, because he can’t possibly be as good/bad, radical/pragmatic, leftist/centrist, forthright/sneaky, etc., as people seem to think.

And I’m not just talking about the far left and far right folks who see the world through such colored glasses that they distort everything.

I’m talking about smart, thoughtful, politically aware folks - both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives - who seem to think they have the president-elect all figured out.

Frankly, I haven’t the slightest idea what he’s going to do next. He doesn’t have enough of a track record - certainly when it comes to things like governing the free world - for any of us to have much of an idea.

From the moment he burst on the scene with “the speech,” he has talked about building a new kind of political style. One that emphasizes non-partisan support for improving the lives of regular Americans and a more collaborative approach to the rest of the world.

Of course, no one really believes what politicians say. And why should Obama be any different?

Maybe he isn’t. Maybe that was all just what he needed to say to get elected. 

But somehow this new guy on the block has managed to kindle a tiny bit of hope - at least in my mind - that maybe he really means what he has said. The few decisions he has made so far have done nothing to dim the hope.

Yet people will continue to see his actions through their own perspectives, and cynicism is strong in America.

A good example is my friend Mike Ingels, who blogs as the Erie Hiker. In a recent comment on this blog, he talked about how Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have an arch-liberal agenda for America. Generally, Mike is pretty right-on with these kinds of things. But I don’t know where he got this one?

Most of the complaints I’ve heard so far about Obama’s cabinet choices are coming from liberals. He seems to be choosing, smart, experienced, realistic professionals who will help his administration make good decisions. And he seems to be willing to look to unusual places - like Hillary Clinton and the current leaders of the military - for some of his choices.

Of course, Mike may be right. But I hope he isn’t. I hope Barack Obama really is what he promised voters during that painfully long campaign - someone who isn’t tied to any of the old, tired ideologies.

Mike and I agree on one thing. It’s important for Obama to stand up to the left-wing of the Democratic party, and make sure Congress doesn’t follow an agenda that is out-of-touch with basic American values.

It seems obvious that wouldn’t be very smart politically. It would be the fastest way to swing the momentum back to the Republican Party, which right now is badly in need some some kind of help.

This is, indeed, a sad day for Southeast Michigan and for America.

John Dingell didn’t deserve to have his key Energy and Commerce chairmanship taken from him (link to story). For his party to ignore his long and impressive legislative record is a slap in the face and a shame.

But, as they say, that’s politics. You don’t spend 50-plus years in Washington without knowing it’s a tough place and that you’re going to win some and lose some. Rep. Dingell has won his share.

And it’s not that Henry Waxman is a bad person, or that Dingell is going away. They’ve worked together on the Energy and Commerce Committee for years, and will continue to do so. Rep. Dingell will still be looking out for the auto industry, and he still has plenty of friends in Congress.

I ran across a blog post this morning that got me thinking about when you should trust a blog you’re not familiar with.

There are millions of bloggers, and it isn’t easy to sort out who is credible and who is interesting or fun or fascinating - but probably not believable.

The blog post, by Ellen Hume on the “Media Shift Idea Lab“ site,  warns of the many blogs that pretend to be regular folks but are actually paid by one political party or the other to write bad things about their opponents.

Yes, that happens. When a friend sends you a link to a blog that “reveals” bad things about John McCain or Barack Obama, it could very well be a paid attack ad masquerading as a citizen blogger.

Ms. Hume, who is director of the Center for Future Civic Media at MIT, has organized a group of students and others to ferret out and expose these phony bloggers.

What does this mean for the world of “BlogsMonroe.com.” Several of the blogs dip into politics from time to time - in a few cases, most of the time.

 I don’t think any of the bloggers on this site are paid by the presidential campaigns. They aren’t paid by anyone - they blog because they enjoy it.

But Ms. Hume’s underlying point is still relevant - you shouldn’t believe anything you read on the Internet without critically analyzing it first.

Like most people who spend time on the Internet, I’m developing a healthy distrust of everything I read. I use the Internet for knowledge - when I need information, Google is my friend. Answers to any question are at your fingertips.

But my radar is constantly searching for questionable facts, intended or unintended bias, obvious omissions, conclusions based on skewed logic - the whole range of reasons not to trust a Web site or a particular post.

As a journalist - in the world before the Internet - I naturally developed pretty good antennae for that purpose. People are always trying to influence news reporters, and you have to be wary of anything anyone tells you.

But I’ve found I need to use those antennae much more aggressively on the WWW.

I think Ms. Hume is doing the right thing organizing an effort to expose fraudulent political bloggers. But the real answer is for everyone who uses the Internet to develop good antennae - and use them to recognize bad information when they see it.

This is a story about how silly - or outrageous - transportation costs can be in America.

My wife, Kathy, and I needed to visit a friend in Boston. But we also wanted to see our granddaughter in New York.

And I had heard about the inexpensive Chinese buses from New York to Boston. I checked, and sure enough it was cheaper to fly to New York and ride the bus to Boston than to fly round trip from Detroit to Boston.

So, crazy at it seems, we flew Friday night to New York, enjoyed the evening with our son, his wife and daughter. Then we caught the 7 a.m. bus to Boston, returning to New York on the 5 p.m. bus. That gave us 5 1/2 hours in Beantown to visit our friend. We spent most of Sunday in New York, then flew home Sunday evening. Besides the planes and buses, we also road the subway in New York and a commuter train in Boston.

Planes, trains, buses and subways, all in three days.

Here’s the crazy part. Check out the prices:

One round-trip plane ticket Detroit to New York - $330.

One taxi ride from the airport to Prospect Park in Brooklyn - $30.

One subway ride from Brooklyn to Chinatown (about the same distance as the airport to Prospect Park) - $2.

One bus ride (4 1/2 hours) from New York to Boston - $15.

One train ride from downtown Boston to Needham in the suburbs - $4.75.

That’s right. It cost twice as much for a 20-minute taxi ride than for a 215-mile bus ride. You can ride the subway for miles for $2.

In case you’re wondering, the bus ride, on the Fang Wah bus line, was pleasant and uneventful. The bus left and arrived on time. There was a 15-minute rest stop halfway. It was clean and appeared to be safe.

That contrasts with the plane, which left 90 minutes late, spent another hour on the runway in New York waiting for a gate, was crowded and noisy and generally unpleasant, with an extra charge for anything and everything.

I may never have the occasion to ride the bus from New York to Boston again. But it’s a great bargain. As are New York subways and Boston commuter trains.

As for the plane flight - next time we’re driving. We’ve made the drive before. It’s nine hours from our doorstep to our son’s, and it costs about $150 in gas.  

With all the delays, it took us 8 hours to get to our son’s doorstep. That includes driving to the airport (arriving 90 minutes early, as recommended), and at the other end waiting in a long line for a taxi.

Let’s see: $720 (two round-trip plane tickets and two taxi fares) for an 8-hour trip filled with aggravation.

Or $150 (price of gas for the round trip) for a relatively pleasant 9-hour drive through the hills of northern Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In fairness, the plane trip can take as little as 4 hours if everything goes right, from doorstep to doorstep. But it doesn’t seem like everything goes right very often these days.

John McCain and Barack Obama have been claiming from the beginning that they would run a different kind of campaign - less partisan, less nasty, less in attack mode.

While there already has been plenty of attacking and more is likely to come, both have shown signs of holding to their word.

McCain’s classy ad congratulating Obama the night he accepted the Democratic nomination was an example.

Obama’s Labor Day speeches in Detroit and Monroe, when he set aside politics in deference to the hurricane hitting New Orleans, is another. Same kudos to McCain for throttling down the Republican convention during the hurricane.

And Obama struck another kinder and gentler note when he declined to discuss Sarah Palin’s daughter’s unwed pregnancy, declaring in no uncertain terms that family are off-limits and that no one from his staff will discuss the subject.

While I’m not so naive to think that attack ads won’t be used this fall, maybe this pair of candidates finally understands that Americans will respond positively to candidates who run clean campaigns.

I mentioned in the discussion following a recent blog post that I have personal reasons to feel queasy about the Bush administration’s saber rattling with Iran.

In late 2002 and early 2003, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, I was torn over what I should say - either in my own column or on the newspaper’s editorial pages.

I should quickly add that I was not employed by The Monroe Evening News at the time. I was at the Zanesville, Ohio, Times Recorder.

My newspaper had endorsed George Bush for president and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. But I was convinced that attacking Iraq - without a plan for what we would do with the country once we conquered it - was a mistake.

As the inevitability of the attack grew near, I several times sat down to write about why I thought it was the wrong thing to do, both for moral reasons and as national policy.

I didn’t want America to lose the moral high ground by becoming the aggressor - the country that started a war. I grew up thinking of America as the white knight, the country that came in when needed to save the day. Invading Iraq just didn’t feel right.

Further, and more important, I didn’t think it would work. I thought it would just give radical Muslims another reason to hate us, and more ammunition to recruit. And there was the huge question of what would we do with Iraq once we drove Sadaam out?

But I didn’t write that column. I stayed silent. And I have regretted it over and over during the last five years. It’s not that my column would have changed the president’s mind. It probably wouldn’t have changed the mind of a dozen readers of my newspaper. But it would have mattered to me. I would have done what I could.

Now, I feel the deja vu. The president is rattling swords about Iran, just like five-plus years ago with Iraq. He’s trying to convince the world that this is a black and white issue - either Iran gives up its nuclear program or …. or what? Another invasion of a country we can’t hope to change? Another example of the United States as the biggest bully on the block?

I hope not. This time, anyway, I won’t stay silent.

In my view, U.S. policy on Iran makes no sense. The president says he won’t negotiate until Iran halts its nuclear enrichment program. He’s drawing a line in the sand and giving Iran only two choices - even though he knows that Iran is not going to allow itself to be bullied.

He’s marching down a path that can only lead to war. And that’s absolutely the wrong path.