What should we do about the Statues and Flags of the Confederacy?

This weekend, a group of likeminded men gathered to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee which has stood in Lee Park in Charlottesville, VA since 1924.  I always get nervous when I hear about changing memorials as sometimes it can do more harm than any well-intentioned good.  Since I always try to get both sides of a story before making a decision, I decided to do a little research on this issue.

Paul Goodloe McIntire

The story of the statue starts with one man, Paul Goodloe McIntire.  McIntire was born in Charlottesville in 1860 and attended the University of Virginia for one year in 1878 before going to Chicago to make his fortune.  He started working as coffee trader, soon making enough money to purchase a seat on the Chicago Stock Exchange and did well enough there to move to New York and purchase a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.  He retired a wealthy man in 1918.

Like many of that era, McIntire actively worked to give away his fortune in good deeds, the most generous a grant of $200,000 that established the University of Virginia's business school. He also endowed Virginia's Chair for the Professor of Fine Arts ensuring, "the University will see its way clear to offer many lectures upon the subject of art and music, so that the people will appreciate more than ever before that the University belongs to them; and that it exists for them." The University of Virginia's Department of Art and Department of Music are named for him as a result.

He made many other donations. The McIntire Amphetheatre came from him. He helped build a part of the university's hospital. He donated money to the school to help in the study of psychiatry and of cancer. He helped build Charlotteville's public library. He gave the money for a concert series, donated rare books and art collections. In other words, from his Paul Goodloe McIntire's wiki, he sounds nothing like the man I imagined when I first heard about the statue controversy.

The idea of creating public space in city planning has been around forever but it really took off in the United States with the completion of New York's Central Park in 1873. Every city of note moved to copy something similar and McIntire decided to do something for Charlotteville once he retired. Ultimately he created five parks for the city - Lee, Jackson, Belmont, Washington, and McIntire.

Statue of Robert E. Lee in
Charlotteville, Va

McIntire also commissioned four statues of men from Virginia's past and donated them to the city. The one of Robert E Lee was put in Lee Park (recently renamed Emancipation Park). Stonewall Jackson was put in Jackson Park (recently renamed Justice Park). George Rogers Clark currently sits in Monument Square. The one of Merriwether Lewis and William Clark sits downtown in the former site of Midway Park.

I expected to see examples of Confederate jingoism when I looked into the building process of the Robert E Lee statue but could find little beyond technical details. I did find irony in the last line in the statue's nomination to the National Registered Landmarks when it was filed in 1997.

"Thus the Robert Edward Lee sculpture remains undisturbed in its original location. Sentiment in Charlottesville will undoubtedly keep it there, for the monument is a unique memorial to the eminent Confederate hero of all...."

The trouble is with the last part of the application though I'm sure the author had no ill intent. She was trying to get a statue honored. There is no doubt Lee is larger than life. If you ask a hundred people to name the best Confederate general in the Civil War, ninety-nine of them will say Robert E Lee. He was brave, audacious, and cared for his men. He won most of his battles, the notable exception being Gettysburg, and in turn made each Union general that faced him look foolish in comparison.

Regarding slavery, Lee once made the statement to his wife that:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral &; political evil in any Country."

Lee was a man of dichotomies.  Lee's father-in-law instructed his slaves to be freed upon his death but when Lee's wife received her inheritance, Robert held off because he knew family would lose the farm without the cheap labor. You see this happening to many families in the south of this time.

Thomas Jefferson

Charlottesville's most famous citizen is certainly Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States.  Among his greatest accomplishments in office include directing the founding of the United States Military Academy at West Point, greatly expanding the territory of the country by purchasing the Louisiana Territory, and sending Lewis & Clark to explore this new land.

Jefferson is also famous as the country's first Secretary of State and as an ambassador to France during the Revolutionary War.  He founded the University of Virginia after he left office yet his most enduring legacy might be the words he penned in the Declaration of Independence and immortal phrase "all men are created equal".  Yet even Jefferson didn't free his slaves until after his death. Many men of the time knew slavery was wrong yet they passed the problem to the next generation, unwilling or unable to face the financial burden of life without slavery.

Robert E. Lee too was a man of his times.  In the same letter quoted above he said:

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially &; physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, &; I hope will prepare &; lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known &; ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

Consider the fact that these words were written by a man who led other men in a Civil War to prolong the institution of slavery.  It makes you wonder.  How could a man who equate slavery as an evil actively work to prolong that evil?  Put in the best light, Lee practiced self-deception to make himself feel better for doing something he knew was wrong. In the worst light, Lee was a sociopath concerning slavery, caring little for the suffering and working to see the bondage continue.  I personally choose to believe the former as I think Lee was a complex yet caring man but I understand how others feel nothing but hatred for the man and his legacy.

Statue of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg

Once the war ended, Lee became more symbol than man. He retired to become president of Washington College (now Washington &; Lee) in Lexington, VA, the post-war epitome of an ideal southern gentlemen. The South needed a symbol and you couldn't invent a better candidate than Robert E Lee. Cities, schools, park, and roads were named in his honor. Statues were cast in his likeness all over the South.

I rarely ever paused in my younger years to consider is how the offspring of slaves must feel when they see these statues. I'm sure I had an ancestor or two that was a slave because slavery was rampant in the ancient world.  The difference is the public memory of that time has long since passed from consciousness. There is nothing about me that tells anyone that once upon a time, my ancestors were slaves of Romans or Greeks or Persians. That is not true of African-Americans. The history of America is literally written into their skin and the effects are still with us 150 years later. Poverty, poor education, drug use, violence, crime, prison, police brutality, housing. African-Americans struggle compared to whites in all these areas. Just like in Robert E Lee's time, we all are part to blame for this complex issue despite the fact the underlying problem originated long before any of us were ever born. It is hard to see a way out and while I hope it gets fixed in my lifetime, I'm not hopeful based on the rising hatred in our political discourse.

One thing we all can do is be a little more observant and that's leads back to the controversy of Lee's statue in Charlottesville. A simple start for dealing with Civil War statues could be this simple.

• Did the person live there? 
• Did the person fight a battle there? 

We can not and should not forget the past. Robert E Lee and the Confederacy existed and needs to be remembered if for no other reason than to remember the struggle this country fought to free itself from something so vile. Lee did not live in Charlottesville and never fought a battle in Charlottesville. There's no reasonable justification to have a statue of him on public land in Charlotteville and it should be taken down.

That's not to say there aren't places where statues of Lee make sense.

If you take Interstate 64 west from Charlottesville you eventually come to Lexington and the college where Lee lived in peaceful retirement after the war. That's a great spot for a statue which is why they already have a couple. There's also one of of him at the spot near Gettysburg (shown above) where he watched Pickett's men in their doomed charge.

The Civil War changed the way American's thought of their country, taking it from a collection of individual states into one single country.  The Battle of Gettysburg and Lincoln's subsequent speech were the forges that helped move the country in a 'new birth of freedom' and everyone should visit the battlefield at least once in their lives.  Standing next to the Lee Statue, you will feel a palpable sadness imagining lines of Confederates moving into a hopeless charge against a hill lined with Union troops.  It is this spot that effectively ended the hopes of the Confederacy and with it, the institution of slavery.

1st Flag of the Confederate
States of America

The Lee statue belongs at Gettysburg and so does the Confederate battle flag.  People sometimes forget the 'Stars and Bars' many racists use to display their hate is not the actual Confederate flag.  It is the Confederate battle flag and while it should not be displayed on public land anywhere else, it should be OK to display it on a Civil War battlefield.  Displaying it on the battlefield helps to remember the sacrifice this country endured to rid itself of slavery.  Displaying it anywhere else is insensitive and racist. It should be called out as such.

If we followed common sense rules, the country can make sure it is not ignoring its past while also moving forward to a better future.  It would ensure the children of slaves are not surrounded by symbols of hatred but the country's history would be freely available for anyone that cares to visit battlefields or birthplaces.

I heard someone the other days say it best - taking down Confederate monuments is not erasing history.  It is declaring that some parts of history belong in a museum, not on a pedestal.  We shouldn't make this any harder than it needs to be. If every city in America did this we could move on to the next big thing because the other items on the list to end racism aren't nearly this easy.

Tweet

DirecTV & Newton's Cannon

Have you ever wondered why your satellite dish doesn't need fancy tracking software to get a constant signal (assuming no rain😊)?  Also, why do you need to always point your dish to the south?

These may seem like difficult questions but the answer is quite simple once you understand Newton's Cannon (images below are from this link).

Tweet

Government waste and how to better control it

Today I read a story on the Washington Post about military spending that absolutely floored me.  It essentially states that we have as many people working in support services as we do for all the active duty military personnel combined.  That means for every front line soldier there is one person paying bills, buying supplies, and doing other administrative tasks.  This information comes from an internal Pentagon study and estimates are there are $125 billion in over spending every year.

Here's some tables I pulled from the study:

		Employees	Cost
Admin Employees		716,000
Desk soldiers		298,000
		1,014,000	$134 billion	23%
Front line soldiers		1,002,000	$446 billion	77%
Total		2,016,000	$580 billion

Here's the breakdown of the 1,014,000 people in military support services.

		Employees	Total cost	Avg Cost
Supply chain		457,000	52.1	114,004
Acquisition		207,000	37.5	181,159
Real estate		192,000	22.6	117,708
Human resources		84,000	11.4	135,714
Financial Flow		41,000	5.4	131,707
Health Care		30,000	4.1	136,667

Keep in mind that the $446 billion spent on front line soldiers also includes the cost and upkeep of all the military equipment and you can imagine just how bad this problem has become.  I'm sure it is something that isn't much of a secret to the actual fighting soldiers.  They get paid a relatively small amount and put their lives on the line while deskbound costs have soared to well over $100,000 per employee annually.

I'm sure quite a bit of this is due to the way the military is structured.  To advance in the military you have to work well with your superiors and that doesn't happen if you criticize how they've done things.  Keep in mind that most soldiers also don't spend much time in any post so it is easy to leave the bureaucracy for the next guy.  Add a Congress that wraps itself in the flag for votes, giving the military money even when they don't want it, and you get something that is impossible to control.

Of course the Pentagon hid the study and it's hard to blame them.  First, studies by outside consultants are always highly optimistic and in today's political environment this study would have been tossed around like a grenade, which each side cherry picking parts of the study to make political points.  The problem is there is a real issue and without visibility no one outside the military can fix it.

This isn't just a problem in the military.

Ratification of the US Constitution

The country's founders based the United States government on the concept of a separation of powers.
 The legislative branch in Congress makes the laws.  The executive branch in the President executes the laws.  The judicial branch in the Supreme Court checks the law for legality.

This system has worked for over 200 years but under the current scope and size of the United States this system is starting to show cracks.  Money, power, and atrophy has combined to create a bureaucratic morass that our current system cannot control.  Social media adds to this mix and unleashed a public anger at a government that no longer listens to them.  This has lead to things like President Trump but he can't fix the system.  No one person can do it.

What is the answer?  Is there an answer?

King George III

Our current situation reminds me of a comment King George III made after the Americans won their independence,

"I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy."

This quote baffled me when I first read as the American colonists fought to rid itself of monarchy.  In time I realized his meaning that the United States government would benefit from an enlightened leader at the top with limited power.  Kings of England by George III's time had lost most of its power compared to the British Parliament who both made laws and elected the Prime Minister who was the executor of those laws.  The king's position (and in time, the House of Lords) was mostly one of oversight.  Over time the king of England became a symbol, the voice of the people and a check on the excesses of Parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II

I recently watched the television series called 'The Crown' which showed the first couple of years of Queen Elizabeth's reign.  I didn't know much about her before this show and never really gave it much thought.  It keys on the relationship between the wizened Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Elizabeth, an out of her depth young girl.  The Queen had little understanding of how the world worked when her father died and struggled at first with her ignorance compared to these older, much smarter men,

Near the end of the show, Elizabeth finds her footing, scolding senior government officials for keeping secrets from the English public and from her.  The sight of these great men trembling at the foot of a 25 year old girl was the highlight of the show for me.

Elizabeth understands that her role is as the conscious of the English people so their leaders keep the welfare of their people first in their hearts.  The Queen is supposed to be above partisan politics.  She only cares about the country and there is benefit in that.

The United States has nothing similar in its government.  Throughout US history it has relied primarily on the politician's love of country and the media to keep our government honest.  This doesn't seem to be working anymore.  Political confrontations like Watergate, the Bork confirmation hearings, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, budget impasses, and the lead up to the Iraq War have inflamed passions on all sides to the point that no one is able to put country ahead of party.  The country has no conscious anymore

The British Senate House in London,
the basis for Orwell's Ministry of  Truth
in his book, 1984

I've thought for a long time this country needed a 4th branch of government called the 'Ministry of Information'.  While it sounds Orwellian in title, my hope would be the reality to be somewhat limited in scope.  This 4th branch of government would be elected by the people with a 20 year appointment and focusing on leaders with a proven lifetime of service to the country.  This group would elect a new leader from its members each year,  The only caveat would be after election, members of this group could no longer engage in public politics of any form.  Doing so would lead to immediate dismissal.  Like the Queen, people in this organization need to be totally above politics.

The only goal of the 'Ministry of Information' would be to provide truthful information about the country.  Current organizations like the Congressional Budget Office would transfer to authority to them.  Government misstatements in the press would be called out.  A real look at the state of things like Social Security and Military spending would done.  Politicians would be held accountable to repeated false statements.  The organization would be part auditor and part newspaper.  When agreed on by other members, the president of this organization can meet with Congress and/or the President when they feel either aren't doing their job and go public when they refuse.

Of course there is the possibility that this organization could fracture leading to the same situation as current the Supreme Court but I'd hope we could find a couple dozen civic minded citizens to lead this group.  Ideally we'd never hear from them other than policy papers that would lead to marked improvements in how our government operates.  They would only go public in times of crisis like a lack of a Supreme Court vote over last summer or a rash of filibusters I'm sure we will see next spring over Trump's appointments.

The American government is based on effective lawmaking combined with a separation of power.  Party politics have narrowed the lines of power creating never ending gridlock that has no hope of addressing the needs of its people in the 21st century world.  Our current system is starting to show its age and we need to act soon before we prove King George's admonition correct.

Tweet

Hillary vs Donald, an Election Day lookback - Is the best behind the United States?

Today is election day in the United States with Hillary Clinton on one side and Donald Trump on the other. This election will go down as one of the most vitriolic in American political history. I thought I'd take this opportunity to step back and take a look at both and look through their BS to see if I can find a little bit of truth.

Tonight both Hillary and Donald released a capstone video as a last plea to win votes.

Here is Hillary's comment:

"We've come through some hard economic times. And we've seen some pretty big changes. But I believe in our people and I love this country. And I've convinced our best days are still ahead of us if we reach for them together."

Clinton's comments are similar to Reagan's optimism in the 1980 election.  Every politician since then has made this optimism a cornerstone of their policy even if facts got in the way.  Hillary's only real modification is adding 'reach for them together' which is a nod to the demographic shifts of the past fifty years. 

Here is Donald Trump's take which is amazing in its pessimism:

"The political establishment has brought about the destruction of our factories and our jobs as they flee to Mexico and China and other countries all around the world. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you."

It is hard not to have at least a little grudging admiration for a man that can state, 'Vote for me, I'm the only one that can save you' with a straight face.  Beyond Trump's self importance, he actually speaks truth to subjects the American people know are correct but our politicians are too cowardly to state out loud.

The country isn't dominating anymore.  Politicians have failed the country over the last 30+ years. The US manufacturing sector has shrunk to a fraction of the American workforce since its numerical peak in the late 1970s. The American trade deficit is staggering and the national debts we are accumulating are unsustainable.  Trump has tapped into something powerful that will have ramifications long past this election.

******

Of course politicians are supposed to talk a good game but the question no one really asks is --- can they really do anything about the problems?

When the United States founders wrote the Constitution they knew they country had one huge advantage over their counterparts in Europe.

In essence, the United States had lots of land and the ability to expand.

During the country's first century most immigrants become farmers and as they settled the land they pushed the borders westward (by war and native displacement) past the Mississippi River and eventually to the Pacific Coast.

After the Civil War, the country moved to its second phase, taking the English Industrial Revolution to a new scale and creating wealth through manufacturing making many millionaires in the process.

Three things fueled the post Civil War boom - land, abundant natural resources, and a seeming unending supply of cheap immigrant labor.

Farming as a percentage of total labor dropped from 70% to 30% during this period as people started to move from farms into cities looking for work. A lack of competition meant profits stayed mostly with the 'robber barons' leading to the first government regulation of business and pressure for labor unions.

Then Europe exploded in flames and changed everything. Few people realize the transformational effect World War One on the the country but you can make a good argument it was just as big as the American Revolution or the Civil War.  Certainly its impact was bigger than World War Two.

The Industrial Revolution started in Europe but with millions their men dying in trenches, United States manufacturing rose to fill the demand. American steel, American grain, American textiles, and perhaps most important, American gunpowder, took the place its European counterparts. American gold reserves filled to overflowing due to the international trade imbalance. The American Dollar soared in value. Every warring power found themselves highly indebted to American banks to the point they all demanded relief from their debt load in the 1920s.

The United States produced almost half the world's industrial products during the post war period even though it represented about 3% of the total population. New inventions like radios, automobiles, and refrigerators poured out of American factories, lengthening the lead and increasing the boom.

During the 1920s, the United States still held its three key advantages in land, abundant resources, and cheap labor but it had been joined a fourth - Banking Power. 

The country leveraged this into a decade of prosperity until over speculation lead to a Wall Street crash, the Great Depression, and the world economy dependent on American production and banking crashed as well.  This led to another disastrous World War, which again destroyed much of Europe allowing the American economy to restart with a virtual monopoly in many world markets.

In the first half of the 20th century, the government broke up predatory monopolies and enacted protection for labor unions. During the post World War Two world and with a world dependent on the United States goods, wealth rapidly spread down through the economy leading to a rapid expansion of a new American 'middle class'.

High hourly wages, leisure time, employer paid medical plans, and retirement pensions became an expected part of American life vs. the impossibility of such ideas a generation earlier. A boom of postwar babies came to understand this circumstance as normal, not as a fluke of profitability due to a destroyed world economy.

The first signs things were changing started in the 1960s as wages started to stagnate but the real turning point was the OPEC embargo in 1973. In 1971, gold reserves dropped to a dangerous point forcing the president to move from a gold backed currency to currency based on faith in the American economy.

American manufacturers suddenly found it harder to compete internationally as the high labor cost, imported oil, and the creeping cost of property eliminated many of the country's historic advantages. In the 1980s the economy exploited its last advantage, banking to continue to expand its economy and to pay for the salary and benefits expectations raised by the postwar boom.

As the Industrial Revolution made its way around the world, countries leveraged their cheap labor costs to compete with American business. It didn't take long for the United States to move from a manufacturing based economy to a service/consumer economy. Families that previously could survive on one income now needed two incomes to pay the bills. Massive credit card debt became the norm. Big school loans. Borrowing against housing loans. Living paycheck to paycheck.

In 2008, speculation in the housing market crashed almost destroying the United States last economic advantage in the banking sector. Massive subsidies saved the banks but ended the banks spending spree which tightened credit. The post war baby boom is began to retire leaving fewer active workers to pay for retirement benefits. Government debt rose to all time historic levels vs GDP, threatening to spiral out of control and make the US dollar worthless.  It's a mess that will take hard decisions but American political system is unequal to the task as the politicians continue to ignore these issues, afraid for their re-election, hoping the problems will magically go away and leaving the mess for the next guys in office.  Of course there are exceptions but the bottom line is gridlock.

*******

Click to embiggen

Hillary says we've been through tough times but 'together we will find better days ahead' without giving any details. The truth is after WW2 the United States saw a period of unsustainable profits but instead of recognizing that we spent our surplus on unsustainable social programs, war, and extravagance. Hillary's plan does little to address the problems that face the country and I'm pretty sure she's smart enough to realize this. She's also a smart politician and will never admit it.

Donald says he can bring jobs back but I've seen no plan from him that could actually accomplish this. Look at the above chart.  The United States has added  100 million workers in the last 65 years, most of them in the service industry.  Frankly, there is no way to get manufacturing back to 30% of total employment we saw in the post war era.  We'd need to create 50 million manufacturing jobs and none of these jobs are coming back. No manufacturing company can compete if they pay American wage rates. Trump has hinted at using tariffs and quota's to accomplish this but all that would do is create a backlash against American products internationally.  It would cause higher unemployment as companies retaliate and stop buying American.  It would also lead to inflation due to the tariff, causing Americans to pay more not less for their products.

The bottom line is the United States benefited from a global economy for most of the 20th century and now we are feeling the effects of competition that were destined to occur.  It is naive to think we can go back to a pre-WW1 economy where the United States trade stayed mostly within its own borders.  It is silly to blame NAFTA or the Pacific Trade Partnership for lost jobs.  In fact, working with the world is important if we want to continue to thrive.  We can no longer dictate to the world.

Wall Street knows this which is why the stock market improved 300+ points on Monday, assuming that Hillary is more likely to win.  The stock market will crash if Donald actually does win as they hate uncertainty.  Hillary is a politician and knows the nuance of the world economy.  Donald speaks to an angry populace that feels helpless.  I understand that anger but it doesn't mean they are correct.  Frankly, I hate to think what might happen to the economy if the country is led by someone that doesn't understand the basic economics.

******

Politicians annoy me. It's obvious I'm not the only one who feels like this and Donald Trump has tapped into the country's anger. The problem is like the Egyptians, Romans, and British before us, empires follow a predictable pattern.

The people of the United States need to understand our time of dominance is almost over.   That doesn't mean we will become a third world country.  The United States will be an important member of the world community for a long time to come but only if we learn to live within our means.  I know none of us want to admit it but it is true.

Neither of this year's candidates are willing to tell us the truth so it is up to us to lead them.  We cannot rely on politicians to improve our future as their reliance on empty promises can't solve anything.  Trump has tapped into anger that is important but only if we are willing to face the truth.  If we don't we will create the future for ourselves that we fear the most.

Tweet

Sir Kevin vs the Dragon

And now for something completely different:

Once upon a time there was a brave knight called Sir Kevin. His exploits were renowned through the yet it is his clash with the foul beast known as Fred the Dragon that he is best known.  Many thought Fred to be merely a tale told to scare young children but Sir Kevin always knew otherwise.  It was a warm August day when these two legendary foes met.

The dragon caught Sir Kevin by surprise as dastardly creature are wont but thankfully the creature did not strike at once instead preferring to retreat to a high vantage point.  Sir Kevin knew this was often the preferred tactic of dragons as they need a high vantage point before they can swoop down raining hellfire.  Sir Kevin was much too cunning for the beast as he ran as fast as he could in the other direction.

Sir Kevin thought of retreating then to warn nearby villagers but the dragon guarded the exit to the valley.  

"Then I will lay a trap myself," said Sir Kevin aloud though no one was close enough to hear him speak.  Inspired by the surge of energy only present when staring death in the face, Sir Kevin devised a trap of incredible cunning.  

But how to get the beast inside?

Moments later the answer came, "Of course, I know, my faithful companion Yogi will help".  If any were nearby they might question Sir Kevin's sanity as he continued to speak out loud with no human in earshot.

"Charge Yogi.  Kill the beast."  

Yogi flew through the air on command.

But alas Yogi was not up to the task.  His plush stuffing hit the creature's hindquarters, the sound of the collision indelibly resounding in Sir Kevin's ears as Yogi bounced once then landed on the ground with a dull thud. Fred the Dragon turned, his maw pointed directly at Sir Kevin, flames expected to spew any second.  Sir Kevin had no choice.  He drew his sword.

Words cannot describe the battle that followed. Steel hit scale. Bitter epitaphs were sworn by both sides though Sir Kevin cannot be certain what Fred said as he does not speak lizardtongue. In the end, both man and beast were not able to best the other, the scaly beast cleverly avoiding the trap and returning to his lair.

Sir Kevin knew victory was not to be had on this day.

Sir Kevin checked on Yogi who had made a miraculous recovery despite his nasty fall.   Yet Sir Kevin knew his friend was more hurt than he was letting on and while he wanted to continue the battle, Sir Kevin decided it best to make hasty retreat for his friend's sake.  Besides, it was important to let the nearby village know that dragons had returned to the land.

And that is the tale of Sir Kevin vs the Dragon.  Even now, bards are composing songs of the mighty battle that no one else saw.  As his fame spread throughout the land Sir Kevin has cloistered himself behind stone walls in preparation for the day he might again meet Fred the Dragon.  Others have attempted to fell the foul beast but Kevin will not come out of his room until his studies are complete.  And when that day happens, Sir Kevin promises the dragon's days are numbered.

THE END

Tweet

Could Barack Obama join a select group of U.S. Presidents?

Now that the presidential primaries are over it is now official that the Republicans and Democrats are running Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton respectively as their candidates.

Trump has never served in public office in any capacity and if he wins will be the first since Eisenhower to win the presidency with no prior public service experience.  The only other presidents with this distinction are George Washington, Zachery Taylor, and Ulysses S Grant though all these men served in the United States military and each commanded the army during war.

If Hillary wins she will obviously be the first women president in United States history which is certainly a landmark, but as I watched Obama's speech it dawned on me that if Clinton wins it will also put our current president in a rare category.  Only nine presidents have been elected to two terms and had their party win the next election.  They are:

President	Party	Historical Ranking
Thomas Jefferson	Democrat-Republicans	4
James Madison	Democrat-Republicans	14
James Monroe	Democrat-Republicans	16
Andrew Jackson	Democratic	7
Abraham Lincoln *	Republican	1
Ulysses S Grant	Republican	36
William McKinley *	Republican	19
Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	2
Ronald Reagan	Republican	15

                 * - Elected Twice ; Died in office

Will Obama join this group?  Only if Hillary wins.

As you can see this list contains many of the best presidents in US history.  To serve two terms and still be liked enough at the end of your presidency that your party can still win the next election is a rare thing in American politics.  The following fact about this list of men is even more interesting to me when thinking about the future.

President	Currency
Thomas Jefferson	$2 bill ; Nickle
James Madison	$5000 bill (discontinued)
James Monroe	$100 Silver Certificate (discontinued)
Andrew Jackson	$20 bill
Abraham Lincoln *	$5 bill ; Penny
Ulysses S Grant	$50 bill
William McKinley *	$500 bill
Franklin Roosevelt	Dime
Ronald Reagan

Notice the guy at the end whose been left off?  Republicans have been trying to get Reagan's face on US currency since he left office but the Democrats have prevented it thus far.  That hasn't stopped Republicans from immortalizing Reagan's name where ever they can all over the country.

Contrast that with Obama.  Despite what Republican say, Obama has been a good president.  He inherited a divisive war, a crumbling economy, and a polarized voter base yet right now he's finishing strong enough to be a positive force to help get Hillary and other Democrats elected.  That is what it means to leave a legacy.  Compare that to George Bush who was considered toxic to Republican candidates by the end of his presidency.

Obama has been a much better president than most Republicans are willing to admit just like Reagan was a better president than most Democrats are willing to admit.  My guess is it won't be long until we start seeing Obama's name on schools, airports, and parks all over the country just like Reagan.

Perhaps we might even see some comprise in Congress and in time we will see Reagan on the $50 dollar bill and Obama on the $100.  Crazier things have happened.

Tweet

Lucifer - How a mistranslation gave the devil another name

Earlier this week I found a comment by Ben Carson very interesting.  Actually it wasn't something that Dr. Carson said but instead in the reaction to a disparaging comment he made about Hillary Clinton.

In 1969, Hillary wrote her undergraduate thesis about Saul Alinsky, a man who in his book Rules for Radicals called Lucifer:

“… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively he won his own kingdom.”  

Ben Carson saw that as Saul Alinsky praising Lucifer and sees Hillary’s relationship with Saul Alinsky as another reason why America should reject her.  I mostly ignored the comment at the time as politics is filled with half truths but someone made a comment online that did arouse my interest.

The name Lucifer isn’t in the Hebrew Bible.  It’s a mistranslation from when Jerome created the Latin Bible.

As a history junkie, this statement was much more interesting to me than a political jab no one will remember in a week.  Was this person’s claim true?  What is the origin of the name Lucifer?  I spent the next couple of hours investigating it.

The story of how the Bible came to its current form is much too complex for a blog post but for the last 400 years the English speaking world has mostly used the King James Bible.  The King James has had a huge impact on the way we speak today.  Many common sayings such as 'bite the dust', 'fly in the ointment', and 'wit’s end' along with thousands of other common phrases all originate from the King James.  It isn't much of a stretch to state that the King James Bible has had more impact on the English language than any other book.  Yet in this version of the Bible the name of Lucifer is mentioned exactly once.  It occurs in Isaiah 14:12.

 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Of course the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.  The main source for the King James Bible was the Latin Vulgate written by Jerome around 400 AD which states.

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?

This translates loosely to:

“How art thou fallen from heaven , O Lucifer, son of the morning like the sun? art thou cut down to the ground , you who laid the nations low!”

The confusion occurred when Jerome translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin.  Here's the translation of the Hebrew Bible directly into English.

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Notice the change?  The meaning is essentially the same in all version but the original Hebrew referred to a morning star.  What is the Latin word for ‘morning star’?  You’ve probably guessed that it is lucifer.  In defense of Jerome, his wording had nothing to do with Satan as Lucifer was also the proper name for Venus, as known as the morning star.

Hanging Gardens of Babylon
by Maarten van Heemskerck

Isaiah 14:12 was written as a metaphor.  In this case the 'morning star' is (most likely) referring to Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonian who conquered most of today’s Middle East in the late 7th-early 6th century BCE.  After repeated uprisings in today’s Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar took important Jewish families into Babylonian captivity starting in 597 BCE.  It was in this captivity where the Jewish scholars put the final touches on the books that made the Torah while adding further books.  Most of Isaiah 14 speaks about the godlessness of Babylon and how its actions will lead to ruin. 

Cyrus the Great liberating the Jews
 from Babylonian captivity to resettle
 and rebuild Jerusalem.
Painting by Jean Fouquet

It mentions nothing of Satan and while some Christians have argued Satan was working through Nebuchadnezzar, the Bible does not state this explicitly.  All Isaiah states is saying Nebuchadnezzar had risen high and would eventually be struck low.  Later in Daniel 4:28-33, Nebuchadnezzar is shown to have lost his sanity though most history scholars feel this passage is really speaking about a later Babylonian king, Nabonidus, who is known to have had a nasty skin disease.  It fits the narrative as Nabonidus is also known to history as the last of the Babylonian kings.  In 539 BCE he lost his throne to Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, who eventually allowed the captive Judeans to return home to Jerusalem.

How did one mistranslated line about the ‘morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12 get into today’s vocabulary equating the devil with the name Lucifer?

Paradise Lost Illustration
 by Gustave Doré

It took time.  As people stopped using Latin, the meaning behind the words made less sense to future generations.  They began to understand the word Lucifer as a proper name of an individual.  When Dante completed the Divine Comedy in 1320, he referred to Lucifer as sitting in the 9th ring of Hell.  In 1654, Vondel made Lucifer the titular character in his play on the subject of Satan.  In 1667, Milton's Paradise Lost speaks more specifically when he describes the angel Lucifer's fall from Heaven to become Satan in Hell.  As time passed, these popular works meshed into Christian lore and the names of Satan and Lucifer became interchangeable.

So today I learned something from Ben Carson ... indirectly.

Tweet

God and the certainty of faith

It's almost Christmas and many people take this time of the year to reflect on the past year and look to the future.  For many people in the United States, this process also includes an appraisal of how their past actions reflect in the eyes of God and more specifically a Christian God.

Pew recently released a poll which showed that certainty of God is slipping.

In 2007, 71% of Americans were certain God existed but in 2014 that number dropped to 63%.  

The numbers by religious affiliation are summarized in the chart to the right.  Polls like this intrigue me because the word certain means that it is provable by direct evidence yet there is no direct evidence that God exists.  There is indirect evidence like the cosmic dance between the Sun, Moon, and Earth which gives human beings a great place to live but that is residual evidence.

Science would consider the idea of God a theory but you could never publish a peer reviewed paper of God as a fact due to the lack of direct evidence.  Yet a large majority of people are certain God exists.

Why is that?  None of us know with certainty how the universe originated.  Scientists understanding starts with the Big Bang but they can't explain what happened before that.  Some religious will claim that God initiated the Big Bang but even if that were true, that leads to the question of who created God.

The number of people certain that there is no God jumped from 5% to 9%.

This number intrigues me almost as much as those that are certain he exists.  No one is certain God exists.  No one is certain that God doesn't exist.  People have faith that God exists.  Doubters assume there must be another answer for the universe's existence but they don't know for sure.

Seeing this poll reminded me of something that happened to me when I was twelve.  At the time, my family lived in an apartment complex and door to door proselytizer from a megachurch convinced me and my brother and sister to attend their church.  Looking back it still feels a little surreal.  A couple of days later, a bus driven by someone none of us knew drove into our neighborhood and dozens of kids were carted off miles from their homes without a single adult they knew (only churches could ever do something like this).

When we arrived we were all in awe.  The church was an immense mix of glass and concrete paid by thousands of people that watched the television services held there each week.  My sense of awe turned to fear when I got split off from everyone else.  I was the oldest and was told I couldn't attend the children's service.  I had to attend the young adults session.  Having no choice, I went into the room with hundreds of other kids my age.  The first thing they did after we sat down was to ask us to bow our heads, close our eyes. then the leader called out,

"Raise your hands if Jesus Christ is your personal savior."

That was a tough question.  I'd gone to a Christian Church most of my young life, attended Sunday School and went to Bible camp.  Yet the question still bugged me.  Some things in the Bible didn't make sense to me and somehow I knew I couldn't raise my hand.  After all, the church had taught me my whole life that God would know if I was lying and I certainly didn't want to go to hell.

Less than a minute later an adult approached me and asked me to come with him.  Like the obedient kids I was, I followed a complete stranger into a back room (again ... only churches could get away with this).  I certainly noticed I was the only one in the room asked to do this and can still remember my growing embarrassment as a hundred pair of eyes watched me trek through the room to a little booth with a door.  I can still remember my hands starting to sweat as the man sat at the table across from me.  He said,

"I noticed you didn't raise your hand.  Why don't you feel Jesus your personal savior?"

I hemmed and hawed for a bit as I shrugged my shoulders but the man was insistent.  I wasn't sure what to say so I asked the first thing that came to mind.  I asked,

"Where did Cain and Able's wives come from?"

I'm sure the question took the man off guard.  Looking back I'm guessing he was just a volunteer of some sort and might not have even thought about that part of the Bible.  On the other hand I'd tried to read the Bible many times.  My love of reading was something of a family joke as I had a habit of reading encyclopedias when I didn't have something else.  Yet I struggled with the Bible.

Here was the word of God and little things like the above quote didn't make sense but it was more than that.  This man wanted me to say Jesus Christ was my personal savior when I never met him.  If he'd asked me to say my grandpa was my personal savior I would have agreed in a second.  How could I do this for a man I only knew from words in a book I barely understood?  Jesus wasn't any more real to me than George Washington, Thomas Edison, or General Patton.  I asked him how could I find a way past my issues.  After all, God would know if I had doubts.

The man read verse after verse to me about Jesus and how much he loved me but none of it answered my core question.  The only answer is faith but for some reason he answered every question with a Bible verse that made the matter worse.  I felt myself growing frustrating and angry that this adult was try to trick me somehow.  Why wasn't he answering my questions?  Near the end I remember asking the man something that had bugged me for a long time,

"What is the Holy Spirit?"

I understood God as he had worked with Moses.  Jesus did things like turn water into wine.  What was the Holy Ghost's role?  The man didn't even try to answer the question and instead read me a couple of quotes by Jesus then told me Jesus was my personal savior and that I would always remember the date of (I've long since forgotten) as the day I was saved.  I wanted to ask more questions but I could tell the man was annoyed and as we walked out I saw the young adult service was over.  The last thing the man told me was to raise my hand the next week when they asked if Jesus was my personal savior.  I never went back.

In hindsight I've always found this story funny.  I'm sure this guy was a volunteer for that church and when he saw me he thought it would take five minutes to read a quote and get me back into the lecture hall.  Instead he got an hour long grilling by a pint-sized skeptic.

At the core, my question to the man was the role of certainty when it comes to understanding God.

In time I came to understand that you can't be certain when it comes to matters of faith.  All you can do is follow your instincts.  There are no certainties because there is no proof other than a book passed down from our ancestors.  Everyone has doubts but that fact is hard to explain to a twelve year old.

Yet looking at the poll where 63% of American are sure that God exists tells me that other men were far more successful with the people they took into that cubicle.  A majority of American have been taught to force back any doubt and lie.

On the other hand, since the dawn of the internet the number of skeptics has continued to increase.  Frankly I really think it would serve the church much better to embrace doubt and help their members work through it.  If they don't I expect the drop in poll numbers to continue.

Tweet