A ban on circumcision?

A recent article about circumcision caught my eye.

Iceland's proposed ban on circumcision

"The bill aims to outlaw circumcision when not for medical reasons and was introduced by nine lawmakers from four political parties. It claims that any parent allowing the “irreversible” procedure disregards a boy's right to self-determination. Those found guilty could face up to six years in prison."

As you can imagine this has created quite an uproar in both the Jewish and Muslim communities where this practice is considered a sacred part of their religion.

Something I've always found interesting about circumcision is it isn't Jewish in origin.  Archaeologists have found circumcised Egyptian remains dated to 4000 BCE and I suspect the origins are much earlier than that.  There are even clear examples of the practice found on Egyptian hieroglyphs from around 2400 BCE.  To the right is a picture showing a priest about to perform the ceremony while holding a flint cutting tool with the printed words - 'Hold him and don't let him faint'. 

Even the Egyptian god Ra was circumcised in one incarnation. The practice remained a mainstay in Egyptian culture until Roman times though it had one key difference from what we see in the Bible.  The Egyptian ceremony happened during a boy's teenage years and the process marked that the child had become a man. Can you imagine if Jewish tradition did this as part of Bar Mitzvah?  I suspect far fewer modern Jewish boys would willingly choose to become Jewish men.

***

The link between Egypt to Israel/Judah seems clear as there is no record of this practice in the Levant before its mention in the Bible.  From the record, some historians feel it is likely a small Egyptian religious sect fled into the Sinai around 1200 BCE to escape persecution which set off the story we know in the Bible.  Etymologists studies support this belief as they say the following poem (called the 'Song of the Sea') is the oldest writing found in that book:

‘Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.' - Exodus 15:21

I am not an expert how exactly they go about proving this but the reasoning is the Hebrew language spoken here uses an archaic word pattern that isn't seen when the priests wrote other parts of the book.  For example, imagine if a current writer used a direct quote from Shakespeare in their work.  A future linguist would know the 'thee's and thou's came from an earlier source due to the phrasing.

Bronze Age flint knives
excavated in Israel
(picture from
Bible-History.com)

In addition, all references to circumcision in the Bible from Moses' time refer to using 'flint knives'.  Here's a relevant passage from when Joshua is about to enter the promised land:

At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the Israelites at Gibeath Haaraloth. - Joshua 5:2-3

The thing is at the time of God's pronouncement, bronze had been available for about 1800 years and is a much better cutting tool than flint.  Why would this be the case?  Is it a stretch to think the leaders of this new religion saw flint knives as a necessary part of the ceremony since flint stone had always been a part of the procedure since its origin in pre-Bronze Age Egypt?

It makes sense to me.

Over time, the story of the exodus was passed down through the generations, told over campfires over hundreds of years, and inevitably making small changes to the story in the process.  Eventually, Jewish priests decided to consolidate their beliefs in written form.  They combined the fractured legends into a single religious book then backfilled it with the other familiar allegorical stories you find in Genesis.  This includes the Abrahamic story which included a change to circumcision which made it a requirement for all Jewish males on their 8th day after their birth.

The reason for this change is obvious as 1st-century Jewish philosopher Philo stated in his writings about the subject.  However, you don't need to be a genius to know grown men prefer to avoid circumcision.  Doing it to a child means there is no choice.  Paul of Tarsus certainly believed this since he removed circumcision as a requirement so he could gain more converts to Christianity.  One further change over time was to remove the requirement of using flint stones.  Thankfully, in modern times, practitioners use steel clamps, steel scalpels, and pain suppressants.

***

I don't think it is a stretch to state tht the worst harms in the Bible are caused when believers cling too hard to ancient practices without truly understanding their meaning. For millennia we've cut off the tips of young boy's penises because prehistoric Egyptian rites were included in a Jewish religious text.  This practice has also made its way into Islam (however the Quran doesn't state it directly). 

Citizens of the United States have a much sillier reason for circumcising their young.  It isn't due to religion but instead due to the efforts of Victorian-era morality attempting to stop boys from masturbating.  Oddly enough, two of the key forces pushing for change happen to be involved in the creation of Graham Crackers and Corn Flakes.  It might be a funnier story if the results didn't affect so many kids.  If you are interested, you can read this story for a brief explanation or this one for more details.

The bottom line for me is while it can be argued that circumcision does have some benefits, is it too much to ask that the surgery should be done only when agreed to by the patient or if a doctor's opinion states it is a medical emergency?  I understand there's a need for religious liberty but shouldn't that stop when affecting the bodies of others?

Tweet

Minnesota's cataclysmic geographic history hidden in its western border

The shape of the state of Minnesota is familiar to any American kid who spent hours learning the states and state capitals in grade school.  As you might expect from a state also known as the 'Land of Ten Thousand Lakes', water plays a big part in its boundaries.

Minnesota's northern boundary was created by the Treaty of Paris of 1783 when Great Britain recognized United States' independence. The boundary would run from Lake Superior by an all-water route to the northwest point of Lake of the Woods then proceed due west to the Mississippi River, which at the time formed the western boundary of the United States.

Unfortunately the signers of this treaty didn't realize that the Mississippi River ended south of the Lake of the Woods so in the Treaty of 1818 they fixed the international border at the 49th degree parallel.

The eastern border is follows the Mississippi River north to until veers east along the St. Croix river and then due north to the western edge of Lake Superior.

The southern border was much easier following a straight line between itself and Iowa at 43º 30′ N.

The western border looks as boring as southern border at first glance.  It goes straight north from its border with Iowa then follows the Red River north to Canada.  

The thing that interested me was seeing apparent connection between the Mississippi River and Red River.  The river that connects them on the map above is the Minnesota River but that confused me as I knew the Red River flowed north to Lake Winnipeg then into the Nelson River and eventually into the Hudson Bay.

That really confused me.  Could you take a canoe and paddle south from Hudson Bay, along the Nelson River, through Lake Winnipeg, along the Red River to the Minnesota, then to the Mississippi and eventually into the Gulf of Mexico?

That seemed impossible as everyone knows that a river can't flow in two directions at the same time.  As I looked for an answer on Google Maps I struggled to find where one river stopped and the other began.  They seemed to be one continous river.

The answer is actually in the two maps above but I needed to do more research before I figured it out.  One thing that started to clear things things up for me was Google Maps.  That tool is a godsend if you are curious about topographic detail in an area.  The place where the rivers met was in Browns Valley, Minnesota but seeing that didn't give much insight to answer my question.

Traverse Gap

It did answer my question about the canoe.  You can paddle from Hudson bay all the way to the Gulf of Mexico as long as you are willing to do a short 'traverse' in Browns Valley.

As you can see in the map above, Lake Traverse (part of the Red River watershed) is at the top of the map above and the Little Minnesota River is near the bottom.  The two water sources are separated by less than a mile.  If you are observant you might also see something else on the map that interested me a lot more which relates to the title of this article.

Here are a couple more maps of the Red River (and tributaries) leading to Browns Valley.  Each map is further south and closer to Traverse Gap.  See if you notice something odd.

Red River in Georgetown MN near Fargo, ND (90 Miles North of Browns Valley)

Red River Tributary in White Rock, SD (25 Miles North of Browns Valley)

Lake Traverse (Just north of Browns Valley)

To give you a little perspective, the above images are approximately 2 miles x 2 miles (except Traverse Lake).  Did you noticed anything strange?  Did you notice the narrow deep cut valley that broadens the closer you get to Browns Valley?

The reason is more apparent as you move south past Browns Valley.  Here's screen captures of the Minnesota River (and tributaries) to the south.

Minnesota River near Big Stone City, South Dakota (28 Miles south of Browns Valley, MN)

Minnesota River at Morton, Minnesota (120 Miles Southeast of Browns Valley, MN)

Minnesota River just west of Mankato, Minnesota (170 Miles Southeast of Browns Valley, MN)

Do you see it now?

The Red River maps north of Browns Valley are approximately the same perspective as the ones south on the Minnesota River.

I will give a hint.  The valley south of Browns Valley is much wider than the current Minnesota River could ever carve.  If you want to explore yourself you can goto this Google Maps link to see for yourself as it is hard to miss once you move the map around the screen.

Of course that does little to answer the question unless you already have a good understanding of North American geologic history.

Most Americans know Minnesota's nickname is the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes and for good reason.  The official count of their lakes as published by the state is 11,842 lakes greater than 10 acres in size.  The only state with more is Alaska.  

Lakes are usually formed in following ways - 

• Tectonic - Movement of tectonic plates trapping an ancient ocean (Dead Sea, Great Salt Lake)
• Volcanic - Dormant/inactive volcano leaves behind a caldera and fills with water (Crater Lake)
• Fluvial - Created by running water usually left behind by rivers that change directions
• Landslide - Earthquake moves land to dam water
• Glacial - Glaciers carve the land leaving behind gouges which fill with water (???)

Lakes have a life cycle just like any other geologic feature.  Given enough time, all lakes will disappear as geologic activity along with sediments and organic materials cause them to turn into marshland and eventually disappear.  Given that lakes are continually disappearing, a location with a numerous lakes must have had a recent event to allow them to form all at once.  In fact there is only one thing that can create the number of lakes we see in Minnesota.

Glaciers.  More to the point, the Laurentide Ice Sheet.  

Maximum extent of the last ice age
 around 21,000 years ago

Glaciers are the answer to most questions when speaking to the geology of the Northern United States.  As you can see quite plainly in the graphic to the right, the extent of the glaciers created the current path of the Missouri River.

Anyone that has visited Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois can clearly see a difference between the northern and southern portion of those states.  The northern parts of those states are flat with rolling hills ; the south is quite hilly.  That's all due to glaciers.

Unimaginably huge ice sheets covering millions of square miles and thousands of feet tall moved south out of Canada at the beginning of the last ice age starting about 40,000 years ago reaching its maximum extent similar to picture to the right about 21,000 years ago.  As the planet warmed, the ice sheets stopped their march south then started to retreat.  As you might imagine it takes a while to melt ice over a mile thick.

One thing I never considered is what happens to all the water after it melts.  At first, water from the melting ice sheet flowed south to existing rivers in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys.  The problem occurred when the glaciers melted to the other side of the continental divide.

This is a great map of North America that shows our current continental divides, i.e. where every drop of water will eventually end up assume it doesn't evaporate.  Rainfall east of the yellow line in the Eastern United States ends up flowing into the Atlantic Ocean.  East of the red line and south of the green line ends up in the Gulf of Mexico.  Water north of the green line and south of the blue line ends up in Hudson Bay.

Ancient Glacial River Warren

Have you seen the problem?

As the ice sheets melted and retreated over the Laurentian (green) continental divide, the water had no place to go.  A literal mountain of ice blocked its normal path to Hudson Bay.

Do you see the green line crossing a familiar point on western border of Minnesota on the map above?

Around 12,000 years ago, the water continued to melt and a small lake formed on the Hudson Bay side of the continental divide.  As the warming continued, water topped the lowest point of the Laurentide continental divide at Browns Valley causing a rush of water to scour the Minnesota River valley for hundreds of miles and then do the same thing to the Mississippi River for another hundred miles.  If you take another look at the google maps above or at this link, it is easy to see the damage done to the terrain thousands of years later.

This paper from Michigan State goes into much more detail on the deluge, Glacial Lake Warren, and Lake Agassiz than I ever could hope to match.  Take a look if you are interested in a deeper dive on the subject.

Seeing the maps made me wonder as some some theorize that the first Native Americans made their way into Minnesota soon after the glaciers melted.  That begs the question.

• Were people living along the Minnesota river when it first flowed down the valley?  
• What about further down the Mississippi?  
• What must these people have thought as a small river quickly transformed into a maelstrom a mile wide?

I would imagine the water flow would slow every winter than return with a vengeance in the spring and summer melts.  I don't think many other geologic events could ever top this annual spectacle.

Scientists are not sure exactly how long Glacial River Warren (the name geologist gave to the widened Minnesota river) ran but the best estimates it continued off and on for about 2,000 years until about 9,400 years ago.  A combination of accumulated silt in the Red River Valley and other outlets to the Mississippi and the Great Lakes caused the river flow to stop completely.

As the ice sheet melted further it created a massive lake - Lake Agissiz.  At one point this lake was the largest fresh water lake in the world, larger than all the Great Lakes put together, stretching from Minnesota almost to Hudson Bay.  

As the earth's crust slowly rebounded after the weight of the ice was gone, the land slowly rose causing most of Lake Agissiz to disappear but it is not gone completely.  Lake Winnipeg is the remnant of a mighty ancient lake that once carved a river valley.

Who said geology wasn't fun?

Tweet

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