My first book

The first book I read, 'Fun with Dick and Jane' was a series written in the 1930s and it rose to popularity in the 1950s.  My school used it long after other schools had moved on to more modern works but the area was poor and we couldn't afford anything better.  My classmates and I didn't know that at the time.  All we knew were the words on the page as we struggled to translate them into words we already knew in our heads.

See Dick.
See Jane.
See Spot Run.
Run Spot Run.

It was a basic form of learning but I struggled mightily at first.  The teaching method my teacher choose for this book was a reading circle.  Each kid took turns trying to read a three word page and once they finished the next kid would tackle the following page.  It's been many years since but I can still remember the anxiety I felt as it grew closer to my turn.  I was too young to understand that this panicked feeling hindered my learning though it didn't really matter.  Even now I still blush uncontrollably.when speaking in public.  It is part of who I am.  

One other thing my teacher did was to split us into groups based on her evaluation of our ability.  She probably did this to spare our feelings so that kids that struggled wouldn't have to watch the kids that did better.  She put me in the B reading group and all my friends were in the A reading group.  I must have protested because other than the memory of the general terror I felt at reading in front of the group I remember one thing: she told me that I'd always struggle to be a good reader.

Kids are often told they are little angels and I think this was the first time I was told that I might not be able to get everything I wanted in life.  I didn't want to believe it.  I told my mom who promptly yelled at the teacher but I took it a step further.  I decided I was going to show this teacher that she was wrong.  I was a stubborn little kid (and a stubborn adult if I'm honest with myself).

When anyone asked me what I wanted for Christmas or my Birthday I asked for books.  One grandmother answered my request and bought me a subscription to the 'I Can Read' series that delivered one book per month for much of my early childhood.  She also spent a year driving past her normal store to one that would give you one encyclopedia book for free if you bought enough groceries.  I was too young to understand just how much I would come to value those later in life but I do remember my happiness as the bookshelf my parents had bought for our living room slowly filled from A to Z.  

I read everything I could find and sometimes I found it necessary to fake reading things I didn't understand as I liked the attention I got from reading advanced books in front of adults.  Despite that hubris, my reading skill improved far beyond other kids my age. When we took the standardized tests in 4th grade to determine our learning progress I remember testing at an 8th grade reading level.  Up to that point I'd always thought I was stupid and predictably my thoughts returned to my 1st grade teacher.  I didn't have the courage to approach her directly but I had beaten the words that had prompted my reading passion.  Later in life I realized I probably misunderstood her words and meaning.  In fact she probably would have been thrilled to know about my progress and her part in inspiring me.  Either way, her words kickstarted my learning using the power of books .

My parents divorced by the time I had gotten the test results and by that time I was no longer close to my paternal grandmother that had bought so much of my personal library.  That gap never closed and I regret never taking the time before she died to thank her for her part in making me who I am today.

Tweet

Being lost in the desert & Christian Hypocrisy

I had an 'interesting' experience with a church a while back.  It's a long story but I promise it has a point.

My parents live next to a desert park and when I visited them last year I took the opportunity to do some hiking.  The park is huge with a few mountains in it and after a few short hikes I decided to go on a much longer one and climb one of the higher mountains in the middle of the park.  I packed plenty of food and water but as I knew he worried, I loaded some software to my phone so my dad could track my progress on Google Maps.

Three hours later I'm at the top and call my dad to brag about my accomplishment and see that my phone has used about half its charge.  Since I'm halfway done with the hike I don't think much about it.  I climb down using a path I'd predetermined and make my way to a gully I saw on Google Maps that would take me to a path I'd used before to return to my parent's house.  When I arrived I saw the gully had a few vertical walls and looked impassible without climbing gear.

At this point in a hike you have a few choices.  The gully was the shortest path.  To go back the way I came would feel like defeat.  If you know the territory and have good maps you can explore but it would be getting dark in about four hours.  That made the choice easy and I turned around.  The problem was because of the way I'd descended there was literally a mountain between me and the path I needed to get to.  With no way to know how long it would take I decided to go with the safest option which was to walk out of the park (the park is probably 20 miles long but only 8 miles wide) to the nearest road and have my parents pick me up.

When I got my phone out of my pack as I saw the battery had dropped below 20% and falling fast.  I'd hiked with it before with no issues and I realized the tracking software I loaded had drained my battery so I turned it off (pretty dumb in hindsight and I've since bought a battery backup).  At that point the mountain was blocking my cell signal so I checked every 10 minutes until I could make a call.

My dad sounded relieved as his first comment was...

"We've been tracking you all afternoon but it just stopped about twenty minutes ago."

I only managed a few words before my phone went dead.

I've done a lot of solo hiking and while I know it is dangerous it is great to be able to hike at your own speed and take the paths as your mood and your legs dictate.  All I could think about at that moment is how that must have sounded my my dad's end of the call.  I considered going back around the mountain but I was pretty sure it would get dark before I got out of the park and night hiking is stupid if you don't know the area.  I set a fast pace for the park's nearest trailhead exit.  It took about two hours and the whole time I kept thinking about my parents and how they must be worrying.  When I got to the road that led to town I expected to see some businesses so I could make a phone call but found everything shut down as  it was nearly 5pm.  Not wanting to approach a strange house I headed towards town.

I saw a church in the distance.

It's always surprised me how many churches you can find in the country.  I've done a lot of biking and I love churches as I've found they are a great refilling location as they never turn their water off.  The sign in the front of the building said 'Church of Christ' and the parking lot was half full.  Surely I could find help here.  I heard singing as I approached the door.

That's when I saw it.  A water fountain.  Great!

Any hiker/biker takes the opportunity to refill whenever they see water and I made straight for it.  The water bladder I carry was about half full when I noticed someone had approached.  I'd been hiking for 5 hours at that point and knew I must have looked terrible as I was sweaty, covered in trail dust and hadn't shaved in 4 days.  The man didn't say a word but his stare looked apprehensive.

I spoke first.  "Umm.... I got lost in the nearby park and am refilling my water bottle."

The man didn't speak but I noticed the singing had stopped and two other men had joined him.

I asked, "Would you guys happen to have a phone?"

The man finally spoke.  "No.  The church doesn't have a phone."

I could tell he was lying but I decided to be pushy because of my parents.  "Not even a cell phone?  I know my parents are worried sick about me and I need to call them."

The man relented a little.  "I have a cell phone.  What's your parent's number?  I will dial it."

This part stumped me.  I didn't know my parent's number.  When I call my parents I push the little button on my iPhone with their name.

"I don't know.  I just push the button on my phone but it's dead."

The man shook his head.  "How can you not know your own parent's number?"

While I explained I saw a few other men had come outside.  At this point I was desperate.

"Guys.  I can see you don't believe me but I've been hiking in the desert all day and ended up on the wrong side of the park.  My parents are expecting me home now and they are going to going to be worried sick.  It wouldn't surprise me if they call out a search party soon.  All I need is the information service on someone's phone so I can call my parents.  Or if any of you have an iPhone, I could use your charger.  In fact, if you have a USB power hub, I have my charger cable in my backpack."

My worse fell on deaf ears.  "There's nothing we can do and you need to go out to the road.  Maybe someone there can give you a lift.  Or you can make your way into town.  It isn't far."

I was flabbergasted.  Was he suggesting I hitchhike despite being in a parking lot full of cars?  Why was he so hesitant to let me use his cell phone?  I always carried cash on me and was planning to pay him for the cost.

As I struggled for words, I noticed the man had crossed his arms.  He said, "Are we going to have a problem?"

At this point I think all the men inside the church had come out but not one said a word.  I was getting a little nervous.  Anyone that has ever seen a bar fight knows the phrase, 'Are we going to have a problem'.  That's usually the last thing that is said before fists fly.  I thought about mentioning that I'd pay for using the phone but decided against it as they looked to be getting pissed.  Of course, the man could have only been talking about calling the cops on me and in hindsight that would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money.  Instead, I walked out of the parking lot but not before asking a final question as my trail map only covered the park.

"How far is town from here?"

"About a mile."

I looked it up later.  It is six miles.

I'm a strong hiker and thankfully the road was smooth and flat.  The walk didn't bother me.  What bothered me was this was a church.  I was raised Christian but grew out of my beliefs by my middle teens.  Despite that I've always believed that Christians were mostly good people.  Of course this was only one guy in only one church and I know there are many other good people in other churches.

But it bothered me.  A lot.

Every step made me madder and madder.  Here was a group of people that had taken time out of their Wednesday evening to sing songs to a man that had spent 40 days in the desert and come out preaching psalms they supposedly believed in.  Things like 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', 'blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth', 'turn the other cheek', and 'love thy neighbor'.

I spent 4 hours in a desert and they wouldn't let me use their phone.

I thought about approaching some of the houses I passed but after the reception at their church I decided that wasn't smart as the area is very fond of the NRA and technically I would be trespassing on their property.  It was pitch dark when I got to town and I got quite a few strange looks as I was carrying my hiking poles and wearing my headlamp.  After calling information and getting my dad's number I called his house but got no response.  As I was getting tired I thought about getting a room in a local hotel but they picked up on my 5th try.  My ordeal was over after about 9 hours and 15+ miles.  As you can imagine my parents were relieved as they had been out looking not realizing the only number I could call was their listed home number.

When I hadn't arrived, they had gone to dinner hoping that as an experienced hiker (and knowing me) that I was probably running late.  Word spread at the restaurant that I was missing and when I hadn't returned when it got dark they called the sheriff.  Two teams of deputies with dogs headed into the park to the location where my dad lost my signal on Google Maps while the county helicopter with a spotlight searched overhead.  A few of my dad's friends made it about a quarter mile up the darkened trail in a nice but futile gesture.  Somehow word had spread through the community and ironically a prayer vigil started at the trailhead where I'd entered the park.  It is too bad none of these people were at church that night though it would be funny if they were and didn't realize it.

My call brought an end to it all and in hindsight I know I made some stupid decisions that were the root of all that followed.  It is one thing to hike and only be accountable to yourself but sometimes you have to think of others before charging blindly to the next peak.  I didn't use enough planning and foresight.

On the other hand, it all could have been averted if one guy and one church stepped up and actually lived up to the words to which I'm sure they damn others for not following.  This whole episode reinforces my belief that church isn't about salvation or compassion but a selfish enterprise full of people not able to deal with the ambiguity of an existence that no one can fully explain and the reality of a death that will eventually come to us all.

Tweet

Has the United States crossed the Rubicon?

One game that I used to play as a kid was to try to turn things around and see the world from the opposite view.  At the time, the most memorable was the conflict with Iran and their attack on the US embassy.  I couldn't understand why they hated us.  We were good people but they took our people hostage and I hated them with the passion of the teenaged boy I was at the time.  I couldn't understand why President Carter just didn't bomb them as they were obviously evil.

I think I was typical of most 6th graders especially in a world where the information you are being fed is limited.  What I didn't know was in 1954 the CIA raised a coup against the democratically elected government of Iran.  The US Embassy was used as the base of operations for the coup and they reinstalled the Shah which led Iran to another 25 years of oppression and autocracy.  When the Shah got sick, the radicals took control and the result was the Hostage Crisis.

The ironic thing was this put Ronald Reagan in office and I think the nation has been thinking like my simpler 6th grade self ever since.  As a country, we've historically put our head in the sand and counted on American 'exceptionalism' to keep us world leaders but the Reagan years put that on overdrive.  One of the biggest advantages we have as a society is the freedoms our system of government gives to us.  The Constitution was the result of a lot of thinking by the founders who looked to the Roman Republic as a guide and tried to put together a document to avoid its fate.

For those that don't know, the Roman government was a marvel of its day and while it wasn't democratic like the Athenians their republic gave them great advantages as it allowed great men to rise and run its affairs while avoiding anarchy.  There are many reasons the Roman Republic fell but the primary reason was simple.  By the middle of the 1st century BC, the Senate was gridlocked and nothing could get done so army under leaders like Marius/Caeser/Octavian stepped in.  The leaders of the city objected but when Octavian ran better than the Senate, the people of the city accepted the idea.  By the time Octavian died, the idea of a Roman Republic was a forgotten memory of a simpler time.

Political theorist like John Locke used the Roman Republic as one of his guides when putting together his thoughts for a perfect society.  The founders knew when they put together the US Constitution the greatest historical threat to a free society was the military which is why they insisted they could not allow the army to ever have enough power to ever have a repeat of the Roman Empire on American shores.

The 6th grader in me has always wondered  - Is it possible that the United States could face a change in our government like happened to the Romans?

Things didn't happen overnight there as it took decades/centuries before the Republic ceased to function.  As a kid I thought the British parliamentary system was a better form of government but as I've grown older I've grown to like the US Constitution.  The framers were insistent on a separation of powers and created a strong tradition of separation between the military and government for them to ever be much of a viable threat to our freedoms.

I don't see a day when a general could conceivable take power like a Caesar but are there other threats?

This is the question I've always wondered.  Movies like the 'Manchurian Candidate' or 'Red Dawn' pose ideas of a future where the freedoms we take for granted are stripping and we are pawns to foreign power but neither are realistic.  Is there another way that we might end up pawns like the citizens of ancient Rome?

In recent years I have seen a disturbing trend.  The founders could have never seen just how small the world would become.  In their time no European had traveled crossed the continent but now we can do it in less than 4 hours in a plane.  Information flow is even quicker, zipping all over the world at the speed of light. Vast warehouses of information have been gathered by private companies in an effort to sell us their wares.  Public agencies with agendas we think we understand listen to phone conversations and track information on the internet.  We are told to give Google access to our emails and we do it because they give us good products.  We are told that it is ok for the government to track its citizens because they need these abilities to protect us.

This strikes me as something right out of the book '1984'.  We seem glad to give up our 1st and 4th amendment rights without a fight and the trend of increased scrutiny of United States citizens scares me like nothing I've ever experienced in my life (sidenote - previously the worst was probably sitting under my desk as my 2nd grade class had an atomic bomb drill - it made me fear Russians well into adulthood).  Add to this media that is consolidating so that 6 companies control most of how we get our information.  The governmet is increasingly controlled by lobbyists who pay politicians to make sure their interests are inacted and some even create public policy.

It is a wonder that anything gets done by the United States government.  Will a time occur when we are asking for a different type of leadership to get us out of this gridlock and if so, who will step in to save us?

Near Rome there is a river called the Rubicon that marked the boundary of Rome and its province to the north, Cisalpine Gaul.  Armies weren't supposed to cross this river which was a way to keep its generals from interfering with the affairs of the city.  Julius Caesar allegedly made the statement 'The die is cast' as he crossed the river on his way to take control of affairs in Rome.  He knew the Rubicon was the point of no return.

Has the United States crossed the Rubicon in terms of the freedoms and liberties that were given to us in the Constitution?  Did we cross a Rubicon on 9/11?  Is it only a matter of time before we need a Caesar to save us?  Does a Caesar actually exist?

We continue to trade our freedoms for the feeling of safety and an easier life.  I'm sure the Romans felt the same way until the 'barbarians' showed up but I don't have an answer.  I don't know if one exists and we may just have to get used to a world in which our every movement/action is monitored and politicians who no longer act with the will of the people as they obey their lobbyist masters and are re-elected with information fed to us from corporate media.

Tweet

Christian Religion – Can you believe what you can’t see?

My mom and I have a constant argument about religion.  She wants me to start going to church and relays to me the wonderful stories from her pastor during Bible study.  She’s encouraged me to go with her to these sessions but I have always refused as I know it would turn out badly. 

How do I know this?  Because I’ve tried to go to church many times and every time I get angry but I’ll get into the whys of that la ex ter.  When I was a child I went to church every week and loved it and especially the stories. 

Going to church is a rite of passage for most children and even many adults that don’t believe attend while their kids are small because they feel they need to.  I’ve heard it said many times something to the effect, “I need to expose them to this and when they are old enough, it is their choice.”

There is merit in this statement as many of my fondest memories as a child happened in church camp, at sunday school, or a church related activity.  After my parent’s divorce, my parents stopped going as the town was very judgmental of divorcee’s but I attended for a few more years with my brother and sister in what I recognize now as a desperate attempt to hang on to normalcy.

Things changed for me when I got junior high school.  Teachers started explaining concepts like the scientific method and evolution though they took pains to avoid the subject of religion.  It was at this time that my thirst for history knowledge grew and as I looked into religious history, many things didn’t make sense.  This was a frustrating time as I had many questions but it seemed like everyone seemed blind to obvious truths.

I recognize in hindsight that people feel uncomfortable talking in public about religion as most religions require blind obedience and arguing with the faithful is most times a pointless exercise.

That’s because religion is so intertwined into our culture and as I found myself in a church many times over the next decade I really tried to go in with an open mind.  About half way through every sermon, I got mad at what the preacher/priest/pastor was saying and my mind closed.  Every sermon follows the same routine that the Christian Church has used for almost 2000 years. 

“You are a sinner, Jesus died for your sins, drink his blood/eat his flesh and your sins will be forgiven.”

This is a great message to kids who are used to always being in trouble and like the idea of forgiveness.  Adults need more than that and I rebelled against the negative nature of the message as I always felt these guys didn’t know me and had no right to judge me.  As I’ve grown older I’ve modified my position somewhat as I do realize that everyone has flaws and inside the church’s message of blame is the hope that despite our flaws, we can be better people.  In fact the church can be something very useful as it binds communities and is a cheap form of seeing a therapist.  If that is all the church did, I would probably still belong to one.

The devil in the details.  As I’ve read over the years this is what I know to be true about the Bible:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The Old Testament is based on the Jewish Torah and the story of the prophets which are a a story of journey of the people of Israel from their enslavement in Egypt to their peak under King David and eventual defeat and re-enslavement in Babylon. 

- Much of the Old Testament was compiled after the were able to gain their freedom from Babylon and returned to Jerusalem. 

- Many Jewish scholars agree that the intent was to give the people a book that bound the spread out people once they won their freedom from Babylon. 

- Many of the stories found in the Old Testament are also found in many other local religions of that time but the story of Israel and Judaism thrived and grew throughout the area.

- The New Testament is the Christian part of the Bible.

- The New Testament is based on the story of Jesus Christ and his teachings

- There is no proof that a man named Jesus Christ ever lived.

- The gospels are the first four books of the Bible and written by men that were told the story by the apostles of Jesus.  None of these original manuscripts survive and changes occurred as scribes often make mistakes.

- The stories of the Jesus were spread by a man named Paul, who never met Jesus when he lived, but he wrote many of the other books of the New Testament based on their words.

- The gospels were finished between 80-100 AD but none of these texts survive.

- A good example of what happened during the next few years is at the end of Mark. It originally stopped after a boy next to the alter told Mary Magdelene and Mary Mother of James Jesus had risen,

“⁸ And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.”

Here is the revision (sorry it is long):

“And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. ⁹ Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. ¹⁰ She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. ¹¹ And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. ¹² And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. ¹³ And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. ¹⁴ And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. ¹⁵ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. ¹⁶ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. ¹⁷ And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; ¹⁸ they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. ¹⁹ So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. ²⁰ And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.”

This was added by someone about a hundred years after Jesus died and fifty after it was written. Why is it important? Well ignoring the fact that even through this is provable and many people proclaim that the Bible is word-for-word the voice of God look at the highlighted text. This text is the basis for faith healing, speaking in tongues, and snake handling in some religious faiths. All based on a lie by a 2nd century scribe that wanted a better ending to Mark’s tale.

- Another story that was adjusted was the story in the Book of John about the woman caught in adultery.  He choose not to judge her and said instead to the mob, “He that is without sin, cast the first stone”.  When the crowd dispersed he told the woman, “Go and sin no more.”  Great story but it wasn’t written by John.

- Over the next hundred years, other stories were added as there were competing messages of what the gospels meant.  A good example is the book of Revelation.  A man calling himself John said he heard a great voice instructing him to write the book in around 95AD.  He had nothing to do with Jesus or the apostles and drew inspiration from the Old Testament.  His writings form the basis of the idea of heaven and hell in the Bible.  Most other areas don’t mention it at all.  The apocalypse and the return of Jesus is described in this section which isn’t spoken about  by any other writer the Bible.  All written by a man that had a vision.

- As the new Christian religion’s message of hope and redemption got popular, Emperor Constantine of Rome adopted it as the new state religion after 300AD.

- The competing messages were causing distractions so Constantine called on the priests to resolve their differences.  In 325 AD they met in Nicea (about 280 years after Jesus’ death) and decided many things. One example is the Holy Trinity – this explanation is overly simplistic but it resolved whether Jesus that was equal to his father – the addition of the Holy Spirit that resided in Jesus meant he was both human and god

- Soon after this meeting, the new religion decided which books that had been written in the last 280 years were to be consider canon and part of the Bible.

- Many things we think we know today are interpretations of popes, priests, and other high ranking religious officials of what the Bible means.  Over time many people that haven’t read the entire book (like 95% of Christians) actually believe things that are really an opinion of what the men who wrote the meant.  This is understandable when you realize how haphazard the Bible was put together along with the fragmentary nature of the scribes writing these texts thousands of times so the apostles could spread the word.

- There is one thing I can state with 100% assurance.  The Bible was written by men and even if the original was divinely written, what we have today isn’t the same thing.

----------------------------------------------------------

I sure some could quibble with some of my assertions as it would take books to fully explore but I feel the above is close to the truth.  How can any reasonable person read those facts and come out with the belief that the Bible is 100% factual?  Yet many people believe that very thing.

Gallup has done a poll periodically since 1982 asking Americans a question of which statement is true.

A.  Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but God guided the process

B.  Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms and God played no part

C.  God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

You probably can guess the winner or I wouldn’t bring it up.  Answer C has won this in every poll with anywhere from 40-47% of the population.  Answer A is anywhere from 32-38%. 

Answer B is the correct answer and it hit a high in the last two polls of 15-16%.

This question isn’t  picking the wrong country on a map.  This is totally a question of belief as everyone has an opinion on Evolution.  From these numbers it appears that 85% of Americans believe that God is guiding us.  I could buy into that if by God they meant

Some higher power that created the universe and set in motion the laws of nature that led to the universe, the laws of nature, our solar system, the earth, and evolution.

They don’t.

They mean it in the sense that there’s an omnipresent being in the sky that is looking over every one of us.  Why do they believe it?  Because of a book written in the desert two thousand years ago by carpenters/fishermen, rewritten by scribes, modified by priests, and combined into a book by Romans with none of our current understanding.

The kicker to this whole thing is I’d bet Christians quality of life is better than most.  I know I’ve tried to believe in the fairytales in the Bible but can’t do it.  I envy those that can as I’m sure they live a happier existence.  They live each day in the bliss that someday they will be in heaven despite all evidence and it really doesn’t matter if it isn’t true. 

I can’t make my mind do that.

Even sadder is the fact that most Americans believe this, which means that everything has to cater to them.  Every president and every social leader has to bow down to the religious because no one can afford to lose 50% of the voters.  That’s a good way to lose.

I used to think I was alone in my knowledge and grew jaded at the world thinking that so many people were ignorant.  In recent years I’ve softened my position as I really do think a large majority question the existence of an intrusive god but in polite society we don’t discuss such things.  We don’t want to offend and it is sad because I believe a religion that mixed science with philosophy and psychology would be an amazing force for good.  It would be like town hall meetings that people actually cared about each other.  Instead we cling to ideas that were outdated 500 years ago.

Tweet

test

this is a test

Tweet

Newtown & the gun debate–What does the 2nd amendment mean?

Last Friday, a 20 year old kid in Newtown CN with a history of mental illness killed his mom with a Bushmaster .223 M4 Carbine.  He went to an elementary school he used to attend and before he took his own life he shot and killed 20 kids aged 6 - 7 and 8 adults. The age of the dead shocked America but a mass murder in American happens so often it is no longer shocking. They’ve become all too frequent in recent years and the reasons aren’t simple. Society itself plays some part as things like reality TV has promoted the idea that making a spectacle of yourself is OK. Hollywood rating systems forbids sex but allows ridiculous amounts of violence while video games have scenes that allow a player to simulate killing dozens of people at a time.  Money for mental health facilities has decreased over the past 20 years and now many parents struggle to get medication for the kids who need it. Some of these parents play a role as the guns used in the Newtown killing were legally purchased by the mother just not in a gun safe.

The thing I haven’t mentioned because it is the point of this article is the role that guns themselves play in these killings. In this past year, there have been 7 mass murders involving guns. In 2011 – 3. 2010 – 1, 2009 – 4, 2008 – 3, 2007 – 4, 2006 – 3. In the past 7 years, there have been 25 mass murders, an average of 3.57 events per year. In the 23 years from 1983-2005 there were 37 separate mass killing events throughout the United States for an average of 1.48.  From the numbers you can see the numbers, although rare in nature, have more than doubled in recent years.

It’s a sad state of affairs but like many have stated no change is going to happen as a result of the 2^nd amendment. I’ve been meaning to so some research on the 2^nd amendment for a long time and this has forced me to act. The rest of this post is my findings.  I’m planning to go back and include hyperlinks at some point but most of the info is at billofrights.org, usconstitution.net and various wiki’s on individuals.

*****

In 1689, England deposed King James II in the Glorious Revolution and the Parliament turned to the philosopher John Locke to help them create an English Bill of Rights. The impetus for this change was King James II’s belief in the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, meaning that his power was granted by god and could not limited. The English Bill of Rights gave the people unalterable rights and added to the power granted by the Magna Carta. James’ replacement, William of Orange, was required to declare a coronation oath accepting the Bill of Rights before he took the throne. The portion directly associated with guns states:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

This reversed King James’ declaration that made it illegal for Protestants to own arms. Religious strife dominated his reign with continual war between his Catholic army and the Parliament’s Protestant one. This part of the declaration made it impossible for a future king to arrest people by taking away their right to defend themselves as allowed by Parliament’s laws. Another part of the English Bill of Rights clarifies the meaning a bit:

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law

After reading these two parts of the English Bill of Rights, I think it is apparent the Parliament was more concerned with limiting the power of the king and not concerned with a permanent right to bear arms.  They reserved the right to legislate gun use. As a side note, over time the English slowly took guns away from its people and in 1997 eliminated the ownership of handguns almost entirely.

When the American colonists revolted in 1775, they met the next year to discuss their response to the king’s call for them to surrender. One of the key meetings held that year was in Virginia and the result was the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Virginia delegates tasked George Mason with writing the original draft and he used the English Bill of Rights as a basis. The final wording of the Virginia Declaration of Rights passed in May 1776 and had the following language:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

You can see the English Bill of Rights influence in Mason’s words as he combines the two sections I listed above. His wording is concerned with a well-regulated militia as they felt a standing army was dangerous but it makes no distinction between the militia or the army in the claim that both are subject to civil power.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights influenced Thomas Jefferson and the final version of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. Compare the first lines of both documents:

Section 1 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights - That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Preamble to the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

After the colonist won their independence, the Articles of Confederation was the method used to govern the United States but many leaders determined it too weak to be effective. During this time, states had most of the power and some took the opportunity to pass their own constitutions. The first was Massachusetts and in their Constitution, they included their own Bill of Rights, written by John Adams. The Section 1 preamble reads very similar to Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The provision on militias and guns reads is similar too:

XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

It seems to me that John Adams and the Massachusetts legislators are clearly stating that military power, including militias for the common defence are beholden to the legislature.

By the mid 1780s the push for a new method of governance grew and in 1787 the Articles Congress called for a meeting to revise the system of government.  The result was the United States Constitution written by primarily by James Madison and the negotiations of men that came from many various backgrounds. Virginia was the biggest state at the time and its delegates echoed creating a government using the philosophy of John Locke mentioned above. The ultimate result of the convention was a government consisting of an executive branch, a two-house legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The two house legislative branch (bicameral) was a compromise to satisfy the proponents of rule by popular vote (House) and rule by state (Senate). The members left with the document and headed back to their states to gain ratification.

During the ratification process it became apparent that many states would oppose ratification if the new government did not guarantee their rights. Some states already had this protection internally and they did not want to give up any rights they had gained. Most everyone agreed the new government needed this and Massachusetts started a trend when it ratified with a list of expected amendments that would make up the Bill of Rights.

What were these rights requested by Massachusetts ratification committee? - They dealt most with guaranteeing states rights and had no mention of protection for militia, arms, or guns.

After Massachusetts ratified the Constitution their example of including requests for amendments with their ratification was copied by many other states including the two most important, New York and Virginia.

New York ratification split their provision on militia, arms, and armies into three parts:

· That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

· That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.

· That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

The Virginia ratification was similar to what Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of rights 11 years earlier:

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

One key change is in the wording. In all prior discussions the language ‘the people have a right to keep and bear arms’ was immediately followed by ‘for the common defense’. They moved the actual word ‘defense’ to the second sentence that spoke about militia. Did they see the two items as intertwined? It seems to me they did but New York definitely was saying something we had not seen from previous founders when they copied Locke and separated the provisions about the militia and the army.

The most interesting thing about the ratification process is how close the vote was in the three largest states, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. None of these states seemed happy with the Constitution and the voting in all 3 where within 3% of failure.

Now that the states had ratified the Constitution it was up to the Congress to pass the bill of rights. James Madison took the amendments and submitted them en masse to the Congress. The wording of the proposed 2^nd amendment read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Over the next few weeks the Congress took Madison’s original 20 Amendments and made changes, modifying them and rejecting others until only 12 Amendments were sent to the states for ratification in September 1789.

Many people were against the Bill of Rights altogether. Alexander Hamilton said, “Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects”. He felt that under the new government the people’s vote took the place of the king and therefore needed no protection.

The states passed ten of the amendments, which the Congress officially ratified in December 1791. The wording of the finalized 2^nd amendment is as follows:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This time Congress cut many words out of the versions seen earlier. They placed the wording about militia at the front, the word defense removed, and nothing was stated against standing armies.

The government during that time was split in two key factions. The Federalists, wanted a strong central government and were led by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Federalists (eventually named Republicans) were concerned about rights and led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Federalist dominated the early government but quickly lost power however they ruled the Congress during the time when the Bill of Rights was discussed.

Note the removal of the provision against standing armies without the consent of civil authorities. All previous iterations of the Bill of Rights included a mention of the right to bear arms with armies. People like Locke and Mason included it in their submissions and it was included in the New York and Virginia constitutional ratifications. The removal of that portion makes sense when you consider Hamilton’s views (which mimicked Washington) which said that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.  There was no way they were going to allow a mention of Congress limiting the army. Washington knew firsthand how crippling that could be to a general.

Without that provision, it makes the 2^nd amendment only about guns/militia’s and is less clear than before. It is possible the founders meant that to protect gun use for its citizens from meddling by Congress but why include the portion about the militia?  The Congress removed most of the extraneous language from the Bill of Rights and if they meant that then the 2^nd amendment could have read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When the Bill of Rights was passed was the Supreme Court had no power. The Bill of Rights website reminds us,

” Some of the Framers expected the Supreme Court to take on the role of determining the constitutionality of Congress's laws, but the Constitution did not explicitly assign it to the Court. Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, established the power of judicial review.”

When Chief Justice Marshall said the court had the right to determine the constitutionality of laws, Congress and the President’s silence was their tacit agreement. Many felt Marbury vs. Madison was overreach by the judiciary and if the Congress had ignored Marshall there was little he could have done. President Jackson made this point a few decades later when Marshall ruled in favor of the Cherokee Indians with their dealings in Georgia. Jackson’s response was, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The power to execute the law of the land lay with the President but one of Thomas Jefferson’s greatest contributions is allowing John Marshall (a man he personally hated) to expand the power of the judiciary which set the standard that all subsequent presidents were forced to follow.

For most of the first hundred years of the United States, the wording in the 2^nd amendment made sense. In the Civil War, the United States raised a few self-equipped volunteer regiments though this represented a small minority of overall forces. By World War One, self-supporting militia were no longer a part of the United States Armed Forces. Weapon technology and war training had advanced too much and it would have been irresponsible to allow volunteer forces anymore. State-run National Guard forces replaced the militia who belonged to another era.

By that time the 2^nd amendment meant something different than the original wording of a self-defense measure. Throughout the 19^th century, Americans had used firearms to tame the country and a self-image of American gun ownership developed. As the 20^th century progressed, little limited a citizen’s ability to own a gun. Automatic weapons like the tommy gun made an appearance during the depression but the reality was limited. Things changed after Vietnam. Cheap automatic weapons like the AK-47 made their way around the world as the United States and the Soviet Union fought a cold war. Weapons makers continued to innovate and created compact models with higher calibers and rates of fire. Weapons like the Uzi and the MAC-10 made their way into the private arsenals all over the United States.

This wasn’t an issue for 99% of the law abiding citizens but like most things the 1% can cause huge issues. In the last twenty years, a trend of mass killings followed by suicide has become alarming. As I stated at the beginning, the reason I looked to our past was the shootings that happened last Friday in Newtown CN . Something like that has to make you question the validity of your laws. To blindly support the past without introspection is ignorant.

If you doubt that, look at how many times the founders proposed different versions of the 2nd amendment in the 13 years from 1776 to the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.  They weren’t of one mind what the ‘right to bear arms’ meant and changed it to suit their circumstance.  We have lived with this wording for 222 years.

The problem is how do you define arms in a rapidly changing society.  In the founders day, arms were made primarily of 8 types of weapons – muzzle-loaded muskets, pistols, swords, knives, gunpowder grenades, bows with arrows, spears, and cannon.  All of these were purchasable by private citizens (though cannon were prohibitively expensive and more likely to be owned by a town’s militia).  The rate of fire and lethality of all of the firearms have increased many times since the founders were alive and the question is – does the passing of time affect the meaning of the word ‘arms’.  Today’s equivalent of the cannon is modern artillery or a tank but no one suggests that citizens have a right to own either of these weapons.  You could argue that today’s equivalent of a spear is an anti-tank device or a stinger missile yet it is illegal for citizens to own these too.  What about today’s grenade equivalents like C4 or nitrate based explosives?  Use them without being licensed you will end up in jail.  Society has clearly ‘infringed’ on an individual's ability to own any type of arms so I think the question really is – Where is the proper place to draw the line?

That is why I reviewed the history of the 2^nd amendment as it is difficult to understand the meaning by looking at the words alone. If we truly want to live by what the founders meant then it is important to understand the context. In reviewing the context I would be surprised if their interpretation was anywhere close to what we see from today’s NRA and conservative think tanks. The founders said it best at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

They meant for the government they created to secure the country to allow for life, liberty and happiness. The problem with the unlimited liberty to use guns is when it starts to infringe on the life, liberty, and happiness of others. The founder’s genius in including the Bill of Rights and the Amendment process is the reason the Constitution is relevant over 200 years later. The Constitution is a living document and it is the Supreme Court responsibility to look to the founders for guidance and interpret it as society changes.

A good example is the enforced segregation that was prevalence throughout the south after the Civil War. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Plessy vs Ferguson that segregation in public facilities was acceptable as long as the facilities were equal (Separate but equal). 58 years later, the Supreme Court overturned this policy in a 9-0 ruling that stated ‘separate facilities are inherently unequal’. Times had changed and the Supreme Court changed with them.

The question today is whether the Congress has the authority to limit the citizens ability to buy certain types of weapons, be forced to go through restrictive waiting periods or get registrations on guns. Does this violate an amendment that was primarily included to protect the country from foreign enemies? I personally don’t think so.

I don’t have anything against guns and gun owners. I’m sure if any of them made it this far they would disagree with my stance on many grounds but I really have no issue with shotguns, handguns, and single shot hunting rifles without clips. My problem is we seem to be ignoring the issue hoping it will go away.  The epidemic won’t improve unless we give law enforcement tools to get it under control. After 9-11 we asked Americans to go through many more screenings when travelling. We accepted it because it we prefer to be safe. Gun owners should feel the same way.

I’m sure the NRA’s response to this would be that the 2^nd amendment protects them from any changes and they will fight at all costs. Good. You know what the legislature can do? Tax guns. $1000/gun and $10/bullet. There are many ways to fight this battle but we’d prefer to make it easy.  Let’s meet halfway.

My hope is the Congress and the Supreme Court wake up and interprets the 2^nd amendment in a more reasonable way.  I think this quote says it all.

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

The man who said it in 1821 is the same man who gave the Supreme Court its judicial review authority, Chief Justice John Marshall.  We should follow his lead and if the Supreme Court lacks the moral courage to do what is right then it is time for the people of the United States to create a new Bill of Rights they can’t ignore.

Tweet

How do we introduce truth into national politics?

Our government was set up in 1789 based on political theories that had been discussed in the hundred years leading to the American Revolution.  They were concerned with the abuse of power but no one had any real democratic experience as the previous democracy fell to Macedon almost 2000 years earlier.

The founders realized this and put in the amendment process to fix issues as they arose.  The first ten amendments passed almost immediately and also go by another name - The Bill of Rights.  Since then we have used the Constitution to govern the country.  No one can argue the world hasn't had massive changes since but we've only had additional 17 amendments and two of them offset (Prohibition).  These amendments include some really fundamental changes especially around voting rights but I think the founders would be disappointed that their creation hasn't changed much.

That isn't to say the document has huge flaws.  It is an amazing considering its age but the government has struggled since the beginning with banks and financing.  More specifically I am talking about how we fund our government and how we control the people in power who control those funds.

We were lucky to have Alexander Hamilton as the first Treasury secretary.  He pushed through the  Bank of the United States and this set the country on sound financial footing that allowed our quick expansion.  Jefferson and his allies had good reasons for hating the bank but even they realized the positives outweighed the negatives during the War of 1812.  They extended it and it lasted until Andrew Jackson killed it during an anti-bank frenzy in the 1830s.  American monetary policy had no central authority until 1862 when the Republicans realized they needed an easier way to finance government projects during the Civil War.  They gave certain private banks national status but required higher standards than state banks and mandated these banks use a common currency.  In turn these banks were required to use federal treasury bills to back their bank notes.  This gave the government and the public access to money which helped fuel the economic boom after the war ended.  This worked well during the next sixty years though financial panics were common and required the intervention of bankers like JP Morgan to keep the economy from crashing.  When the US economy expanded rapidly at the start of the 20th century, the system was too complex for private bankers to control.  That lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve System which is essentially 12 banks directly controlled by the federal government that lend money to all other banks in the country.  This has worked reasonably well but as the world continues to get more complex, we are faced with crisis.  Monetary policy is one of the best economic innovations in the last century but there are limits and the Fed has made mistakes.  A prime cause of the Great Depression was due to bad Fed decisions made worse when it stopped the flow of money into the economy.  The housing bubble of the early 2000s was driven by the Fed who kept interest rates too low for too long.

Back in 1789, monetary policy was simple.  The rulers had the ability to tax and if they needed more they went to the banks/merchants to get a loan.  If the banks didn't feel that loaning the money was wise investment they refused (This was the first real check to absolute rulers.  Some early monarchs took the head of their obstinate subjects but soon learned it was better to work with the banks as threatening them only spooked the market and worsened conditions in their country).

The United States government has three branches of government and as every kid is taught in school it is based on the philosophy of checks and balances.  The Congress passes laws, the president enforces laws, and the supreme court interprets laws to decide if Congress has overstepped their bounds.  

The question over the last century is now that the government run Fed leads the banks, how does monetary policy fit into the three branches?  This wasn't an issue for the the founders.  The Bank of the United States wasn't perfect institution but today we intermix government debt with the banking industry in ways the founders would find unbelievable.

Where is the constitutional amendment that account for this massive change?   The truth is it doesn't exist.  The only amendment to the constitution that has any link to the financial markets is the 16th amendment passed in 1913 which allowed the government to tax the income of its citizens (ironically the same year the Federal Reserve Act passed).

From my previous paragraphs you might think I'm a conservative Republican but I recognize that our country is better in the last century because of the government's ability to reallocate money to fund things like food safety, the building of roads/bridges/etc, and supporting things like public TV and the arts.  These started small at the start of the 1900s with Teddy Roosevelt but really got going during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the social strife of the 1960s.  We created huge programs that could only be supported if our economy continued to boom.  It was impossible to sustain and by the late 1970s the Democratic party had earned the reputation as the 'tax and spend' party.  Ronald Reagan promised to end that but faced with a Democratic Congress he cut taxes but did little about spending as it continued to balloon out of control.  Politicians from the suburbs, rural areas, and from conservative parts of the country realized they could get reelected by promising to fight for lower taxes.  Politicians from the inner city, locations with older voters and liberal parts of the country realized they could get re-elected by talking about protecting government programs.  Meanwhile the government debt continued to rise.  The politicians only cared about the promises they made to get re-elected and the electorate got increasingly angry as gridlock overtook Washington.

So what needs to happen?  I hinted about it in a previous chapter about checks and balances.  Who controls spending?  Congress.  Who controls congress?  No one.  The Supreme Court only is a check to the constitutionality of the laws Congress creates.  If you asked a founder whose responsibility it was to keep congressional spending in check they would say it was the responsibility of the good moral men we elected and if they didn't, the white landowners (who were the only ones that could vote) would vote the scoundrels out of office as they knew it would eventually affect the value of their property.  Things have changed a lot since then.

This country desperately needs a fourth branch of government to control government spending.  The appointments to this branch would be similar to the Supreme Court and its purpose would be to track government spending, set borrowing limits, and review budget proposals.  The key is independence.  My first thought was it should also include the Federal Reserve but realized that is probably too much power and it certainly would freak out people looking for Illuminati conspiracies.

How would the organization work?  For starters, last summer's budget crisis would have been taken out of Congress' hand as this new office would have clearly stated long before what needed to happen and forced Congress to act much earlier.  The debt level would be determined by these men and their mandate would be to find a debt number that ensured the longterm interests of the country.  In times of war - borrow.  In time of peace - pay back.  In times of plenty - tighten.  In times of trouble - loosen.

They would constantly be in meetings with Congress to let them know their annual targets so serious conversations would happen between parties.  Every mature business in America has a conversations like this every year.  Can we afford that?  What do we need to cut?  What can we do to raise revenues? 

So how difficult would it be to create this organization?  The truth is it already exists in part and is called the Congressional Budget Office.  They create reports that few Americans know about unless they hear a snippet as they change channels.  This organization would be given independence and senior 'partners' appointed.  They would continue to create the reports they do today as they chart the financial future of government policies.  Additionally, any political candidate that wants to attain an office in either the Congress or as President would submit a detailed plan of their ideas and how they plan to play for them.  All plans would be reviewed by the office and they would then publish true cost/review estimates.  Any bill that would go before Congress would need to have an economic study done.  Anyone that wanted to run a political ad would need to get certification that their claims were valid or else the ad would not be certified.  If it someone decided to run an ad that wasn't certified using 1st amendment protection, they would be required to purchase equal time following their ad for a budget office response.

This office would be non political and employees would be forbidden from making any public statement.  The appointees would speak with one voice and after stating their official opinions it would be expected they would remain silent and let the political process run its course.  Independence and accuracy would be the prime concern of the office.  You might think it would be difficult to find people for this office but there are thousands of people who could fill this role tomorrow in the field of accounting, in the SEC, and already working for the CBO.  

All American are frustrated.  There is too much nonsense flying around in politics and voters have no idea what is true so they have stopped questioning.  We need to change that.

There is been an abdication in Congress about taxes and spending.  Everyone has different ideas about the perfect level of taxation but whatever it is, our spending needs to match it in the long run. The battles that happen when we do this will be difficult but we elected our Congressmen for this very purpose.  You've put off giving us bad news for too long and Americans are tired of the cut taxes - spend more routine.  We need to change that.

Congress has proven it is not accountable and it is time that we give them a baby sitter.  We need to add another check and balance to the US Constitution and I propose the 28th Amendment - The United States Budget Office.

Tweet

Delusion and the American Political Bubble

Back in 2004 I was addicted to reading the Daily Kos and listening to Air America.  I got most of my information from those sites and we were all convinced that John Kerry was going to be elected president and save us from the disaster caused by George Bush.  We were also certain that the American people saw this too and the election wasn't going to be close.

The day of the election was an emotional roller coaster.  The early voting showed Kerry doing better than expected and the exit polls looking in his favor.  I listened to Air America as I got ready for work that day.  We were sure Kerry's win was a lock.  I made frequent checks of Kos between meetings that morning to read the self congratulatory posts.

I left work in mid day to vote and afterward stopped by my house to check the web.  One thing I remember is at the time was there was a website that sold 'stocks' in presidential candidates.  Intrade does something similar now.  As there could only be one winner, a candidates stock usually rose and fell with the polls or events like the debates.  Everything changed on election day.  When the rumors started, Kerry's stock went from around 49 to around 70 in a few hours.  I went back to work listening to Air America sure that a Kerry victory was hours away.

When I left work warning signs had appeared.  Air America wasn't as positive as they had been but I rationalized their evening guy was a pessimist.  When I got home I checked the political stock market, I saw that Kerry had peaked around 80 but had fallen below 50 during the afternoon.  I decided to ignore that warning sign and spent the rest of the evening on Kos where the posters explained away the bad news I was seeing on CNN.

I don't remember when the election ended but by 10pm I was sick to my stomach as it was obvious the blowout I expected was not going to happen.  By midnight they had called Ohio and Florida for Bush which ensured him the presidency.  I tossed and turned all night and set my alarm for 6am to listen to Air America to listen to their explanation.  It didn't help much as the announcers were in as much shock as me.  The Daily Kos was depressing as we all searched for answers to the question - "How could we be so wrong?"

The truth was right in front of our face that someone on Kos termed called the political news bubble.  All information sites fight for readership and people like to hear good news so that's what they gave us.  We didn't want to hear any other answer and Air America and Kos fed our addiction as we ignored everything else.

The day before the election my boss asked me who I thought would win and I told him I thought Kerry would win in a landslide.  He laughed at me.  The next day when he was proved right he asked me why I thought Kerry would win when all the polls favored Bush.  I didn't have an answer.

The election was actually quite close in the electoral college.  If Florida or Ohio chose Kerry he would have won but both states followed the polls.  Florida went to Bush by 5% and Ohio by 2%.  Leading up to the election everyone knew these were the most important states and I guess I thought I knew the people living around me better than a silly poll.  Air America and Kos reinforced that belief until it all came crashing down on election day.

Since then I have tried to broaden my information sources.  It isn't fun to hear things opposite to what you want to happen but ignoring the truth only hurts you in the long run.

Last night I spent much of my time on an Ohio State website called the Ozone.  It's a site full of rabid Ohio State fans and posts on the main site is limited to Ohio State news.  The off topic forum is open to anything you want to discuss.  I have ignored it since the beginning because many of the posts I have seen there remind me of Kos from 2004 only with an extreme conservative bias.  The other reason I don't look is I have grown to respect many of the long time posters as Buckeye fans and know my opinions of them would be affected negatively if I got involved off-topic.  I prefer to think of them as Buckeye fans only and nothing else.

Yesterday, I ventured over to the off topic forum and it was like I'd been taken back in time to Kos circa 2004.  90% of the posts expected a Romney landslide and I just couldn't believe what I was seeing.  The worst offender was a guy I used to respect by the name of 'buckeye in georgia'.  Last year he was the leader of a group of Buckeye fans that felt Jim Tressel was a spy for the FBI which is why he had to lie to the NCAA.  I found it hard to believe this was true but he writes with such passion that he gives the impression he knows something you don't.  Eventually most realized the guy was a fraud and I thought he'd left the site but yesterday I found he only posts in the off-topic forum where is seems to be one of the leaders.

Once I started reading the off topic forum I couldn't stop.   They were so sure Romney was going to win.  I checked other websites online and didn't see anything to support their beliefs but their confidence confused me as no reliable news source was making statements either way.  Did these guys know something they didn't?  Buckeye in Georgia is the worst example of what I saw.

• All of these last minute polls have done nothing but solidify my prediction and sealed Obama's fate. Romney will win - buckeye in georgia [21:50:47 11/05/12] (3)

• This might end up being more than 340 EVs for Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:28:15 11/06/12] (16)
• I don't even think that's close to mathematically possible * - duke_buck [17:46:46 11/06/12] (1)
• My guess was 340 +/-, not 340 exactly. I was guessing on the - side, now I think it will be on the + side. * - buckeye in georgia [17:49:24 11/06/12] (0)

• PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI all going Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [17:47:24 11/06/12] (23)

• This is going to swing hard for Romney. I might be able to hit the bed by 10! * - buckeye in georgia [19:49:07 11/06/12] (14)

• LOL...you all are NUTS! Romney wins this thing big! Relax! * - buckeye in georgia [20:16:33 11/06/12] (11)
• Can't wait to hear the excuses. I'm sure they're already prepared * - Cloud of Dust [20:19:51 11/06/12] (0)
• what are you smoking, they want some in OR & Cali * - Y-Town Buck [20:19:07 11/06/12] (3)
• Just watch those numbers move. I'm from the same area as you, so hard to believe. But, the numbers are going to move. * - buckeye in georgia [20:21:20 11/06/12] (2)

• Hang out for another 2 hours. About to blow up for Romney! * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:29 11/06/12] (1)

• Dude, Ohio is breaking big for Romney - anyone got some Doritos? * - buckeye in georgia [20:26:38 11/06/12] (3)

• So.....VA looks promising, OH looks like a train-wreck and FL looks like 2000 * - Buck Weaver [20:35:21 11/06/12] (3)
• Not what I see at all! All three are Romney. * - buckeye in georgia [20:39:01 11/06/12] (1)

• Not worried, kicking ass, actually!--->>> * - buckeye in georgia [20:55:33 11/06/12] (0)

• Obama lead in Ohio now 175K * - BCSBuck [20:56:02 11/06/12] (1)
• His lead will be -200K by midnight. * - buckeye in georgia [20:57:09 11/06/12] (0)

• Chuck Todd says FL is surprisingly close....I still don't buy it. * - FanO'theBUCKS [20:15:11 11/06/12] (2)
• Closer than 7 pts would be a surprise, I think. * - buckeye in georgia [20:17:34 11/06/12] (0)

He had over 107 posts in 24 hours on election day.  His post that said PA, OH, MN, MI, CO, IA, NH, FL, VA, NC, WI were all going Romney made me break my promise to myself not to post.

• I don't come to this side often but I see you are consistent in fringe thinking like your FBI/Jim Tressel posts 

Not my finest hour but after seeing what he was posting I couldn't help myself.  As it turned out Romney won only North Carolina.  As late as 8:55 he was calling for a Romney landslide.  He wasn't the only one to post things like that but he was the loudest.  When things started to solidify he didn't post for a while and the forum started to turn on him.  He had promised to pay something like $10 for every electoral vote Romney trailed Obama and the people that believed him didn't let him forget.

• Get out the checkbook BIG. You owe a BIG check. * - idiot_boyfriend [21:35:35 11/06/12] (5)
• It was a schtick. Anyone who thought otherwise is way out of it * - Cloud of Dust [21:37:23 11/06/12] (3)
• yep... half the stuff he says is BS * - the outsider [21:39:13 11/06/12] (2)
• LOL at "half" * - Solomon Dangerfield [21:45:54 11/06/12] (1)
• Not at all. GFY if you think otherwise. I'll honor my obligations. * - buckeye in georgia [21:48:30 11/06/12] (0)

• Buckeye in Georgia... where are you? you were SO #%^* sure... * - the displaced Buckeye [23:23:01 11/06/12] (5)
• I'm shocked, and I'll pay. * - buckeye in georgia [23:24:04 11/06/12] (4)

At 11:12pm, the election was called for Obama which by election standards is an early night.  Right now it looks like Obama has Florida which would give him a 332 to 206 electoral college win.  If the $10 is right it was a very expensive night for the poster named 'buckeye in georgia' and I can be thankful that my delusion from 2004 only lost me a some sleep.

In hindsight the 2004 election was important but I doubt Kerry would have been much better than Bush.  Every time I see him it reminds me of group think and how it can make even the most rational person believe something that deep down they know is not true.  It is something we all should guard against.

Tweet

Ranking the presidents in my lifetime

I was born in 1967 and on election day I thought it might be fun to rank the presidents of my lifetime.  The interesting thing about presidents is they are tough to judge when they leave office as their decisions have implications long after they are gone.  The role call is as follows:

Lydon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama

All these names bring out distinct feelings and here is the first word that comes to my mind when I think of each:

Crude
Liar
Clueless
Naive
Actor
Boring
Impeachment
Overmatched
Embattled

Looking at these words you might get the impression that all of these men have been a disaster for the country.  I think all of them have done what they thought was best but in an age where the United States is the leader of the world combined with unending media attention they all have faced daily difficulties that make the issues facing Washington and Jackson seem minor in comparison.

So how have they done?  Here's my ranking from worst to best:

#8 - George W Bush - He got us into an unnecessary war while reducing taxes to take a government surplus he inherited to a $1 trillion deficit.  The American people will paying for his lack of vision long into the future.  Fans of US Grant especially like him because many lists have replaced the Union General with Bush as the worst United States president of all time.

#7 - Lyndon Johnson - He is similar to GW Bush in that he started an unnecessary war but instead of tax reduction he added many programs that have proved to be unsustainable in the long run.  The difference is at the time he was in office the United States had a robust economy and was at the height of its power so some of the hubris from his administration is understandable.

#6 - Gerald Ford - Many still hate Ford for his pardon of Nixon but I dismiss him for the lack of action during his 2 years as president.  He has the distinction as the only person to become president without being voted into office as either president or vice president (Nixon replaced his elected vice president in 1973).

#5 - Ronald Reagan - Many conservative blogs rank Reagan in the top 5 of all American presidents.  I've always considered him highly overrated.  His main contribution were the tax reform act in 1986 and making Americans feel good about themselves again.  Unfortunately he also set the trend of reducing taxes while allowing Congress to ignore the out of control spending from Johnson's reforms.  You can do one but not both and he put the United States on the path of deficit spending that continues to plague us to this day.

#4 - Jimmy Carter - I've always felt Carter's heart was in the right place but his passive communication style turned off most Americans.  He preached moderation and that we needed to accept that the days of America's post WW2 dominance was over.  There was sharp contrast between him and Reagan in the 1980 election and the American people chose Reagan's message of hope vs Carter's stark realism.  I have often wondered how America would look today if Carter had Reagan's ability to turn a phrase.  The Iran hostage crisis, long gas lines, and an economy struggling to adapt to the huge influx of baby boomers into the work force didn't help either.

#3 - Richard Nixon - History remembers him leaving office in disgrace after Watergate but many of actions he took in office were forward thinking.  Working with China to open dialog was the first step in thawing the cold war and helped stop the worldwide trend towards communism.  He proposed the EPA, OSHA and even government health care for low income families.  At the time he was demonized by the left for his policies mainly due to Vietnam but he eventually got us out of the conflict and would be considered a moderate in today's America.

#2 - George Bush Sr - He was considered a wimp and a poor communicator but as time passed I came to appreciate his presidency.  His reversal of his "no new taxes" pledge  killed his reelection chances but his policies were moderate and he did what he considered to be best for the United States in the long term.  He set the stage to get the budget in order though he never got away from the shadow cast by Reagan.  If Carter had beaten Reagan in 1980, it is likely Bush would have won the 1984 election due to Reagan's age and conservatives today would look to him as the herald of new conservatism.  Perhaps then his level headed approached might have had more influence on his son.

#1 - Bill Clinton - His presidency was gridlocked by a sex scandal but his policies combined Bush's moderate conservatism with liberal ideals to find a middle ground.  Baby boomers were in their 40s during his presidency and America definitely moved to the right during his time in office.  Despite that he passed legislation that helped get the spending from Johnson's policies under control while raising taxes to get government to balance its budget for first in my life.

Unranked - Barack Obama - It is unfair to give Barack a rank at this time.  He inherited a government deep in debt and an economy in crisis as the banking industry was near collapse.  He signed the largest spending plan in American history knowing it would hurt him at the polls four years later.  He said at the time he knew proving to the American people that the economy would be worse without this package would be difficult.  He did it anyway as he thought it was the right thing to do.  He has a bit of Carter's naivety in him as his repeated attempts to work with the conservatives in Congress were rebuffed and they took advantage of him on quite a few occasions.

My last comment on Barack Obama is a hurdle all these men faced.  This is the sad state of American politics at this time and it has only gotten worse during my life.  No matter what happens in today's elections, my hope is that the Congress learns to represent all of America better in the future.  Most of what is wrong with American politics occurs in their halls but the men listed above get the blame.  As President Clinton once said, he thinks all president have the good of the nation in their hearts and we all need to keep that in mind when we consider their actions.  They need to learn to win over the minds of the nation with our reasoned words and stop with hateful soundbites.  It isn't productive but I don't think it is going to change.

Tweet

Societies with the greatest change in a lifetime

I was writing a short story about the Sioux set in the 1600s and really dove into the details of how they lived their lives.  As I wrote the story I couldn’t help but think that the grandchildren of the characters in my book would have a clash of cultures that would dramatically change to their lives.

That got me to thinking – “What group of people had the biggest change in their living situation in history?”  I quickly created a list and I’m sure I’ve forgotten some but I thought it might be interesting to compare peoples at the two ends of a long lived life.

Roman born in 310 – 390 - The Roman had been the dominant power in the west for four centuries and while they had periods of unrest had always come back stronger.  Life in Rome was great if you were a citizen and peaked in the first century around 1.5 million people.  By the year 300, the population had declined by at least half that but Constantine showed the empire still was formidable.  Two things he did changed everything – First he created an eastern capital and also made Christianity the official religion.  Constantinople meant that the grain that Rome had depended on in the past would be going elsewhere and was one reason for emigration.  Non-christians were persecuted with additional taxes and other methods throughout the empire so that the Roman Gods were set asided.  By the end of the 4th century Rome had decreased in size to around 200,000.  Alaric took the city a few decades later and looted much of what remained.  Two centuries later only around 20,000 people were left to farm around the ruins of the once great capital.

English born in 400 – 480 - The English were is a special situation as they were one of the last to be conquered by the Romans so the influence wasn’t as great.  When the Romans left in 410 they left behind great roads, buildings, aqueducts, and other engineering projects that the people left behind had no idea how to maintain.  There wasn’t a school that taught English or Latin along with any engineering/mathematics study and soon the country was falling into disrepair.  The only learned people were the priests and they Christianized the populace.  All authority was localized and few thought much beyond their next meal.  A feudal society was set up of landowners that had the poor working for them.  Cooperation formed slowly but was sped up by the invasions of the Angles and the Saxons from the continent.  Battles raged over the next two centuries but eventually the country was as much Saxon as Roman British.

Sioux born in 1830 – 1910 - They were essentially a hunter-gatherer society that ranged from Minnesota to the Dakotas.  Horses and guns had been introduced by the whites a few centuries early and created a massive change on their society as possession of either gave the owner a great advantage over other tribes.  The Sioux had seen white traders but the only impact on their lives at the time was the push west from the gun toting Chippewa into their former territory in Wisconsin.  As the whites pushed west, the Sioux also got guns which made them a feared enemy by all who faced them.  The high point was the Battle of Little Big Horn but it was the beginning of the end.  They were surrounded and those that didn’t return to the reservation escaped into Canada.  White settlers took their land as the area set aside for them was decreased and many integrated into American society.  Those that didn’t were left on a reservation system totally dependent on government handouts as the ecosystem that allowed their former way of life was gone.

American born in 1790 – 1870 - The United State was a small country with uncertain borders coming off a war with Great Britain.  The government was new and most were unsure of its success.  The population was 4 million and comprised of a small area on the east coast.  Over the next eighty years the country grew at a rapid pace to become the worlds most productive country with a population of almost 39 million.  It had just undergone a bloody Civil War which proved to all that the Union would last while the borders of the country now stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  The country had gone through the industrial revolution and over the next century dominated the world commercially.

Japanese born in 1850 – 1930 - The Japanese were a feudal society that was big enough to keep foreign powers out until 1853 when Commodore Perry of the United States forced them into a trade treaty. This only opened Japan to trade but the most dramatic change was the adoption of western thinking. Within twenty years the shoganate power was stripped and the Emperor made a figurehead as it’s military leaders used technology and an able Japanese public to transform the country into the modern age. By 1900, the Japanese were able to defeat the Russians and by 1930 they were racing across Asia, bent on dominating the region.

American born in 1900 – 1980 - Americans in 1900 thought they lived in the best time possible. The country was certainly growing and the future was definitely bright. The next eighty years brought not only the outrageous idea of manned flight but eventually to someone landing on the moon. Mathematics was made easier by counting machines then computers. Farming production was increased so that a majority of Americans living on farms left so that only >1% do it today. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Chicago boomed in population. Photography and motion pictures were invented and made so simple that anyone could do it. I think it is safe to say that someone born on a small farm in 1900 and died in an air conditioned house in the suburbs in 1980 would look back on their life in wonder at just how much had changed.

I know my list is centered too much on America and its spiritual ancestors but I don’t know enough about Persian, Indian, and Chinese culture to speak much about it without a lot of research.  As I reviewed the list it dawned on my the huge gap in my lists.  As I tried to think of something in between I considered the Turks as the Islamic Arabs changed their society, Italy in the Renaissance, Spain during the Inquisition, and the British during the Industrial Revolution.  They would have been great additions but they didn’t represent a total shift of an area culturally, militarily, and economically like the ones I listed.

One other thing I noticed is that my two early inclusions are bad while the ones afterward were considered improvements (with the notable exception of the Sioux).

If I was part of one society and had to pick the one I’d like to have been gone through I’d have to say a Roman in 400 AD.  The Sioux went through a horrific time at the hands of the Americans but their former living situation never came close to the luxry that the Romans experienced.  That had to come as quite a shock to the Roman nobility.

The best societal change would have to be the Americans in the 20th century.  With our current struggles let’s hope we don’t see a repeat of what the Romans went through though I’m guessing there are a few Sioux that would smile.

Tweet

The best day of class I ever had

I reached adulthood during the Reagan administration and I distinctly remember being excited when he got re-elected in 1984.  He spoke bluntly, increased military spending, and made everyone feel good about being an American.  Considering that most of my spare time was spent reading history books about military conquerors and great empires, Reagan’s persona was perfect for someone like me.

The turning point was when I got to my senior year and my American Government class.  The person responsible was pretty unlikely to teach anyone anything.  Mr Jamison was always late to class, never had a lesson plan ready and rarely used the book.  By the end of the class I remember we made it through the 2nd chapter of our text which infuriated my classmates who had to endure the whole thing.  If I give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he didn’t believe it was best to learn about the American Government from a text book.  Maybe he was just lazy.  I really don’t know.

A good example of his teaching method was the last 6 weeks.  We were told to write 2 papers about anything in world history that impacted the American Government. My 2 papers were about William the Conqueror and his opponent Harold Godwinson. When I got authorization for these papers I remember arguing that these two represented a turning point as the rise of the Normans led to English Common Law and the Magna Carta which had a profound impact on our government.  My concept was a bit simplistic as I look back and I’d love to write it today as there really is a good paper in there describing what happened under William and what could have happened under Harold. The truth was when I did my research I saw a book on the two men and wanted to read it. I read it in 2 days, returned it to the library and forgot all about the project.  Mr Jamison’s classes after that consisted of nothing but goofing off and most times even he skipped class.  The one thing I do remember is he never said a word about the project until the day it was due and I was totally screwed.  I didn’t have the book and it had been well over a month since I read it. He gave us until the end of class to finish and frantically wrote the two papers from memory. As I recall my grade ended up that six weeks as a D.  At first I wasn’t too upset as I’d already been accepted to college and only needed my diploma. My nonchalant attitude changed a bit when I realized how badly this class killed my class rank as it dropped from 24th at the end of the 1st semester to 47th when I graduated.  That changed my class rank % from top 10% to top 25% which isn’t nearly as prestigious.  Oh well!  This was another lesson of sorts.

I’ve digressed but I told that to give flavor of Mr. Jamison’s teaching method.  His classes were very loose with lots of discussion and not always about politics or government.  In hindsight I don’t know if his classes were by a genius that got kids interested in political happenings by reading the issues of the day or a lazy guy that had tenure and didn’t care to teach that hard.  It’s been too many years for me to fairly access that.  All I know is one day he began class with a simple question.

“Are you are Republican or a Democrat?”

As we were in a suburban classroom, almost everyone raised their hand that they were Republican.  The only person that answered Democrat also happened to be the only African-American in our school at the time.  I remember a few of the popular kids tried to get him to switch his allegiance and his response was simple, “I’m black, we’re all Democrats”.  Everyone laughed but in truth the opposite was also true.  We were all Republicans because we were white suburban kids. 

What Mr. Jamison did next was possibly the best lesson I ever learned.  He told us to pull out a sheet of paper and asked us 20 questions that revolved around the most divisive issues of the day.  When we finished we made a copy and turned in our answers.  He quickly totaled the results and revealed the questions on the chalkboard which he read again.  As we went down each question we were told to grade our own papers as he told us whether the position was Republican or Democrat.  My result was 65% Democrat – 35% Republican.  The totals for the class were about the same and when the teacher asked people who answered more Democratic, almost everyone in the class raised their hands. 

He put the class totals next to each issue and I was amazed just how most people toed the Democratic party line.  Mr. Jamison went over each question and had someone from each side talk about why they felt their answer was right.  The discussions got a little heated at times (especially around abortion) but it was amazing insight into how my fellow students thought.

I’ve always thought I went into that classroom a Republican and exited a Democrat.  The truth is that I’ve always been more Libertarian/Independent but that day taught me to look into the details before aligning myself to anything.  The lesson Mr. Jamison taught me that day was a huge first step in developing my critical thinking and I’ve always been grateful that at least on that one day, he cared enough to teach and I really do believe my life is different as a result.  On that day, his class was certainly better than memorizing lines from a textbook (even if he did give me my first D).

Tweet