You’re so Selfish!!!

 

     Well, it’s happened.  You would have to have been living under a rock the last week or so to not know Hostess has been allowed to liquidate its assets and shut down operations after over 80 years.  Those on the right and left – generally speaking – have their favorite ‘bogeymen’ involved in this situation:  For the left, we have the ‘corporate fatcats’ who fiddled while Rome burned around them (giving themselves extravagant raises while in bankruptcy).  For the right, we have the ‘labor unions’ killing the golden goose (going on strike – which appears to be the ‘straw that broke the camels’ back if your will).  Now, I really think both sides share a pretty close to equal blame.  We’re in a down economy (generally speaking – there are always some industries and sectors that are up), with elevated unemployment and underemployment, and both management and labor engage in practices better suited for a booming economy.  Both sides would have been better served if they acted in a practical manner.  However, what ended up happening was the follow-through of a sort of mutual suicide pact.  Both sides knew the end result of certain choices, but they made them anyway.  I show this picture of Hostess Donettes as a memorial to a fallen icon of American society.

     Reading through the articles and comments made by both sides made me wonder why we seem to have a ‘damn the consequences, I want what I want’ society?  I believe it has to do with the economics of our society.  I’m not talking about whether we’re in a recession or boom time.  I’m talking about capitalism.  If we have a capitalistic society, then we inherently have a selfish society.  What is the goal of every person in this society?  To accumulate as much wealth (or material) as possible for themselves, with little to no regard to the consequences to others.  To have a society that places the individual and individual wealth in a position of primacy, while attempting to provide services to take care of those who are unable to accumulate wealth, or not enough for certain contingencies and issues is a society at cross-purposes with itself.  Now, I’m not saying socialism or communism is the answer, as they are just as selfish.  Basically, as George Orwell so eloquently put it in his book Animal Farm ‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.  The focus is on the collection of wealth, of making people subservient to the state and those who ‘represent’ the state.  Ultimately, it is a selfish society, as people are either in charge and gathering to themselves as much material and wealth as possible, or they are serving and worried about whether or not they will have enough to survive.

     What would be the alternative to this?  How about a society where the focus is not on the individual and/or the accumulation of wealth, but the focus is on the group, and ensuring everyone in our community has what is necessary?  Again, I’m not talking about what modern society understands as socialism, but what I am talking about is a society/community like what we see in the bible.  The book of Acts specifically.  We see in the early church where everyone in the early church brought their goods and wealth together and worked together to ensure everyone in the church was taken care of (to include widows).  If we truly consider ourselves a Christian nation, and are striving to follow His teachings, this should be our goal.  If we worry about ourselves, then our focus is not on others.  We are told God will provide for our needs.  If we believe that, then at some point we need to stop worrying and trust in that.

It’s harvest time!!!

The seasons are changing, and many fruits and vegetables are now being harvested.  I do believe it’s also time to harvest the nuts (both real and people).  We’ve now moved into fall and the general election season.

What does this harvest of nuts entail?  There are the signs popping up everywhere (although their growth does seem to be stunted this year, but the early crop was good), as well as sounds galore (TV and radio ads – not too many so far, but it’s a little early so I have no doubt this will increase as we move further along in the election season).  But the animal voices indicative of the change in season really seems to be picking up. 

     Why do I call them nuts?  It is because all they do is try to convince me (the general me, not the specific me) not to vote for someone.  I have not seen or heard anything telling me who to vote for in a positive sense.  Even if there’s a ‘you should vote for (Romney/Obama/Ron Paul/whoever) because…..(wait for it)……the others are (Mormon/Muslim/socialist/evil rich person/fruitcake).  Really?  That’s supposed to convince me who to vote for?  If I use those arguments and believe them as to why I shouldn’t vote for that person.  Then the only logical conclusion I can draw is not to vote for anyone.

     It seems more and more this is what modern politics is about.  I want to put a challenge out there:  is there someone who can tell me why I should vote FOR someone without using a negative argument about someone else?

     I have to admit there are some times I wish politics would go away.  If there were no such thing as politics, I think our lives would be SO much better.  Then again, maybe we have to deal with the (seemingly) annual harvest of of nuts.  At least for now.

I love lemonade

Many times, adversity gives us an opportunity for growth. Recent events in my household have provided a healthy dose of adversity. The number of operating vehicles in my family has shrunk from two to one, as our family van is having mechanical issues. The one remaining working vehicle cannot safely hold the entire family, so going anywhere as a group requires significant logistical planning. We also ‘lost’ a computer (hard drive issues) so our school and personal computer schedules required adjustment as well. Hopefully these adjustments are temporary, but resolving them requires money, which a family on a budget does not have a lot of. However, I have been able to pull out a couple of positives from this situation and would like to give you my thoughts.

First, I discovered I don’t need to be on the computer as much as I was before the other computer went down. Of course, we justify our time on the computer, but is what I’m doing really important? When you have to justify what you’re doing and when you’re doing it, not only to yourself but to others around you, the reality of whether or not you’re making the best use of your time gives you clarity in what your priorities are.

Think about how much of your computer time is spent doing something ‘mindless’. Whether it’s flipping through emails, Facebook, blogs (am I cutting off my own nose to spite my face?), or playing games. There are other uses of your time that can exercise your body and/or mind (reading a book, taking a walk, you get the idea). The end result is you will be energized and ultimately feel better about yourself and others.

Second, I have ‘rediscovered’ reading.  Those who knew me growing up can remember how much I enjoyed reading (slipping a reading book inside of a school textbook – who needs to learn?).  Life, and other entertainments (to include computers) took my reading time away. I can read things on a computer as well as a book, but there is something different, and even magical, when you sit and read a book (either physical or on a Nook/Kindle).

I think part of it is the ‘quiet’ that comes when you are reading. The stillness allows your soul to be quiet. This is often missing when you are clicking or scanning through emails, web pages, or blogs. Also the colors involved in web pages are designed to catch the eye, which stimulates the brain. The simple, calming colors of paper and ink in books give a calming effect.

The bottom line for all this? Just as the old adage says ‘when life gives you lemons, make lemonade’, when life jolts you out of your comfort zone, use it as an opportunity for positive change in your life.

I do believe ‘the inmates run the asylum’

I am doing my best to ‘disengage’ from the more partisan elements of politics and try to be balanced in my ideas and concepts. This is a rather difficult proposition right now, as the partisans are filling the airwaves and websites with their opinions and vitriol. Sifting through the rhetoric is a much more daunting task. I don’t doubt the fact this is an election year is exacerbating the situation.

All of this anger and frustration tends to beg the question, why are so many Americans so focused on positions and ideas which are on the the extremes of the spectrum? When I think about this, I tend to believe this reflects our society’s general displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with our government. One of the books I have on my shelf is ‘How Democratic is the American Constitution?’ by Robert Dahl. Part of the book relates a survey conducted in eleven European democratic countries in 1990. They matched the answers to questions regarding satisfaction with their government to whether they voted for the ‘winning’ or ‘losing’ parties in the previous election. What the researchers found was in countries where the system was more ‘consensual’ (Holland was an example of this), the ‘losers’ were almost as satisfied with the government as the ‘winners’  (within 5%). Countries where the system was more ‘majoritarian’ (England’s government fits this), ‘winners’ were far more satisfied with the government than ‘losers’.

What does this tell me? Dahl’s book claims the U.S. system is a ‘hybrid’ (neither consensual nor majoritarian). This may be true from a political scientist’s point of view.  However, people in this country perceive there are political parties that ‘win’ and those that ‘lose’ and there are consequences of those elections.  Also, there has been (at least in perception, although it may not be reality) a continuing trend of political parties not wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ in order to enact legislation or policy. The goal (stated or otherwise) of the political parties today is to obtain and retain the majority.  With that as the goal, the situation quickly devolves into an ‘ends justify the means’ situation where people will say and do anything to achieve their goal. Power, not what is best for everyone, is now the goal. Our sensibilities (and sensitivities) are assaulted as the parties and their faithful ‘go for broke’ in an effort to obtain power. It is obvious to me that they believe in ‘the other golden rule’ (not ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, it’s ‘whoever has the gold [in this case power equals gold] makes the rules).

I am sure when the election’s over, there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, no matter who ‘wins’ (and I’m not sure an electoral victory really equals a ‘win’) complete with threats of moving to another country for asylum.  Somehow, I think we will survive no matter who is in office.  We will just get the government we justly deserve.

Squirrel!!!! Rabbit!!!!! Chicken!!!!!

 

(Note:  This is something I worked on a little while ago, but my points are still valid)

     I watched, with just a little amusement, the whole issue with Chick-fil-a over the last couple of weeks.  To me, this was one person who isn’t in government or running for office expressing his opinion.  I looked at the plethora of opinions floating around the internet and the phrase ‘opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one’ ran through my head.  I am not going to add my opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage to those already out there.  My reasoning for doing that are:  1) It isn’t relevant to what I want to talk about.  And 2) it would distract from the points I want to make.

     My thoughts boil down down to two points:  1) All the talking and ranting about the Chick-fil-a ‘incident’ (for lack of a better term), both pro and con, gave them free publicity.  2) This discussion about a fast food restaurant and the personal views of it’s president distracted people from issues truly deserving of our focus.

     There is a saying, primarily in business and advertising circles, ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’.  If you look at this from that perspective, the net effect was:  people who had no idea that Chick-fil-a existed now do.  Any of those people who chose to patronize them as a result of this probably made up for anyone who stopped.  Look at the different celebrities who ate there in support of the company president, additionally, look at what the sales were for ‘Chick-fil-a appreciation day’.  On the surface, it looks like a net positive for the company.  Now, if I were the kind of person who believed in conspiracy theories, I might think the whipping up of this furor was deliberate in order to improve their bottom line.  Looking at this whole situation in that way, you could say the company was ‘crazy like a fox’.  A conspiracy like that is extremely difficult to prove without rock-solid evidence, so I leave the idea to the realm of conspiracy theories.

     The second point I mentioned above is the more important one in my opinion.  This country has issues to resolve, especially in an election year.  The country is still trying to recover from a recent economic downturn, and there are governmental issues needing attention and discussion.  Instead, we spent our time and energy discussing whether or not Chick-fil-a should be banned, protested, or supported.  The net result, in my opinion, was valuable time and energy that could be better used discussing and dealing with the issues this country faces and how the government and/or the people can deal with them was wasted.  Is same-sex marriage an issue?  We only need to look at the furor this one statement raised to conclude it is. If the discussion focused on federal, state, and local laws and educating each other to our perspective, it would have been more profitable.  If you want to hurt a business owner for their ‘less than intelligent’ statements?  Just don’t do business there.  And be clear when speaking to others about why you won’t do business there.  We as a country cannot hope to resolve the economic issues of this country if we keep losing our focus like a dog chasing squirrels and rabbits.

I Think I Got Off the Merry Go Round….And I Feel Fine

 

(Image credit artofmanliness.com)

     Well, life got in the way again.  One of these times, I’m going to get life to not interfere when I start thinking ‘I haven’t blogged in a while, I should get back to that’.  I did have an idea or two I kicked around, but by the time I could have posted them, they no longer seemed relevant.  Maybe I’ll post them anyway and put a little disclaimer at the beginning.  Yeah, that’ll fix it.

     So, we are now hot and heavy into the political season.  The national conventions are occurring, complete with candidates and speeches.  Not sure there’s a whole lot of substance there (choose your favorite cliché – all flash no heat, no ‘there’ there, or any others I’ve missed).  I was talking with my father the other night and he asked if I had been following the convention.  I had to think a minute before I said something about just catching the highlights.  Afterward, I began to think about how little I had been involved in following the political process this year.  Part of it has to do with what I discussed here.  As far as I’m concerned, the end is known, the drama is going on for the sake of the play itself.

       I’ve been working my way through a rather interesting book this summer.  The theme is how the colonists weren’t following God’s laws when they rebelled against England.  I cannot say I agree with everything the author was saying, but there are a number of points where we do agree.  A particularly interesting section of the book contained a quote from John Wesley.  Wesley was confronting the colonists on their claims of ‘no taxation without representation’, among other things.  Here is the quote:

‘If Parliament cannot tax you because you have no representation therein, for the same reason it can make no laws to bind you.  If a freeman cannot be taxed without his consent, neither can he be punished without it.  For whatever holds true with regard to taxation holds true with regard to all other laws.  Therefore he who denies the English Parliament the power of taxation, denies it the right of making any laws at all.  But you have never disputed this power over the colonies.  You have always acknowledged statues for the punishment of offences and for the preventing or redressing of civil wrongs.  And the reception of any law draws after it by a chain which cannot be broken, the necessity of accepting taxation.

But I object to the very foundation of you plea.  You have confidently asserted that “every freeman is governed [only] by laws to which he has consented.”  But that is absolutely false.  In wide-extended dominions, a very small part of the people are involved with making laws.  As with all public business, this must be done by delegation, and the delegates are chosen by a select number.  And those who are not voters, who are by far the greater part, stand by as idle spectators.

But the case of voters is little better.  When they are near equally divided, almost half of them must be governed, by not only without, but even against their own consent.  And how has any man consented to those laws which were made before he was born?  Our consent to these, nay and even to the laws now made in England, is purely passive.  And in every place, as all men are born the subjects of some state or another, so they are born passively, as it were, consenting to the laws of that state.’ (italics mine).

     I think, in this highly contentious political season, we would be well served to keep in mind Wesley’s comment about voters.  Somewhere, whether national, state, or local, a political majority is not what we chose and is governing against our consent.  There is nothing wrong with trying to get your particular candidate or number of people in the party you prefer elected.  But treating elections like an all-or-nothing proposition is a prescription for disaster.

     Personally, I am more than willing to let the political process (I’d call it Kabuki Theater, but I don’t want to insult Kabuki) go through its’ motions and let the chips fall where they may.  No matter which party wins the race, I still have my responsibilities to take care of.  That is where my focus is going to be.  I will be educated of course before I put my ballot in the mail (we do all-mail voting here), but I find myself a much better person when I’m not dealing so much in the minutiae.

Let’s put it out of our misery…..

 

(Image credit http://failblog.cheezburger.com/thereifixedit/)

I haven’t written for a while. Biggest reason for that is that life took over. One of these days, I’ll have life under control (yeah, right). I also haven’t been overly motivated to write. It’s not that I haven’t had ideas bouncing around my head, but none of them seemed to flow into a coherent thought stream that I could write down and not growl at the end result because it didn’t meet my standards (yes, believe it or not I do have them). This however, is something that won’t leave my mind.

There comes a time, when you are working on a project, that if you’ve made too many adjustments and/or corrections, you need to break the whole thing down and start over from scratch. I’m starting to believe that we, in this country, have hit that point with health care. We’ve been trying to make adjustments/corrections for quite a while now, and the end result bears no resemblance to either where we began, or the desired result.

We’re in the beginning stages of implementing the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, as some would have it). The desired result (at least for those who’ve championed the legislation) is for health care to be accessible and affordable for everyone. It’s still rather early to determine if either component of the desired result is in reach, but I’ve got a feeling there are still a number of issues that need to be dealt with.

I’ve written about this issue before.  There are two common points of agreement (or maybe one depending on how you look at it) on this issue: 1) the current system is insufficient to provide affordable and accessible care for all. And 2) changes need to be made. Once you move beyond those two points, paths rapidly diverge. Is the focus on cost, or eligibility? Do we need to look at the care side of the equation, or the financial side?

I believe all of these areas need to be looked at, because there are issues in each of these areas. The problem, at least to me, is that each of these areas need to be addressed in the context of the other areas, but they’re not. They are each being addressed in a vacuum, as if each can be ‘adjusted’ or ‘corrected’ as needed without looking at the effect on the other areas. I think the reasoning behind such an approach is: we hope we only need to make minor adjustments in order to achieve the desired result. Perhaps we think it will be a ‘magic fix’. Whatever the thought process is, the end result is something that is unwieldy, cumbersome, and ineffective.

I realize what I’m putting forward may be extremely unpopular, but I truly think the system needs to be ‘blown up’. Ensure nothing of the previous system remains, and then start putting something completely new together. I’ll be completely honest, though.  I am not going to push this with a lot of energy, because until there is agreement on what the end result needs to look like, we’re going to end up with something that looks amazingly like what we’ve got now. I just don’t hold a lot of hope that the current crew in charge, or those that want to be in charge, would work on this in a way that is best for everyone.

It’s time to up the wattage!!!

 

     I sometimes enjoy doing ‘home improvement’ type projects.  There is something unique and satisfying about putting something together on your own.  Growing up, there were many times when I had to measure, cut, nail, glue, etc. as part of something.  I have a number of stories about those projects, but that’s for another time.  Here are some photos of my most recent project.

     To give you some background:  I needed to make a new ‘platform’ for our window air conditioning unit.  Since we rent, I did not install the window bracket hardware.

Here is the ‘platform’.  You can’t really see, but I have marked two places near the bottom corners to drill holes for a screw to go through to hold the legs.

Here’s what I used for the legs.  A 2x2x8 piece of wood.

The finished legs.  They’re both 38” long.  I drilled holes in one end (to make putting the screws in easier), and then screwed them onto the platform.  Since I don’t have one of those neat automatic screwdrivers, I put a screwdriver bit on my drill.

Here is the finished product, ready to hold the air conditioner.

And here it is holding up the air conditioner.

It’s not the prettiest, and it’s certainly not the most professional looking of items, but it’s serviceable and that’s the most important.

And now for something completely out of left field

 

     I enjoy watching baseball.  I’m not sure whether it’s the idea the game is more cerebral, the tension that can be involved when you’re watching, or the idea you can get up, stretch, or do something on a fairly regular basis and not miss a whole lot (between innings).  Generally speaking, I’m not overly set on watching one team over another.  It’s the game itself.  Despite the fact I live in the Pacific Northwest, I have not ‘adopted’ the Seattle Mariners as my ‘favorite’ team (although my children have, as much as possible considering their limited exposure to the professional game).  My favorite team is the Minnesota Twins.  However, the year plus has not been kind to me, or to Twins fans.  A 99-loss season is just behind us, and by all indications we have another season of sub-.500 baseball ahead.

     When a team gets into an ‘extended’ period of less-than-stellar performance, the discussion starts to come around as to whether or not the manager will be fired.  Since the Twins are 6-18 so far (as of this post), I started to think about the last time a Twins Manager was fired.  Not completely trusting my memory, I decided to look at the team history.  I discovered the last time a Twins manager was fired was September 1986.  The unfortunate victim in that incident?  Ray Miller.  His replacement was Tom Kelly.  I read Kelly managed the team through the 2001 season and resigned (since he decided to leave and not the team getting rid of him, I won’t count that as a ‘firing’).  The current manager, Ron Gardenhire, has been the team manager since the beginning of the 2002 season.  By my calculations, that makes it almost 26 years since the last firing.  It is certainly an impressive statistic anyway.

    Should Gardenhire be fired?  I really don’t know.  There are those who would argue it’s overdue, and those who would place the blame at the players’ feet.  I can’t really argue with that logic, as it’s not the manager pitching, fielding, or hitting.  Looking at the roster, I am reminded of my fathers’ saying ‘you can’t make chicken salad without chicken’.  On the other hand, the manager is the leader of the team, and the team appears lost, listless, and losing games before they even get on the field.  Sometimes players are moved (traded or released) to give them a fresh start.  Managers are fired to give the team a fresh face and a fresh start.  I don’t know what can be done to remedy the situation, but it is tough to watch right now.

Garbage in, garbage out?

 

     This year is one where the Eastern and Western celebrations of the resurrection of Christ are not on the same day (Western Easter is on April 8, Eastern Pascha (Easter) is on April 15).  So, for those who celebrate Easter on April 8, Happy Easter!  For those celebrating Pascha, Happy Feast Day (Palm Sunday).   This year I have been pondering the Lenten season, the 40 days prior to Easter. 

     In the Orthodox tradition, Lent is a ‘fasting season’.  What does this mean?  To put it in the most general sense, we avoid eating certain foods.  You may wonder what this accomplishes.  In the simplest sense, it is discipline.  When I fast, I am attempting to gain control over my passions by attempting to control (with God’s help) what I put in my body.  The struggle between what we should do and what our bodies (or passions) want to do, not just in the area of food, but in many other areas of our life, is the struggle we must endure every day.  St. Paul talks of this struggle in Romans 7:17-25 (ASV):

17  So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
18  For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.
19  For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
20  But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
21  I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.
22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23  but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
24  Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

     You may think controlling what you eat sounds simple, but look around our society in America today.  In the realm of food, there is a lot of ‘passion’ with the Food Channel, diets, and all the pills and procedures surrounding eating.  As a society, we allow food to control and dominate our bodies.  Think for a moment about all of the advertising (radio, print, television) done to promote food.  We most definitely do not ‘eat to live’ but ‘live to eat’.

     In the nearly 3 years I have been in Orthodoxy, I have discovered through these periods and and seasons how much food has controlled me.  I’m going to give you a little insight into my own life and struggle.  About four years ago, I weighed over 250 pounds.  It was certainly not healthy for me, and I can say without a whole lot of thought one of the greatest ‘joys’ in life for me were all the good foods I could eat, or imagine eating.  It certainly didn’t hurt to have a wife and daughter who are good cooks.  The bottom line of it all is:  I had no discipline whatsoever in regards to what went into my mouth.  I ate what I wanted and how much I wanted.  I made no effort to try and determine if I was full or not.  If something was made or came around I wanted, I would have it.

     These days?  I have gotten down to around 200 pounds.  It’s certainly better than what I was, but I think I still could lose some weight (just for a point of reference, I weighed 150 pounds when I graduated from high school 23 years ago).  Many days it’s a struggle between what I ‘want’ to eat, and what I need to eat.  I have to remind myself to listen to my body, and determine if I really need to eat that second or third serving.  While the days and seasons of fasting have helped to bring this reality home to me, I have been able to begin expanding these thoughts and concepts into my daily life.  I know it’s not going to be easy, and there will be days when I will ‘blow it’ and overeat.  All I can do is ask God to help me get back on the path and work towards a more perfect future.

I have the power!!! (to do what exactly?)

   Wow.  It’s the end of March, and it’s been an interesting month for those who thrive on following current events.  Between the continuing presidential election (and hopefully will stop in November), the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting and aftermath, to a record breaking lottery jackpot (otherwise known by a former co-worker as the ‘redneck retirement fund’), and topped off with a week of arguments at the supreme court concerning the health care law passed two years ago.  I’m going to skip the lottery, it’s interesting but not that I would want to discuss the whole system.  Elections?  Done and overdone.  Pox on everyone’s house as far as I’m concerned.  The shooting?  I’ll only say that no matter what the end result is, people will be unhappy because that result will be ‘a travesty of justice’.  I’m going to focus on the Supreme Court arguments, because something within that issue really piqued my interest.

     I found it extremely interesting, and not a little humorous, how much time was devoted and is continuing to be spent, on trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ of where the Supreme Court is going to fall in regards to the health care act affectionately (or maybe not so affectionately) known as ‘Obamacare’.  You would have thought a Hollywood celebrity was talking about an awards ceremony or speculating on what their next role was going to be, considering all the ink spilt and electricity burned over each question and comment made by the justices.  There was one or two articles in my readings this week however that touched at least in passing on what I really think should be the issue:  how did we let this country get to the point that nine people (or even one person) in black robes who were never elected by anyone get to decide policy in this country?  As an aside, the ‘one person’ who attracted the largest amount of speculation and energy, Justice Anthony Kennedy, has a bit of history of his own.  I didn’t see mentioned in any of the analysis or articles that he was the THIRD choice by President Reagan for the seat vacated by Lewis Powell, Jr. in 1987 (Kennedy was seated on the court in 1988).  The first two were Robert Bork, whose confirmation was defeated in one of the most acrimonious debates in recent memory, and Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew his nomination after he admitted to marijuana use over a number of years.

     In my lifetime, the court has more and more often become the final arbiter in this country regarding issues of public policy.  Religion, abortion, anti-sodomy laws, and even public college admissions policy have more and more often ended up in the court system to determine what the laws should be.  Funny, but I thought you were supposed to go back to the people who made the law in the first place (the legislature and executive) to air your grievance and change the law (either through lobbying or getting people who agree with your policy elected).  I guess it’s the result of our overly litigious society, but it’s still really sad to me how this has come to pass.

     One thing which really got to me was how quickly the discussion of the arguments before the Supreme Court (which I thought was supposed to be a non-political entity) became an issue of politics.  The first day of oral arguments weren’t even done before the comments of ‘this is why elections matter’ started coming out.  Really?  That’s the most important thing about being a President?  Not dealing with the myriad of issues facing our country, oh no.  It’s getting to choose someone to sit on the court ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’.  I know, I’m being rather idealistic in my thinking, but we’re back to the Youtube video of bunnies bouncing on the trampoline devolving into a heated verbal war about something having nothing to do with the bunnies (by the way, I’ve seen some bunnies in my yard recently but they were nowhere near the trampoline.  Maybe I need to make sure I have my video camera ready, just in case).

An example of ‘the winner writes the history?’

 

I’ve been reading a lot of political arguments and discussions lately, probably much more than is really healthy for me. There are those individuals, of course, for whom politics is life, but I can only take so much before my mind starts turning to mush. I am not saying people shouldn’t take the time and be aware of what the government is doing, or any other issues affecting their life. It’s just sometimes it becomes something so all-consuming the rest of life suffers.

Anyway, enough of that and on to what my title is about. The title is a paraphrase of a quote by Winston Churchill, ‘history is written by the victors’. I am going to describe a situation where it appears to me the ‘winning side’ wrote history (at least what is taught) to almost remove the existence or arguments of the ‘losing side’.

During some of these political discussions or arguments I’ve read, people have used the ‘founding fathers’ to bolster their argument. Sometimes they will even quote passages from ‘The Federalist Papers’. After a while, I became intrigued with the writers, the writing of this document, and the time when they were written.  One thing I could not remember was whether or not there were writings from the ‘other side’.

I went through my mental files (and boy are they disorganized) to try and remember what I was taught about this timeframe in school. This is what I could remember: The Federalist Papers were written in the two years following the Constitutional Convention as the states were voting whether or not to ratify the new Constitution. I remembered Alexander Hamilton and James Madison as two of the writers.

I started doing some further research to see if my memory was correct. I found out John Jay was the third contributing author. Also, I didn’t’ remember the Federalist Papers were published in book form as well as in newspapers. One item of note is conventional wisdom puts Alexander Hamilton writing the majority of the 85 Federalist Papers (the sole author of 51, and a co-author of 3 more).

I took note of how dissent was presented or not through the different sources I used. In many instances the discussion regarding ratification is in generalities. The most detailed discussion of dissent I found described the opponents of the Constitution as concerned about individual liberty, which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. This was presented as a ‘winning by losing’ sort of thing.

One interesting item I discovered during my research through the many sites and documents was that Patrick Henry did not participate in the Constitutional Convention. Yes, Patrick Henry of ‘give me liberty or give me death’ fame. He was chosen to represent Virginia in the Constitutional Convention, but refused to participate. He did not believe in the convention’s purpose, which he saw as creating a government which would shift power (and in his opinion the freedom) away from the individual states to a strong central government. Patrick Henry viewed the structure of this new central government as similar to the one they just revolted against (Great Britain).

I discovered there were documents written against ratification, which were published in newspapers. The writers were not as organized as those writing the Federalist Papers. The result of this is there are now some disagreements as to what should be and should not be included as ‘Anti-Federalist’. They weren’t identified or collectively organized as ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ until well after the ratification of the Constitution, when scholars began to collect, organize, and publish them in books.

What do these papers contain? I’ve skimmed through them (for those who are curious, or devoted enough, a seven-volume collection called ‘The Complete Anti-Federalist’ is available in print form and here is a link to a site where they are organized to coincide with the Federalist Papers). The primary focus and concern of the writers is the potential tyranny they see under the powers delineated (and some not) in the ‘proposed constitution’ through a consolidation of power in a single federal government. They saw issues with all three proposed branches of the national government, and did not believe the ‘check and balance’ mechanism built in as sufficient to prevent abuse and tyranny.

Looking through the different papers, I wonder what their thoughts would be to see the government as it is today. Would they believe their concerns were vindicated? Would they not believe how the country is currently governed? I could only speculate, and I won’t do that. I’ve been wrong far too many times and just don’t feel like sticking my neck out. Besides, I speculated last month on the Presidential election. That’s it for the year.

Why was it difficult to find out what the issues were when the Constitution was written and different arguments and points presented then? My theory is, those who supported our current Constitution wrote ‘history’ in such a way as to minimize the conflict and put their position in the best possible light. I’m not saying it was something done with malicious forethought.

Happy New Year, and batten down the hatches!

 

     I haven’t blogged for a while, and I’m going to blame the time of year for that.  The big thing most people know is we finished  2011 and began 2012.  This last year was one personally and as a country and society that I can’t say much good about.  It barely stayed at the status quo.  Looking at the new year, I can’t say I’m really excited about what it holds.  I read many people were pessimistic about 2011 and are optimistic about 2012.  I, however, do not hold a lot of optimism for the new year.  I can’t say anything specific is making me feel this way, it’s just an overall feeling of ‘blah’.

     One thing foremost in my mind and that of the United States is the impending presidential election season.  Yes, I mean ‘impending’.  At this point, I am dreading the whole drama and coverage.  I am not thrilled with any of the candidates, and at this point if I could vote for ‘none of the above’, I would.  Comparing this election season with other recent elections in my memory, this election seems similar to 2004 or 1988. 

     My basis for this is as follows:  You have someone from one political party in the White House who is not very popular.  However, the alternatives from the other party are on the lower end of mediocre at best.  Since the current American political system seems to allow only two political parties, there are no third or fourth choices.  This time around, we have President Obama on one side, and the field of candidates on the other side I would call a bunch of ‘ne’er do wells’.  Five different people have topped the polls for the Republicans this last year (Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich) and yet none of those seem to have that indefinable quality that makes people want to support or vote from them. 

     Do I think President Obama will be re-elected?  I’m not sure.  If nothing changes and one of the current crop secures the nomination, I think he probably will, not because he’s so popular both in personality and policies, but the alternative would be so underwhelming. 

     Maybe I feel this way because I am way beyond done with politics.  All of these candidates are ‘professional politicians’, meaning their whole career is based on gaining and holding elected office.  Also, my ability to ‘guess’ how things are going to play out in Washington D.C. has gotten much better.  It’s political theater at its worst.  It seems to me that too many people are more concerned about keeping the status quo rather than doing what’s right.