The Magic of the Holidays

Since I was a child, I have always looked forward to Christmas time. It was more than just presents and the arrival of Santa. It was the feeling that happens starting with the holidays. I try to hold on that inexpressible feeling as long as I can. For me, it doesn't end on December the 25th. I don't know that it ever really ends but it does subside a bit as the new year begins to progress especially after all the decorations come down. Still, there is magic in the decorations, and mall Santa and the lights.

From my point of view, the most ridiculous thing you can tell me about is the "war on Christmas," which is something that was entirely fabricated to divide us. Why on earth would a business want to say "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? I don't suppose that it is because there might be other holiday events. The spirit of this time of year is one of acceptance and caring. It has little - or should have - little to do with whether we say, "Merry Christmas," or "Happy holidays," or  "Happy Hanukkah," or "Happy solstice," or "Happy Boxing Day," or "Happy Kwanzaa," or one of the other 20 plus holidays that occur in December,  some Christian and some not. In all honesty, no matter what has been said to me when I leave a store, no one has ever seemed offended by my wishing them a merry Christmas, and I've never been offended by them wishing me happy holidays.

There was a time that many businesses avoided involving their politics in their business. I know the last thing I want to do is go into a restaurant and hear how wonderful or how evil some politician or political party is. There are, in fact, several businesses that I don't go to because of this. I'm not talking about businesses that take a moral stance but ones that involve themselves in unadulterated politics. And there is a difference between the two. Standing on principles takes courage.

A while ago, I read an editorial. A good editorial is designed to make us think. Unfortunately, too often we confuse the editorials with the news. They aren't. The opinion of this particular editorial was that parents who tell children that there is a Santa Claus are creating a lie that ultimately will harm the child. The writer has missed the point. There is a magic to the holidays that I wish we could hold onto. That magic, that feeling, that is embodied by Saint Nick is the point. It is the gift, that is given to all of us at this time of year, and I don't mean toys. There is a magic in believing in someone who gives us so much just for being good. I believe. So I want to give you that gift or at least remind you of it. I hope your holidays, no matter which one you celebrate, are blessed and your life is filled with a little magic. It's not a lie to believe in the spirit of the holidays. Happy holidays.

Sorry, Cussing Does not Show Intelligence.

I've seen this on posts galore on Facebook and Twitter from friends and famous people. It seems a few news sites posted the results of a study that using swear words is a sign of intelligence. We've been through this before. A study does not mean it's true. A study must be replicated and independently verified. The research was done by Marist College and the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts which across three studies they did, actually indicated that people who know taboo w
ords may have a stronger vocabulary. Saying this knowledge shows intelligence is a bit of a stretch.

 Intelligence actually had nothing to do with the studies, and the studies also did not discuss using cuss words. What they studied was the relationship between vocabulary and swearing It seems that if someone can produce in one minute more swear words than average which was 9, then that person seemed to also have a larger vocabulary.

In other words, just because someone knows the words, it does not mean they use them. Also if that person only knows the average, s/he probably has an average vocabulary. In fact, it may mean that the vocabulary allows the person to avoid the use of swear words. The study did not study the actual verbal and written use. It looked at just how many taboo words vs. the number of animal words and non-swear words the subject could produce in a minute.

This, however, is something that should be approached with caution. There is a difference between knowledge of taboo words and daily use of the words. Another problem for the research is all three studies were conducted by the same researchers. So, it has not yet been independently verified. The person may be able to cuss with the best of them, s/he doesn't need to.

It is a far leap from vocabulary to intelligence.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/a/1215/files/2016/05/Giordano-rg5y5r.pdf

End the Electoral College

Today, Colorado passed joining of the Popular Vote Act. The idea is for states to eliminate the Electoral College by making the state's electoral votes go to the popular vote winner. In effect, if enough states do this, the Electoral College will be effectively removed from the U.S. Constitution without an amendment. Colorado is not alone in this move. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes.  It has been enacted into law in 12 states possessing 172 electoral votes. It has been introduced in all 50 states and has been passed by at least one chamber in several more states. Colorado's passage will add 9 more votes. This means that after 89 more electoral votes are added, the bill will take effect.

The Electoral College does not exist for the reason that many of you think it does. It was originally intended as an over-ride to the national vote. It was not intended for states to control how the electors voted but for the electors to be able to weigh the outcome of an election. You see, it was created because the Founding Fathers did not trust direct democracy, so they struck up with the idea of a republic. They worried that in a direct democracy a faction could become such a majority and that the rest would fall to what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."

What occurred though was the electoral college became something of a formality instead of protecting the democracy from a majority faction who "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Alexander Hamilton believed that by having the electoral college “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” and that the electoral college would be controlled "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” (The Federalist Papers). 

Instead, the Electoral College is governed by political parties, and in 26 states the college does not reflect the popular vote of the state but instead is a winner take all proposition. This occurred because the Constitution does not stipulate how states are to use their electoral votes only that they have them and who cannot be members of the Electoral College. If you accept what was written by Hamilton, Madison and de Tocqueville, then electors were supposed to be what we now call faithless electors. They should be men and women who deliberate the qualifications of the candidate. 

I seem to recall reading this someplace. The Founding Fathers were worried about the understanding of the population at the time. They felt having an elected official voted in by a population who at the time probably had little in the way of understanding of the complexities of governing the original states. Many of the white males who voted were probably more concerned about daily survival than reading about governing needs. It may also be that the Founding Fathers were a bit arrogant in this regard especially since it is believed that by the time the Constitution was written the voting population was near 90 percent in literacy.  Nevertheless, information was probably much more slowly delivered then than it is now and counting all those votes by hand was hard.

Yes, I've seen this cartoon floating around about what would happen if it weren't for the Electoral College protecting us from those evil people in California, Texas and New York. Put aside that the cartoon is satirical in nature and has no real basis in fact. I have as much problem fathoming how these folks are evil because they live in a more populace area as I do thinking that the people in Denver or Boulder are tyrannical because they live in the most populated areas in Colorado. In propaganda terms, this is known as "the other" argument. It is a technique used to divide us. Making someone an enemy because they hold a different viewpoint or live somewhere else is wrong. IT IS WRONG! 

From a certain point of view, either we believe in one person one vote or we don't. As it stands, the Electoral College actually is the opposite of the above cartoon map, especially in the last election. It made the vote of less populated states more important than the vote of those in the more populated.  The case is not whether we suffer from the "tyranny of the majority" but are being abused by the minority. The electoral college has over-ridden the popular vote five times. John Quincy Adams (lost by 45,000) in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes (lost by 250, 000) in 1876, Benjamin Harrison (lost by 90,000) in 1888, George W. Bush (lost by 540,000) in 2000, and Donald J. Trump (lost by 2.87 million) in 2016. 

The Electoral College was never intended as a rubber stamp nor was it intended to be used, abused or manipulated by political parties to over-ride the will of the people and for the majority to fall prey to the tyranny of the minority. It was never intended to protect us from "the others" who are also United States Citizens. Like other limitations placed on direct democracy such as not allowing women to vote, counting humans as 3/5ths of human to keep slaveholders from dominating the House, or having states appoint senators, it is time for this abused constitutional doctrine to be eliminated.