The Real Founding Fathers

So regardless of political persuasion, Republican, Democrat, or Whig -- Progressive or Tea Party, all like to point to the Founding Fathers as to being on their side. We should probably also remember the Constitution was the result of the dismal failure of the Articles of Confederation written by the same folks, and that the Constitution is representative in nature because some of the Founders did not trust the people on their own, as well as, having a congress built on the idea of two houses from England's Houses of Commons and Lords.

In reality, the view of the founders probably depends on where you sit.  Certainly from England's point-of-view they were rebels who stood against the status quo of conservative English law.  Conservative and liberal, are not really words that apply to the founders.  Republicans did not exist as a party and Democrats were not the "liberal" party.  The founders were men and like all men, they had their own beliefs and set of values.

Take for example Thomas Jefferson.  He may written the Declaration of Independence, but it is unlikely that those on the right would see eye to eye with him.  It wasn't that he had illegitimate children with a teenage slave he had turned his attention to or that he owned and English translation of the Quran that would likely get him in trouble, but it was his personal religious beliefs.  He denied that Jesus was the son of God and the entire idea of the holy trinity and the virgin birth.  He also refused to believe that Jesus actually ever made the claim he was the son of God. He believed in a creator.  He admired the moral teachings of Jesus and considered himself a Christian. He believed that no religious institution should be a part of the public realm. On the other hand, he believed in small government.  Real history is far more complex.

George Washington favored a strong central government.  Despite claims that the reason for the right to bear arms was to protect us from the government and often misquoted statements by our first president, George Washington in fact oderd the army to quell the Whiskey rebellion establishing a temporary militia law.  He also seemed to have a strong affinity for the wealthy of his time. During the Constitutional convention, he spent most of his time at the mansion of Robert Morris, the richest man in America.

John Adams defended the British soldiers who were accused of killing five colonists because no one else would defend them.  He believed in the right to a fair trial for all and took on the case knowing it would make him unpopular.  He won.

Ben Franklin's oldest son William was born out of wedlock.  It is not known who his mother was.  He would be a loyalist to the crown despite his father's opposition to English rule.  Franklin, himself, was a loyalist fairly late into the move towards revolution.  It is also believed that it was his editing that stripped most religiously connotated words from the Constitution.  Having been an ambassador and printer he was well aware of how to play politics and use words.  As the French ambassador during the revolution, he was a favorite. He often would play the part of "backwoodsman" and was a notorious flirt, his wife having died several years earlier. Early on he and his brother were at odds with the most powerful Puritan family in Boston.  He opposed the use of inoculation to fight off small pox.  That's right, the man who would be known as one of the great scientific minds of his generation, thought the new control for small pox would make people sick.  His brother James was thrown into prison for making fun of the clergy.

The point here is that the Founders were not some myth but complex, real men whose beliefs were as varied as our own.  For one group or another to try and claim them is all but wrong.  Much of the history and even more than a few quotes about these people is often out of context, if not downright wrong.  We should also not forget that among the "Founders" were some very strong women who are often forgot in the debate of things like women's rights such as Dolly Madison and Abigail Adams.  There were those who believed in slavery and who were opposed.  Some were antireligious and some were strong believers.  All were, however, careful to work together and created a document that was crafted through careful considerations and compromise.

Update...Do We Accept Less?

The plan to try and rig the election by changing how states cast votes for the Electoral College has basically collapsed.  Between media attention and various members of the party clearly uncomfortable with the idea the first bill to be put forward which was in Virginia died in committee.  Even governors who had first expressed mild endorsement of the idea have gone the other way in their support.  While there is cause to be glad that the Republican idea to split electoral votes is going to go nowhere, one must wonder at its meaning.

We seem to be more accepting these days of a much lower expectation in our politicians.  It's not that the plan has died, but that it was ever even considered viable.  Instead of saying good job at coming to your senses, we should still be appalled that it ever occurred.  We seem to be expecting less and less from our leaders.  They fear "being put into a primary,"  and they refuse to do the right thing or take a tough stance.  Always trying to keep the country going while playing to the base.

Take for example the House's passage of the raising of the debt ceiling until after the vote on sequester (massive cuts in government spending) and the continuing resolution (a resolution that funds the government).  While refusing to tank the economy again, which we congratulate, the house has again placed the debt ceiling in a position where it can  be used should they not get the deal they want on the next two fiscal crises.  There also seems to be little doubt that there will once again be a stop gap measure.  It seems to have become the norm.  Never before has any group threatened to use the debt ceiling as a political tool until recently.

It actually remains unclear why we have a debt ceiling because it really is, simply put, the guarantee the US will pay its debts.  It is not, except for interest on borrowed money, new spending but spending we already committed to make.  To use it and create one artificial financial crisis after another is not laudable, but any more it seems accepted. "Well done, Congress.  You didn't crash the economy" instead or "Why would you even consider doing this?"

Even Wall Street seems to have accepted that we will continue to" kick the can down the road" in finances and that this is becoming the normal way of things in Washington.   When they clearly had a chance to make a deal that would solve many problems with Washington's spending and deficit problem, a deal was made instead that set yet another self-imposed and artificial crisis. No one was outraged at the fact that congress and the president went on vacation rather than getting the job done.

Our congress works very few days for the money.  They average about 140 to 155 days per year. Although we don't actually know how many of the meetings our elected officials were suppose to attend that were actually attended by members of their staff. Last September when they could have easily been working on solving the Fiscal Cliff, they went into recess until after the election.  In other words, they created the need for the last minute deal having walked away from negotiations. Were we outraged? No, they prevented the fiscal cliff with an artificial crisis by their own creation.

We are not outraged that last year this congress accomplished about half as much as any congress before it.  We are not outraged by this obstructionist policy. We are not outraged by the gerrymandering of districts.  We are not outraged that there are suddenly voting machine shortages in districts where one party will have a higher turn out.  We are not outraged that lobby groups hold sway over preventing new laws when the majority of the nation clearly support them.  We are not outraged that congressmen and women make pledges to a single group or individual that are in conflict with the reason they were elected.

No, we've lowered our expectations of our leaders and congratulated them on not doing something they clearly should have never considered to begin with.  When will we be outraged?

Irregardless...living in the world of the trite..

I've been trying to recall if I've used the word irregardless in my writing.  Why? Because it's one of those stupid things that people do.  Putting "ir" in front of regardless does not make you look smarter.  It is non standard and a double negative.  The prefix "ir" and suffix "less" are both negative and thus the are redundant.  It is regardless.

Stupid memes aside we have a language full of stupid sayings.  It's like the picture above; we just don't think about what we're saying or writing.  "Excuse me.  I didn't mean to interrupt." Really,then what did you mean to do? "It goes without saying..." Then why did you say it?  "Think outside the box." What box? Why am I in a box? How did I get in this box? Why didn't you tell me this motivational piece of information earlier? "Upmost" is not the word.  It is "utmost."

"The glass is half full or it is half empty."  As an optimistic realist, I believe the glass to be half full, but I know that eventually it will be empty.  Actually if you think about it, if you drink from a full glass, it becomes half empty; however, if you fill an empty glass, it becomes half full.  "It's all good." Actually if your saying this it isn't. No doubt, we will all continue to do this. I plead guilty, but I will try to do it less oftener.  (An explantation for those of you who have to have humor explained "less oftener" is intentional.)

There is just so much, I cannot possibly cover all these things in a blog unless I want to make one so long, no one would read it.  I suppose if could "give it 110%" but I'm sorry coach and readers, that is mathematically and physically impossible.  "I am what I am" after all.  It's not as if I could learn to do something differently or change. Oh wait...

I've changed my mind about this.  After all "that was then, and this is now." Well what else could it be?  It is always now and a few seconds ago was always then.  So "at the end of the day" it "will be what it will be." Two thoughts here.  I am not clairvoyant and of course it will be. Duh.

Let's try to make an agreement here.  If you have heard some clever statement, it is not new.    It is trite.  It is not going to make you look smart, clever or creative. It's like all those gun, welfare, and political memes on your facebook page.  They are silly, useless, trite and probably inaccurate if not wrong.  This is irregardless of what you think at the end of the day.

Much Ado...The Size of It All

(from http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/17/are-subways-famous-footlongs-really-foot-long)

An 11 inch sandwich that's suppose to be a foot?  To quote George Takei, "Ohhhhh Myyyyyy!"

I think, perhaps, Subway should be commended.  What we're not fat enough as a nation that we are now worried that our sandwiches are an inch shorter than advertised.  I just cannot fathom why this is news.  I cannot even come up with enough words as to how much this is Much Ado.

What is barely reported is the law suit or should I say suits.  New Jersey and Chicago have now been filed based on a picture from Australia.  That's right the offending 11 inch sandwich picture is from a teen in Austrailia.  Anyways, the Chicago suit is for five million dollars, and the one in New Jersey has not yet disclosed how much in damages are being sought.  Both may become joined though as a class action suit.  Talk about a nuisance suit, if ever there was one, this is it. I am soooo very sorry you lost an inch in bread.  We know that Subway, after all does not proportion the amount of meat or other items that would go on the sandwiches they make.  That would just make too much since to think a billion dollar chain would be careful enough to do this... Oh wait.  They do know how much goes on a sandwich?  Of course they do.  That's how they make money! We are not talking ingredients; we are talking bread, folks...BREAD.


We as a nation have far too many of these silly suits and what is the primary report, a viral picture from Austrailia.  There is an old joke -- not a very good one -- that goes-

A Japanese pilot for a Japanese airline becomes suicidal.  Unfortunately, he decides to do this tragic act while flying and so flies the plane into the ocean.  Following the revelation, the company sends condolences to all the families who lost loved ones and settle claims with all, but two who file lawsuits.  Must be Americans is the punchline.  I know not funny.  But in a dark humor sort of way it outlines the idea that we have something of a reputation in this country for suing.  I mean, we've had suits over how hot the coffee was at McDonalds.

I still recall the add of the "Strongarm" attorney arriving at an accident via helicopter with an ambulance in the background, and some attorneys really try to avoid the idea of them being ambulance chasers.  Is it any wonder the US has the most number of lawyers per capita in the world?  We have one lawyer for every 265 Americans.  The largest number of lawyers, by the way, are in Washington D.C. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

What aspect of this story are we worried about? Eleven inches of bread instead of twelve.  Much Ado...Much Ado...

When in Doubt...Cheat

(from http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/?m=201008)

The electoral college has got to go and it's not for the reason you think.  Have you heard of REDMAP.  This the name given to the Republican Redistricting Project.  As a moderate independent, I am more than a little appalled by this idea.  REDMAP is a plan developed for/by local level Republican controlled states to redistrict the voting population.  What does it do? It ensures that no matter what the state vote, a Republican is virtually guaranteed to win a district because of the way the voting lines are drawn for districts.  This is how REDMAP works.  Representative districts are established not by size, but by most likely to vote for one group or another. Rather than dividing up large blocks of voters for representation, rural, typically more conservative districts are given more districts.  On appearance, it looks by mass the state is evenly divided but the division is by land not by populace. This is also known as gerrymandering, but it is more devious than that because this is very clever use of census data to create the districts.

This is not some theory from the Left, but a real idea ran by a Republican website, redistrictingmajorityproject.com, which is very public. I had thought gerrymandering was illegal, but it can be done quite legally even if it isn't exactly ethical.  In fact in the last election just to show you how effective REDMAP was, it made the Republican control of the House possible.  Republicans were state-wide out-voted by votes for Democrats by more than a million votes. In other words, voters voted  only 49 percent of the time for Republicans in down ballot elections and yet they remain in control of the House.  A Republican memo on REDMAP actually states this. This was also pointed out in a Huffington Post article. REDMAP has been very successful.  Far more successful than the suppress the vote was.

So why now the electoral college.  Again this is not some hidden secret or Left wing conspiracy.  Using the information and redistricting information, the Republican controlled states that voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the election would split the electoral vote based on redistricting instead of all or none as it currently is.  That on the surface sounds reasonable until we consider the gerrymandering by REDMAP.  This means that a district with say 100 votes could vote for one candidate while a district with a 1000 or even 100,000 votes could vote for another candidate. Both would receive one electoral vote essentially weighting the vote in favor of lesser numbers.  So a rural district which typically votes Republican has a more heavily weighted vote than an urban vote which tends to vote more Democrat. The electoral college is now divided not by popular vote, but by the same gerrymandered votes used to give political advantage to one group.  The one vote idea goes out the window.

If this were in place last November, Obama despite winning the popular vote 51 to 47 percent would now not be president.  We are not talking some close split of the national vote as it was in 2000, we are talking a major failure of representative government. I know for some the idea of President Romney would be okay, until the reverse becomes true and it is your vote that is outweighed by something like REDMAP.  What is more is that it is not a move to do this in all states, but only in states that have voted Democrat in the past.

The political implications of this is astonishing.  It is a grab for power by one party. Regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat, such moves violates everything that we believe. What is more is the idea has already begun.  During the inauguration,the senate in  Virginia, which is evenly split, realized they had one more vote than normal because one of the Virginia senate members was attending the event in D.C.  They rammed through the idea of redistricting while he was gone. The plan has also received the blessing of the national Republican chair.

An aware electorate is the most dangerous to these kind of ideas.  You can notify  Republican leaders that nobody should win this way.  If they cannot build an idea based on what is right and best, then they have no business being leaders.  I don't care if you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Green.  Either you believe in the idea of one person one vote, or you don't. Unethical cheating is not the answer to any political party's problems.

Much Ado...and Sing Sing Sing

With the press having to be more entertainment and worry about ratings - something they didn't have to do when they were journalists - I could probably come up with one of these Much Ado's for a while, hence no number on this one because there are bound to be more.

I am not a Beyonce fan.  I don't particularly like the extra note or the sliding into notes or extra vibrato.  Her voice is pleasant enough and she has a range as long as she can slide into the note and not just hit it.  That said...

The press wants you to know that she may have lip-synced the National Anthem at the inauguration.  They are keeping this going as best they can and the fact the Beyonce's folks seem to have "no comment" adds fuel to the fire.  Did she or didn't she? What are the horrible consequences if she did and Kelly Clarkson and James Taylor did.

Let's put this in perspective.  Yo-Yo Ma cello-synced at the first Obama inauguration. It was freezing cold and Ma could not have kept the instrument in tune. No one reported on this horrible act then.  It was cold, although not as cold at the second inauguration. Beyonce has been working on her Superbowl show and had little time for rehearsal. So as did the other performers, she laid down a track in case.  All the music can be synced in the case of a cold day that prevents instruments from staying in tune or to protect a singer's vocal cords.  This means that every song, every piece of music for the event is pre-recorded specifically for the event. Besides, we all know what happens if someone messes up the National Anthem.

So Beyonce did the smart thing.  She chose or she didn't.  Either way she sang the song. Either way, it was not messed up.  Either way people got to see her.  Either way the day is not about Beyonce and her vocal cords.  It is about the peaceful transfer or continuation of the presidency that marks a great democracy.

Either way, it doesn't matter.  It is...Much Ado.

Much Ado and ...Invisible Girls. (Part 6)

(from http://deadspin.com/5976517/manti-teos-dead-girlfriend-the-most-heartbreaking-and-inspirational-story-of-the-college-football-season-is-a-hoax)

So you knew this one was coming.  This is the story of a football player and his invisible girl friend. The story is Manti T'eo, a star of Notre Dame football who has a girlfriend who does not exist.  Apparently, T'eo met a girl online. He never met her.  They developed a loving relationship.  She was diagnosed with Leukemia and then in the same week T'eo's grandmother died so did she.  It was a romantic story.  It was a moving one. According to T'eo, it was her fight to live that inspired him to do better.  The problem is the girlfriend never existed.  She was a hoax.

If we are to believe Notre Dame, T'eo, who discovered the hoax on December 6, was completely duped by this ruse. He then notified the university twenty days later. So here are the possibilities: 1. T'eo was completely duped. 2. T'eo discovered the ploy before December 6th and went along with it.  3. T'eo was in on the hoax from early on.  It actually makes little difference if T'eo was duped and is either not overly bright or extremely naive or if he participated in the hoax and is an attention hound.  There is a certain matter of character involved here.

So I've been waiting to see how this pans out because clearly the press did not do its job.  They were so enamoured by this story with its O. Henry like properties, they never actually bothered to find out if what they were reporting was true.  Does it bother anyone else that T'eo and Notre Dame new the story was false at least two weeks before the championship game and continued to support the romantic tale?  Does it bother anyone that T'eo went on interviews at least twice after December 6 and talked about the story as if it were still true?  Does it bother anyone that there was little reporting on the rape scandal at Notre Dame and little in the way of investigation by the school. The story that isn't still in the press is much more serious.

In 2010, St. Mary's College freshman, Lizzy Seeberg committed suicide following her written report that she was assaulted by members of the Notre Dame's football team.  St. Mary's is ths sister school for Notre Dame. Following these report she received texts from a member of the team threatening her.  In September, following a panic attack, she took her own life just ten days after the report.  You would think that with Penn State's scandal there would be an outcry for a better investigation, instead of the one that did not begin until fifteen days after Lizzy filed her report. She had been dead for five days.

The player, who was never named, was found by a university hearing in February 2011 had not violated the university's sexual misconduct policy. A spokesman for the Notre Dame said there seems to be an "impression" she was raped.  He goes on to say, "In fact, it was an allegation of touching above the waist. He says it was consensual. She says it wasn’t." He also says that the accounts of what happened were different between what Seeberg reported and the football player reported as well as witnesses.  The attorney for the football player announced that it was a "completely phony lie." Yet there seems to be little discussion on intimidation via text messages. It is too bad that Lizzy was not there to give her own account

Instead, we sit discussing a covered up hoax. One that has been covered up obviously since at least December 6.  Poor T'eo.  Duped. Ironically, dear press, perhaps one of the threatening  texts was true..."Messing with Notre Dame football is a bad idea." We have Much Ado instead of a discussion about a the silence of a culture fostering monstrous behavior.

(Read the complete report from the National Catholic Reporter)