Top 10 Medieval Myths

Knights of the Round table, damsels in distress locked away in a tall tower, fire-breathing dragons of doom, witches and their enchanted spells, magical magicians with their secret potions, Holy Grail legends.  When it comes to Medieval mythology, the list is as long as Merlin's magical staff.

Like most historical eras, the Medieval world is immersed in stories that are, shall we say, less-than-accurate.  In fact, for most who haven't studies this fascinating period of history, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Historical myths are nothing new.  We are all familiar with the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree or the brave warrior Achilles whose bravery gripped entire armies with fear. These tales often tell us more about how people CHOOSE to interpret history as opposed to the history itself.

And when it comes to the Medieval world, the mythology is almost overwhelming. The stories have taken on a life of their own and many have survived even to this day. It is amazing to see just how many people actually embrace the myths even today. Most people today have a very distorted view on the realities of the Medieval world.  For example, here is a small list of just a few of the more common myths that most people today have taken to be true:

1.) Medieval People Believed in a Flat Earth

No they did not! For centuries, scholars had accepted the reality that the world was spherical in shape.  In fact, the ancients of Classical Grease (Socrates, Aristotle, etc.) accepted the fact that the world was round.  Though many of the ideas of antiquity were lost during the "Dark Ages" (the dumbest term ever in history), Medieval thinkers of all stripes accepted that the world was not flat.  Oh, and side note, so did Christopher Columbus!

2.) The Right of Primae Noctis

This is a myth made popular by the Oscar winning film "Braveheart."  In the movie, Medieval Scottish lords are granted the right to have sexual relations with a newly married bride on the first night of her marriage.  The practice, which is more commonly known as Droit du Seigneur, was practiced to a small degree in ancient China (and possibly ancient Babylon) but there is absolutely no evidence that it ever happened in Medieval Europe.  In fact, the myth was created in 19th century France to serve as an example of how backward the period was believed to be.

3.) Vikings Wore Horned Helmets

Sorry, Minnesota Vikings fans (and History Channel actors), but Vikings from the Medieval period did not wear horned helmets.  This is complete nonsense. In fact, Viking helmets were quite crude and round.  There were no decorations to speak of.  The idea of horns was born out of 19th century Romanticism and Scandinavian artists who began depicting their Viking ancestors as wearing horns.

4.) The Medieval World Loved Torture

Yes, torture existed in the Medieval world.  Torture also exists today.  Every era has seen some shade of it.  But the Medieval world was NOT obsessed with torture and/or torture devices like we are led to believe.  In fact, the Iron Maiden (which is regularly associated with the Medieval era) was created much later, probably in the 17th century.  There are no mentions of it  being used earlier than 1793!  In reality, most torture devices were created AFTER the Medieval era.

5.) Chastity Belts

There is absolutely zero evidence that chastity belts were ever used in the Medieval era.  In fact, the only reference we have of chastity belts being used in Europe date back to the 19th century, when people became fascinated (for whatever reason) in alleged Medieval torture devices (that were never actually Medieval to begin with).

6.) Water Was Terrible...Just TERRIBLE

Another complete B.S. belief.  Yes, it is certainly true that the Medieval world did not enjoy the sanitation practices of the modern world but this doesn't mean that they had no source of clean water. Simple common sense disposes this myth completely.  Homo Sapiens need water or we...um...DIE! The Medieval World (as well as the ancients) were well aware of this fact.  This is why we are able to find plenty of relics of Medieval (and ancient) wells that provided clean water.  And let's not forget that the Romans built massive aqueducts to transport clean water.  The Medieval world did not somehow forget how important water was.  They were well versed in the process of purifying water for human consumption. In reality, every civilization made (and continues to make) water a priority.  If this weren't the case we simply would not have survived as a specie.  In addition, the notion that Medieval (or ancient) people satisfied their water intake by drinking beer, wine, etc. is completely bogus.  In fact, water was often added to DILUTE the potency of those drinks.

7.) Medieval People Did not Live Long.  30 or 40 Years of Age Was Considered Old

It is true that mortality rates were significantly higher for people living in the Medieval world, but this does not mean that a 30 or 40-year-old person was considered to be old or near death.  In fact, most data shows that if a person lived into adulthood they could likely expect to live into their 60s or 70s.  Life expectancy rates are lower for the Medieval world because there was a far greater infant mortality rate.  Infants were the most at risk group of the Medieval population.  It wasn't uncommon for a given couple to lose several young children due to illness, childbirth, etc.  But if a child could reach the age of sixteen or so, he/she was likely to expect a fairly long life.

8.) Medieval People Did Not Have Good Hygiene

If we judge Medieval hygiene by today's 21st century standards then yes, the Medieval world had terrible hygiene.  But the myth that Medieval society rarely bathed or practiced cleanliness is not true. There are several surviving Medieval sermons in which priests admonish their congregation to ensure that cleanliness standards were being met.  Some cities, lords, etc. created laws to ensure cleanliness. Though they knew little in terms of medical practices, the Medieval world was well aware that disease was less likely to spread if cleanliness was maintained.  Baths were common (though not daily) and several items (to include combs and recipes for Medieval deodorant) have been preserved even today.

9.) Medieval Women Had No Rights

They certainly didn't enjoy the same freedoms as men, but this is something we could say for the majority of human history, not just the Medieval world.  With that being said, Medieval women could inherit land, money, etc. and were allowed to own and operate businesses.  Women were free to travel, buy goods, and do most of the things men could do (aside from responsibilities to be had in the church and military).  In fact, women would experience a LOSS of rights with the dawn of the Renaissance and Early Modern period.

10.) Medieval People Were Religiously Devout in All Ways and Feared the Church

While it is certainly true that the Catholic church was the single greatest influence on the Medieval world, the modern belief that Medieval people were staunchly devout and feared the church is a myth. There is literally tons of surviving literature from priests in all parts of Medieval Europe who complained about the lack of devotion they found in their parishioners.  Priests complained that people were indifferent to the teachings and did not take religious practices seriously enough. They rebuked those who used religious holidays and festivals as nothing more than an excuse to get drunk.

As can be seen, the myths of the Medieval world, which are oftentimes embraced by today's world as being fact, are nothing more than blissful ignorance.  They reveal more about us than they do about the actual Medieval world.  We of the modern era like to suppose that our ancestors of old were crude, dirty, biased and uninformed but the reality is we are the ones who come off looking crude, dirty, biased and uninformed in our understanding of the Medieval world.  It may not be to our liking when we discover that people of the past were not as foolish as we think, but facts are facts.

Mormonism: The Third Most Hated Religion in America???

In a recent post on her website, Mormon author and blogger Jana Reiss references research conducted by Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, who reveal data in their book, American Grace regarding which religions are the most disliked in American society.  To almost nobody's surprise, Islam tops the list, followed (surprisingly) by Buddhism, while Mormonism took home the bronze medal.

To be honest, I believe that what this research reveals (for the most part) is the fact that Americans are, by and large, astoundingly ignorant when it comes to the topic of religion.  Our hatred for Islam, for example, is chiefly driven by misguided prejudice and extreme paranoia.  And Buddhism!?!  I fail to see how anyone could esteem that religious group as one of the more "undesirable" sects to have around.

Again, I believe that this survey illustrates the fact that Americans are completely illiterate when it comes to religion.  In a recent article in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof notes recent data that I believe supports my general thesis. He writes:

Secular Americans are largely ignorant about religion, but, in surveys, religious Americans turn out to be scarcely more knowledgeable.

“Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion,” Stephen Prothero noted in his book, “Religious Literacy.” “Atheists may be as rare in America as Jesus-loving politicians are in Europe, but here faith is almost entirely devoid of content. One of the most religious countries on earth is also a nation of religious illiterates.” 

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe that the Bible holds the answer to all or most of life’s basic questions. Yet only one-third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and 10 percent think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. 
Many Americans know even less about other faiths, from Islam to Hinduism. Several days after 9/11, a vigilante shot and killed an Indian-American Sikh because of the assumption that a turban must mean a Muslim: Ignorance and murderous bigotry joined in one. 

All this goes to the larger question of the relevance of the humanities. Literature, philosophy and the arts have come to be seen as effete and irrelevant, but if we want to understand the world around us and think deeply about it, it helps to have exposure to Shakespeare and Kant, Mozart and Confucius — and, yes, Jesus, Moses and the Prophet Muhammad.

As for the extreme disdain that many Americans have towards my own faith (Mormonism), I believe this data reveals at least part of the answer but not all.

Throughout most of its history, Mormonism has been a recipient of bigotry and persecution on the part of the American populace.  Everything from the Haun's Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith and the eventual expulsion to Western territories in its early years, to more recent events like the Reed Smoot hearings and even questions about Mitt Romney's possible church allegiances during his presidential bids, Mormonism has had the proverbial target on its back for some time now.  And though these (and many other) events demonstrate just how deep anti-Mormon sentiment can go, I believe there is another mitigating factor that explains why Mormons are one of the most disliked religions in America.

In short, it's OUR fault...and by our fault I mean us Mormons.

As mentioned above, blogger Jana Reiss references a study by Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, which reveals that Mormons are the third most disliked religion in America.  In addition to this finding, the study also revealed what members of each faith thought about their own respective religions.  To their surprise, Mormons came out on top:

Mormons ranked highest in “in-group attachment,” a finding the researchers felt was surprising, especially since three of the other groups that made the top five–Jews, Catholics, and Black Protestants–have their bonds cemented by a shared ethnicity. About 85% of Mormons say they feel a great warmth toward their own tribe. 

In short, Mormons really, really think highly of themselves.

So what do we make of a study that finds Mormons as one of the most hated religions in America, while at the same time emerging as the religion that loves itself the most?  I believe Jana Reiss (a devout Mormon herself) provides the best answer possible:

It would help if we stopped regarding ourselves as the finest people on the planet. We ought to take a long, hard look at the fact that we voted our own group tops in this research. It’s one thing to be proud of our religious group and its teachings, but it’s another thing entirely to communicate, as many Mormons seem to, that we feel we have a monopoly on religious truth and strong families. A dose of humility is in order here.

I couldn't agree more.  I for one have grown tired of the old Mormon rhetoric which suggests that we alone are the guardians of all that is right and good in the world.  We Mormons pride ourselves on our own delusions of grandeur.  We prove more than willing to dismiss or belittle the beliefs of others by clothing ourselves in the blanket of pious superiority.  Only our families are eternal, only our baptism counts, and only our priesthood heals.

Don't get me wrong here, I love my faith and I am proud of it.  In my estimation, Mormonism is an awesome life choice and it has brought me a tremendous amount of happiness.  With that being said, I must also admit that I have seen how we as a faith tend to ignore reality on too many occasions.  We prefer the "hear no evil, see no evil" mantra as a way to reassure ourselves that "all is well in Zion."  After all, the "church is perfect" isn't it!?!

Sorry, but it isn't that simple.  We as members of the Mormon faith need to quit seeing ourselves as a people who are separate and apart from the evils of the world, or as having some sort of preferred status in the eyes of God.  We would do well to remember the words of Christ, who reminded the Jews that God could raise up seed unto Abraham from mere stones (Matt. 3: 9). Instead of standing tall on our personal or communal "Rameumptoms" and thanking God for giving us "more truth," "more love," or "more righteousness" like the Zoramites of old (Book of Mormon reference for those not of my faith), perhaps we should first follow the advise of Will Rogers, who reminds us to "never miss a great opportunity to shut up."

***On a side note, have any of my fellow Mormons ever wondered why the Zoramite/Rameumtom story is in the Book of Mormon to begin with?  Maybe it was meant for us?***

In addition, there is another reason that we as a faith need to be willing to not think so highly of ourselves and return to earth.  Too often, members of the LDS faith suffer from the tremendous burden of having to "be perfect."  We succumb to the false portrayals of what a "good Mormon" is supposed to look like, act like, feel like, etc.  As a result, we become far too critical of ourselves and of others.  We use the excuse of "righteous rebuking" to justify gossip and other forms of trash talk.  In so doing, we make life VERY hard on anyone who doesn't fit the Mormon mold.  It's no wonder why Utah leads the nation in the use of anti-depressants.

And shame on us!  It's time that we as a faith recognize the FACT that not everyone is content in Zion.  Popcorn doesn't pop on everyone's apricot tree, some families are not so glad when daddy comes home, there are some houses where love is not spoken there and some people find it too hard to turn their "frowny face" into a smile.  And newsflash: IT'S NOT ALWAYS THEIR FAULT!!!  Try as they might, they cannot pray away, fast away or obey away all the pain.

There has been many a member who has done a great deal of harm with the best of intentions.  We may proudly sing of families being together forever but ignore the fact that some in our respective wards struggle with part member families or "wayward" children.  We may give thanks to God during our testimony meetings for our awesome spouses or for heavenly healings granted to sick loved ones, while at the same time ignoring the single mother/father in the audience or the widow whose husband didn't receive divine intervention.  Like it or not, maybe there are some instances when it is better for us to guard our tongues than to sing God's praises.

I don't mean to be too critical here.  Mormonism is an AWESOME faith!  I love it.  In my estimation, we do more for one another than virtually any other faith.  We care for one another, we pray for one another, we fast for one another, we serve one another, we bond with one another. But do we only do these things for those who "fit the mold?"  Unfortunately, I think that sometimes the answer to this question is: yes.  Mormonism is awesome when you are one of the 99 sheep, but it's not so awesome when you're the lone black sheep.  It is my hope that we as a faith can be less critical of one another, more accepting of those not of our faith (along with their beliefs) and more willing to show Christ-like humility as opposed to ecclesiastical arrogance.  When we learn this lesson, I think you will see us give up that unwanted bronze medal for most disliked faith in America.

Some awards just aren't worth having on your wall.

President Monson Accused of Fraud

This week, news that Mormon President Thomas S. Monson has been accused by an English court of fraud went public.  News outlets of all kinds have been reporting the story since it broke a couple of days ago, each providing its own spin on how these charges will (or won't) play out, along with the impact they will have on the Mormon church.

The criminal complaint that levies these charges against President Monson (and Mormonism in general) are the workings of one Tom Phillips, a former member of the Mormon faith who had served the church in a number of positions, including Stake President and Area Executive Secretary.  Long story short, Mr. Phillips withdrew from the church, due to what he calls "the lack of historical evidence, of any kind" to support the church's claims.

Since his departure from the Church, Mr. Phillips has made no qualms about his disdain for Mormonism.  As the managing editor of the Mormonthink website, Mr. Phillips has attempted to bring to light many of the issues that have troubled him (and many other Mormons) and eventually led to his departure from the faith. Mr. Phillips is also a regular commentator on the ExMormon website, where he posts under the name "anointedone."  The clever moniker is the result of his having gone public about receiving the "Second Anointing" within the walls of the London Temple some years ago (you can listen to his very detailed interview with John Dehlin about this experience by clicking here).

The complaint that Mr. Phillips has levied essentially states that since serving as church president, Thomas S. Monson has acted "dishonestly" and has intended to "make gain for himself" by defrauding one Christopher Denis Ralph, who was "misled" and "induced" to pay tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Below is a copy of the actual court document:

The allegations of fraud center on the claims that President Monson knowingly teaches that which he believes to be false (i.e. that the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. are fraudulent documents).

Of course, how one chooses to view these accusations depends greatly on how one chooses to view Mormonism.  For the critic, the accusations probably make sense.  After all, the Book of Abraham, which has been hailed by Egyptologists as an outright fraud since the 19th century, is a difficult hurdle to jump for even the most devout Mormons. For faithful Mormons, however, these allegations only serve as further evidence that adversity will always come knocking at the doors of the righteous.

Whatever your personal views may be, the fact of the matter is that this case will be judged based on the rules of law.  Does Tom Phillips have a case?  Has Thomas S. Monson actually committed fraud against Mr. Ralph, thereby enriching himself and the church?

In my opinion, the answer to these questions is a resounding HELL NO!!!

First off the accusations of fraud brought by Mr. Phillips are dependent upon the British Fraud Act of 2006, which "prohibits false representations made to secure a profit or to cause someone to lose money."  Based on this law, Mr. Phillips must convince the British court of two things:

1.) President Monson KNOWINGLY made false representations of Mormon beliefs (i.e. he stated that the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. are "true" while knowing they were not).

2.) President Monson made these representations in order to profit from others.  

The first point is virtually impossible to prove.  To ascertain whether or not somebody believes in his/her religious convictions or is simply giving them lip service is completely speculative and hardly a matter for any legitimate court to determine.  And even if President Monson were to say that he didn't believe in the tenants of his faith, it is still virtually impossible to prove fraud. Simply put, Mr. Phillips' accusations are more bark than bite.  In the words of another English citizen, they are "Much Ado About Nothing."

And I am far from being along in that sentiment. Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor and author on British religious freedom, responded to this criminal complaint against President Monson by saying:

I'm sitting here with an open mouth.  I think the British courts will recoil in horror. This is just using the law to make a show, an anti-Mormon point. And I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it. 

Harvey Kass, a British solicitor, is also stunned by the summons, calling it "bizzare," and adding: "I can't imagine how it got through the court process.  It would be set aside within 10 seconds in my opinion." I couldn't agree more.  Regardless of how one feels about Mormonism, the right to religious freedom is a fundamental principle that should not be toyed with.

In reality, Tom Phillips' quest to "expose" the "myth" behind Mormonism will probably do more to bolster the faith of Mormons than anything else.  It's hard to see how this accusation could be motivated by anything other than resentment for the faith he has left behind...but can't seem to leave well enough alone.  In my opinion, this accusation will be dead on arrival.

Glenn Beck Check, Part X: "The Constitution is Based on the 10 Commandments"

It has been a while since I checked in with America's favorite conspiracy theorist/doomsday prognosticator.  To be honest, I've grown tired of listening to this clown, as have most Americans. Glenn Beck's audience numbers (for radio, Internet and books) have been dwindling for quite some time now, as most people with a functioning brain have grown wise to his antics.  For the most part, Beck is left with just the extremists on the right, who gobble up his ilk like candy. If Beck were to say that the Founding Fathers were the Vulcan offspring of Spock they would probably all rush out to buy pointed ears! But since I am looking for a quick blog post to do this morning, debunking Glenn Beck (a relatively simple task) will have to do.

Last week, on his radio program, Glenn Beck was discussing the proposed Satan monument that has been suggested as a compliment for the 10 Commandments monument already standing outside of the Oklahoma State Capitol.  The monument is the brainchild of a small New York-based religious group called The Satanic Temple.

To be honest, I'm in 100% agreement with Beck when he rips into this stupid and insignificant organization that is simply looking to stir the pot and gain attention in the process.  Their movement is bogus and their proposed monument is a mockery.  Pure and simple.

But Beck didn't leave the issue on those terms.  Instead, Beck decided to go on a tirade in which he proclaims that the United States was founded as a "Judeo-Christian nation" and that the 10 Commandments "is a monument of where we got our laws."  See for yourself in the following clip:



Again, I agree with Beck when he essentially argues that our society is not as moral as we could/should be. That's probably a true statement, even though one could argue that today's society is more moral than ever (we've abolished slavery, given women equal rights, etc.).

It is with Beck's assertion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" that his argument derails. This argument, which is getting REALLY old as well, simply baffles me.  The notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is not only bad for America, but it's bad for Christianity.  The separation of church and state is a good thing, folks...for everyone!  And it's not anti-American or anti-Christian to point out the FACT that the United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation.  But don't listen to me; listen to what these folks said on the matter:

1.) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (my abbreviation).

2.) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." -John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 (my emphasis).

3.) "We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814. 

4.) Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions more than our opinions of physics or geometry." -Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777. 

Those are just four out of literally hundreds of examples of our Founding Fathers explaining (in the plainest of terms) that the United States is NOT a Christian nation. Unfortunately for Beck, who regularly cherry-picks his history, these FACTS do not fit with his political agenda.

The second part of the Beck clip has him ranting through his microphone that, "the 10 commandments" is "where we get our law...We get our law from the laws of Moses."

It completely baffles me how anyone who HONESTLY thinks about what Glenn Beck said could actually believe it.  Sure, it sounds good to our Christian and patriotic instincts to say that the 10 Commandments serve as a foundation for our Constitution but reality is this couldn't be further from the truth, and either Glenn Beck is too stupid to recognize this or he just doesn't care.  To prove my point, let's look at each of the 10 Commandments and see just how constitutional they really are:

1.) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  This one should be obvious to everyone.  To force anyone to believe in any god is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. In the good ol' U.S. of A., everyone is free to believe in whatever god they want, as many gods as they want, or to believe in no god(s) at all.  Clearly the 1st Commandment has nothing to do with where we get our laws.

2.) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Again, this one is blatantly obvious. Any American is free to have as many graven images as they see fit. There is no law prohibiting it. The 2nd Commandment is out as well.

3.) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Another obvious one here as well, folks. Yes, it's crass when people swear and use the name of God to do so, but it isn't a crime.  No way, no how.  The 3rd Commandment is out.

4.) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Heh, if this one isn't obvious then maybe you should just ask the NFL, NASCAR, shopping malls, public parks, etc. if they face any legal repercussions for the various activities they carry out on every Sunday across the nation.  The 4th Commandment is out.

5.) "Honor thy father and thy mother." This is some great advice, and I would hope/encourage anyone I know to abide by this counsel, but is it in our Constitution? The 5th Commandment is out.

6.) "Thou shalt not kill." Winner, winner, chicken dinner!  We have one!  Yes, the laws of our land do not allow you to kill others.  Glenn Beck finally has one in his column.  The 6th Commandment is in.

7.) "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Again, this is some really good advice, and I believe anyone with half of a brain would agree, but it is NOT protected by law. It used to be in some colonies/states, but case law has shown this to be unconstitutional.  The 7th Commandment is out.

8.) "Thou shalt not steal." Here's another one for Beck's column.  The laws of the land do not allow you to steal.  This is considered a crime.  As a result, the 8th Commandment is IN!

9.) "Thou shalt not bear false witness." This is a tricky one. I'm going to go ahead and give this one to Beck (and I'm being VERY generous here) because it is a crime to lie in court and in a few other settings. It's called perjury.  So the 9th Commandment is in...but BARELY!

10.) "Thou shalt not covet." Nope, in America you are free to covet to your heart's content.  Heck, in some respects it is even encouraged.  The 10th Commandment is out.

So, in the end, we have 3 Commandments (and barely 3) that fit with what Glenn Beck is saying, while 7 are clearly out.  Again, this impulse to say that the United States is a "Christian" nation and that the 10 Commandments played a role in the establishment of our laws sounds good and may make us feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it simply isn't based on reality...and we should be glad for this. The separation of church and state is as beneficial for religion as it is for government.

Sorry, Beck, but once again you have revealed to the world just how little you know about history, constitutional law, etc.  Go back to telling everyone to prepare for the apocalypse by stocking up on their supply of pointed Vulcan ears!

The Impact of the 3/5 Compromise

Our Founding Fathers were not perfect. Contrary to what we often hear via talk radio, the Internet or even in school, the men (and women) who helped build the American Republic were deeply flawed individuals who made more than their fair share of mistakes.

Of course, most of us recognize that our Founding Fathers were, in the end, humans, but too often we shy away from shedding too much light on some of the more serious mistakes they made. It is far more preferable to esteem these men as marble demigods whose images grace our currency.  This isn't to say that we should refrain from paying homage to our nation's founders. I for one strongly believe that the generation that brought us the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. could easily be labeled as the "Greatest Generation" in all of American history (sorry, WWII vets. I still love ya!).

And there are plenty of pundits who are more than willing to point out where they believe our Founding Fathers went wrong. For example, Glenn Beck, America's favorite whack-job, believes that the gravest error made by our nation's founders was to not clarify the language of the Second Amendment.  HBO's Bill Maher believes that the greatest mistake made by the founding generation was that they should have extended the separation of church and state even further.  And Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, believes that their greatest mistake was not establishing term limits for Congressmen.

And though I can see how all three men arrived at their respective conclusions, I vehemently disagree with them all.  The language of the Second Amendment, the separation of church and state, and congressional term limits are small potatoes when compared to the biggest mistake our Founding Fathers made.

During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison noted an important observation that he and virtually every other delegate had made. He claimed that of all the difficulties separating Northern and Southern states, slavery was by far the biggest. It was the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to address specifically, but also nobody could ignore completely. Southern concern for preserving their "peculiar institution" led to more discord than any other issue that came before the Convention.

To make a very long story short, the Convention eventually agreed to a compromise that was later enshrined in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (my emphasis).  

Without even affording them the dignity of calling them what they were, all Black slaves (referred to here as "all other persons") were to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the national census.  The reason was simple: Southern leadership, who were more than aware of the North's superior population numbers, feared that they would be misrepresented in Congress.  Counting all Black slaves as 3/5 of a person, however, would even the odds and afford the South greater representation.  This, along with the Constitutional protection of slavery, helped to ease Southern concerns. Their "property rights" were now protected by federal law.

And they were right.

What became known as the 3/5 Compromise ended up having a dramatic impact in the South's ability to enforce their will on the whole of the infant American nation.  The first major example of how the 3/5 Compromise effected national politics was the Presidential Election of 1800.  In that election, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams by only 7 electoral votes.  And though Jefferson managed to win a few key states in the North, The Electoral College map clearly shows the first of many divisions that would separate the North and the South:

As the votes were counted, Northern politicians quickly realized that without the 3/5 Compromise, Jefferson would have been defeated. The fact that slaves were being counted as part of the South's representation (without having any actual say in their government) had given Jefferson the victory; an ironic historical reality considering the fact that Jefferson himself kept 300+ souls in bondage to himself.

Later elections would have the same results.  The election of James Madison in 1812 and Martin Van Buren in 1836, were also determined in large part by the South's inflated electoral numbers that were caused by the 3/5 Compromise.

And it wasn't just in presidential elections that the 3/5 Compromise left its impression. Renowned historian Gary Wills contends that the 3/5 Compromise impacted a great number of historical events in the early republic:

Without the 3/5 Compromise, slavery would have been excluded from Missouri...Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed...the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico...the Kansas/Nebraska bill would have failed...and the likelihood of Civil War would have been dramatically reduced.

It is a cruel irony of history that the South's ability to exert its will, especially with regards to protecting slavery, was a self-inflicted wound that our Founding Fathers brought upon the infant American republic.  How much damage could have been averted is impossible to determine. The historical sin of "presentism" should prevent us from making such speculations.  But what is certain (with and without the lens of hindsight) is that the 3/5 Compromise was a tremendous blunder on the part of our nation's founders. It is an ugly skeleton in the American closet that should be seen for what it was: a terrible attempt to pacify a nation that was determined to keep its Black brothers and sisters in bondage in the "Land of the Free."

"Cafeteria Mormons," Jack Mormons," and Other Ridiculous Labels

One of the common cognitive practices of Homo Sapiens is to assign labels and symbols to different types of events, people, places etc. that we encounter throughout our day-to-day existence.  It is through labels and symbols that we are able to better understand and process the world around us.  Labels afford us the ability to compartmentalize large amounts of data into neat little bundles, thereby making better sense of the experiences we have.  It is a simple and efficient process that has served our specie quite well.

But there is a dramatic drawback to labels and symbols.  While "labeling" does provide us with a quick and proficient way of understanding things on the fly, it also makes us far too simple-minded in our overall perspective of life.  Labeling makes us jump to premature conclusions by enforcing simplistic reasoning.  By its very nature, labeling abhors critical thinking and complex problem-solving skills, both of which require more time and effort to employ effectively.

This isn't to say that labeling doesn't have it's place.  For thousands of years, Homo Sapiens have needed to quickly classify the different experiences and stimuli of life as threats, dangers, friend, foe, etc.  It is an important skill that we have mastered well.  But in the 21st century world, labeling is more nuanced than it was for our ancestors.  For us, labeling causes us to make hasty and impulsive judgments of one another.  To illustrate my point, see what conclusions your mind will jump to when you hear these labels:

- "He/she is a Muslim."
- "He/She is a member of the NRA."
- "He/She is an ardent supporter of the ACLU."
- "He/She is a recovering alcoholic."
- "He/She is a registered Democrat."

All of these labels (and the countless others that we employ) have the capacity to form our base opinions and understanding of others, even when we have no additional information on the subject.  For example, I bet your mind didn't picture these people in relation to the labels above:

- The NBA's all-time leader in scoring is a Muslim named Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
- Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg are members of the NRA.
- Helen Keller helped to found the ACLU in 1920.
- Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, is a recovering alcoholic.
- Country stars Faith Hill and Tim McGraw are registered Democrats.

As you can see, labels are a confusing cognitive tool that we humans need to be careful with.  In our modern world, labels rarely if ever tell the entire story.

With this in mind, I want to take the concept of "labeling" and apply it to my faith.  As an unorthodox Mormon (yes, that self-appointed label doesn't capture my entire story either), I have seen how different members of my religion, each with different opinions and outlooks on life, have been arbitrarily assigned different labels to better explain their views.  For example, Mormons who rarely attend and violate certain codes of conduct (i.e. drink coffee, alcohol, etc.) are often called "Jack Mormons," while a Mormon who devoutly walks the line, adheres to all commandments and rarely misses a Sunday is called a "True Blue Mormon."  Mormons who may questions basic points of doctrine and history are sometimes referred to as "New Age Mormons," while those who try to "make it work" but cannot embrace every tenant of Mormonism are called "Cafeteria Mormons."

Admittedly, each of these labels, and my corresponding explanations, are far too simplistic to tell the entire story, but THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT!!!  Electing to arbitrarily assign labels to people based on their behavior, beliefs/lack of belief, etc. is about as effective and intelligent as trying to clean a loaded gun.

Humans are complex creatures, even if Lynyrd Skynyrd insists on calling us "Simple Men."  A person who may appear to be a "Jack Mormon" may, in reality, have a far greater understanding of Mormon theology and history than any "True Blue Mormon" on the planet (I would actually argue that this is more true than people want to admit).  A "Cafeteria Mormon," who struggles with some aspects of the faith, may have a greater testimony and devotion to the religion than any "Molly Mormon."  In short, choosing to label flies in the face of what Jesus himself ardently preached at the Sermon on the Mount:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye (Matt. 7: 1-5).

But this advise also goes for the struggling and/or departed Mormon who has elected to either distance and/or remove himself/herself from the faith.  Your newly "enlightened" path does not grant you the right to ridicule those who stay.  You may have problems with the doctrine, history and culture of the Mormon church, but those aren't golden tickets of retribution.

The danger of labeling is not self-evident.  It is hidden within layers of arrogance and pride.  As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor of the Mormon faith, states:

This sin has many faces. It leads some to revel in their own perceived self-worth, accomplishments, talents, wealth, or position. They count these blessings as evidence of being “chosen,” “superior,” or “more righteous” than others. This is the sin of “Thank God I am more special than you.” At its core is the desire to be admired or envied. It is the sin of self-glorification.

For others, pride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer. 

[...] 

Brethren, unfortunately we see today too often the same kind of attitude and behavior spill over into the public discourse of politics, ethnicity, and religion.

The old adage, "Don't judge a book by its cover" certainly comes to mind when we consider the appropriate way to wield the sword of labeling.  And though we will never completely eradicate labeling from our cognitive tray of resources (and I don't think we should to begin with), hopefully humanity will evolve to the point where we can master the practice of labeling effectively...

...before labeling masters us.

Lincoln's Life Was Actually Saved by Booth...

...But It's Not What You Think.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is an event that will forever be etched into the hearts of generations of Americans.  His death not only marked the end to the legacy of a living legend, but also sparked one of the largest manhunts in American history, instantly making his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, the most infamous fugitive this country has ever seen.  

But not long before his fateful rendezvous with Lincoln at Ford Theater, Booth had actually saved Lincoln's life.  Yes, as crazy as it is to believe, Booth saved Lincoln from certain disaster.

Though it's not the Booth you're thinking of...or the Lincoln for that matter.  

During the winter months of 1864, Robert Todd Lincoln, the eldest son of then President Lincoln, was boarding a train in Jersey City, New Jersey bound for Washington.  It was dark, conditions were cold and the train was extraordinarily crowded.  In his own words, Robert Lincoln recalled what happened next as follows:

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

Edwin Booth, brother of the notorious John Wilkes Booth, had been in the right place at the right time, rescuing the doomed Robert Lincoln from an untimely and ugly demise.  Like his infamous brother, Edwin was one of the most well-known and respected Shakespearean actors of the 19th century.  In fact, Edwin had been praised for his portrayal of Hamlet by President Lincoln, who was a self-proclaimed connoisseur of Shakespeare. It must have been quite the experience for young Robert Lincoln to be rescued by the Brad Pitt of his day!

Less than a year later, Edwin's brother took the life of the president, forever altering his family's fate from that of noteworthy actors to cold-blooded killers.  Edwin, who didn't know at the time that he had saved the life of President Lincoln's son, received notification from Robert Lincoln himself, thanking him for his good deed on that fateful day.  It is said that Edwin regularly pondered the incident, allowing to comfort him in the wake of his brother's horrific act.

Robert Lincoln went on to have a successful political career, eventually climbing the ranks to become Secretary of War (Defense) under Presidents Garfield and Arthur.  Edwin Booth went on to continue his career as an actor, becoming one of the most influential Shakespearean actors in American history.

Booth saves Lincoln, Booth kills Lincoln.

One of the many ironies of history I suppose.

Dumb and Dumber: Glenn Beck and David Barton's Latest Lunacy (Glenn Beck Check, Part VIII)

America's Favorite Pseudo-Historians
Make Asses of Themselves...AGAIN!

My two favorite goofballs (Tweedle Dee and Tweedle DUMB) have managed to once again open their mouths and insert both feet.  Yes, the always comical dynamic duo that is Glenn Beck and David Barton, the gift that just keeps on giving, have added another smash single to their already "stellar" greatest hits album. But instead of tackling the legacy of our nation's Founding Fathers (a topic they just can't seem to ever get right no matter how hard they try), their target this time was none other than Honest Abe Lincoln.  Take a look:



This is absolutely PRICELESS!  David "The Brain" Barton actually admits to writing a review for a movie he never saw!  Are you kidding me!?! Well, Mr. Barton, with that sort of litmus test let's just pass blind judgement on whatever we don't like.  What a buffoon!

But let us not get distracted and focus on Mr. Barton's bogus depiction of the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Mr. Barton states that "there wasn't the wheeling, dealing kind of back room deals" and that the passage of the amendment was a "slam dunk, big time." 

Ugh! I don't even know where to begin!  It's almost as if these two idiots go against EVERYTHING that those in the know (in whatever field of expertise) have to say.  Evolutionists point to fossils, carbon dating, etc. to claim that the world is billions of years old, these two quote Deuteronomy to say that is wrong.  Climatologists overwhelmingly declare that the Earth's climate is changing, these two call it a progressive hoax to subjugate us all.  Historians assert very obvious truths about our nation's founding, these two say that the exact opposite is true and that evil, socialist, progressive, fascist scary people are destroying our nation's heritage.  In short, these nut-jobs have absolutely no clue what they are talking about!

But I digress.  Mr. Barton's portrayal of the passage of the 13th Amendment couldn't be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is there was a great amount of back door "wheeling and dealing" taking place.  Not only does Mr. Barton (and Beck) demonstrate his ignorance for how a Congressional Amendment is brought to pass, but he is apparently unaware that there was a plethora of drama surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment.

First off, prior the the commencement of the Civil War, Congress (which consisted of northern and southern representation at that point) had already passed a 13th Amendment (in Feb., 1861) which "guaranteed the legality and perpetuity of slavery in the slave states."  This was the latest in what had been a series of congressional bills that had sought to protect slavery for literally decades, and appease the Southern leadership (yet somehow the Civil War wasn't about slavery...yeah, right!).  With the onset of the Civil War, the states were unable to ratify the newly-created 13th Amendment (a requirement for any Constitutional amendment), and thus it never became law. 

With the obvious division of the nation brought on by war, northern abolitionists saw an opportunity to eradicate the "peculiar institution" once and for all.  In December of 1863, Representative James Ashley of Ohio proposed a bill to support "A Constitutional Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery." For the most part, Ashley's petition fell on deaf ears (and eventually contributed to his failure to be reelected), but it did get the ball rolling.  Other congressmen, including Lyman Trumball and Charles Sumner, would propose similar measures before Congress.

But there was still a great amount of tension (even without the Southern delegates) in Congress over the issue of slavery.  It wasn't until President Abraham Lincoln decided to include the passage of a Constitutional amendment on slavery as a part of his 1864 reelection that the matter started gaining steam.  It took Lincoln and his supporters a full year to garner enough support for the measure.  In fact, a number of deals were made to appease reluctant Republican voters and to sway the 4 needed Democrat votes in the House in order to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment.  If the passage of the 13th Amendment was the "slam dunk" that Barton thinks it was, why did Lincoln and his supporters feel the need to make it the principal issue of their reelection campaign, especially when they already had passed the Emancipation Proclamation the year before?  Why were abolitionist leaders, including prominent Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, campaigning so vigorously for this amendment if it was such an obvious "slam dunk?"

In addition to this, Mr. Barton's apparently doesn't realize that constitutional amendments have to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, so the 119-56 vote in the House was anything but a "slam dunk."  Heck, Barton's ignorance is so great that he states for all to hear that the amendment had "an 80 percent vote."  Uh...not quite, sir.  The measure barely passed the House with 68% support (just barely making the 2/3 cut), while the combined House and Senate support was 70% (the Senate voted 38-6 in favor).  Again, this reveals the woeful ignorance that both Beck and Barton have when it comes to the Constitution; a document they claim to "revere."

Barton's failure to accurately describe the history surrounding the 13th Amendment, along with his obvious illiteracy of Constitutional practices, just proves how untrustworthy the man is when it comes to American history.  David Barton is not a historian.  Let me say that again: David Barton is NOT a historian.  He's an activist for a radical agenda, nothing more.  Much like Howard Zinn was to the left, David Barton is a errand boy for the right.  What he writes isn't history, pure and simple. 

But let's not let good ol' Glenn off the hook here either.  Beck, who is always more than eager to suck up whatever ilk Barton spews at him, actually states at the beginning of this video that he found Spielberg's "Lincoln" film to be "a remarkable movie."  But after hearing Barton's one-minute "rebuttal," Beck stated that he "wished he had un-seen that movie."  Amazing...simply amazing. This clown, who claims to be a voice of "truth," does a complete 180 in a single minute. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, reveals just how simple-minded Glenn Beck truly is!

For anyone left (and I know there are very few and the numbers continue to decline) who still grant these two buffoons any level of credence I hope you will now see just how misplaced your trust really is. Please, will somebody save these two from themselves!  Glenn Beck, who has fancied himself as the next Thomas Paine and then as the next George Washington (until he realized that both men would probably have hated his stupid guts), really does need to hurry up and complete his Utopian community so that he can just go away, drink the crazy Kool-Aid with all of his crazy followers, and never bother us again.  How can anyone still buy into all of this blatant bullshit???

Meanwhile, Beck's sidekick, Pseudo-historian David Barton Extraordinaire, needs to face reality.  David, you're not a historian, not even close.  Everything from your foolish assertion that half of the signers of the DoI were ministers, to your indescribably stupid "Black Robe Regiment" argument, not to mention the fact that your Thomas Jefferson book was so horrific that not only was it recalled by your publisher, but even the most conservative of supporters called your work "a joke," prove that you don't know history. Mr. Barton, I think you need to join your pal Glenn at his heavenly new compound and just leave us all alone. 

And for those of you thinking about joining Beck and Barton in "Independence, USA," consider this: Once upon a time, not that long ago, another leader decided to create a Utopian paradise for his followers where they could separate themselves from the evil, "progressive" world and teach one another according to their own values and beliefs.  Click here to see how things worked out for them. 

The Glenn Beck Check: Part VII, Book Review of "Being George Washington"

Glenn Beck has written yet another book, but this time he isn't passing himself off as an expert on climate change or trying to conduct yet another "progressive" witch hunt. Instead, Beck is trying to be George Washington. Much like his ridiculous 2009 attempt at trying to become the next Thomas Paine (a hysterical notion due to the fact that Paine had almost nothing in common with Beck), Beck has now moved on to bigger and better things (like moving from the #1 cable news network to nothing more than a glorified Youtube program). Being George Washington: The Indispensable Man, as You've Never Seen Him, the title of Beck's newest and greatest laugh-u-mentary, is essentially the attempt of a desperate man to stay relevant by hijacking the legacy of the father of our nation.

Unfortunately for Beck, most have caught on to his smoke and mirrors circus act and now accept the fact that he is not a historian. With that said, I don't want to completely toss the baby Beck out with the bath water. Even if his newest book is little more than an attempt to make George Washington look like a modern day conservative who hates progressives, loves talk radio, attends Tea Party rallies, wants Obama dead, buys gold from Goldline and is a Glenn Beck "insider", the work does do one thing very well: it illustrates how the legacy of Washington has become bigger than the man himself. George Washington, the man, was like any other: flawed, prone to rash decisions, arrogant and worldly. But George Washington, the legend, has reached a Herculean level of prestige. No American has, or likely will, reach the level of fame that Washington has achieved, and make no mistake, George Washington is certainly deserving of the accolades. In this respect, Glenn Beck's work excels. He treats Washington as a religious object worthy of our adoration and devotion. But again, as a work of history, the book is exactly like his earlier attempts at uncovering the past: piss-poor.

Beck's book opens by suggesting to the reader that each and every one of us, as Americans, are modern day George Washington's. Beck writes:

The news of my self-elevation to national fatherhood will likely spread from blog to blog, then to news sources and pundits, all of whom will be more than happy to spread the news that Glenn Beck's messianic complex can no longer be contained. None of them, of course, will take the time to realize the irony of the situation: they are literally judging a book by its cover.

So what's the truth?

Simple, I do believe I am George Washington.

But I also believe that you are too.

I don't believe this because I have an extraordinarily high opinion of myself. I believe it because I have a real understanding of who George Washington was.

And though I have no problem with Beck's suggestion that we all are capable of doing great and noble things, the political undertones are reminiscent of those employed by earlier politicians who also hijacked the Founding Fathers to legitimize their political goals.  By declaring "I am George Washington," Beck is essentially trying to say that all of our Founding Fathers were cut from the same cloth as him.  This is beyond ridiculous to anyone with even an elementary understanding of early American history.

But what is even worse about Beck's "book" is the fact that it twists facts to fit his strange and twisted agenda.  Beck argues that Washington was a "devout Christian" but then provides zero evidence to support this claim (probably because all of the evidence supports the contrary).  Beck also tries to argue that Washington saw "progressivism" as the greatest threat to American prosperity.  A funny notion since "progressivism" doesn't come along for quite some time.  Of course, Beck offers not a single shred of anything resembling evidence to support strange assertions that have nothing to do with anything.

In short, Beck's book is a textbook example of how somebody who knows little about history can completely derail any attempt at true and objective research into the past.  Beck wants the Founding Fathers to be like him so much that he sacrifices any true historical pursuits upon an altar of psycho partisan politics.  In so doing, Beck has once again rendered his work to be of little to no value.  I would offer up a more detailed review of Beck's "book" but it simply became too painful to wade through all of his B.S.  Yeah, it really was that bad.

Perhaps it would be best for him (and his most devout followers) to go off into their compound of "freedom" and leave the rest of us alone for good.

The Future of the GOP

If we learned anything from Tuesday night's general election it is this: American demographics have changed.  Now, I'm not one of those "doom and gloom" types who think that this change is bad. Quite the contrary.  I think that much of this change is good.  Demographically, America is NOT the country it was, and that's ok.  Throughout our history, American demographics have always been in flux.  For example, Catholics, who were largely detested by our founding generation as an undesirable segment of the population, are now the dominant religion in the nation.  Irish immigrants were also seen as an unwanted rabble who infested the countryside, eroding America's "pure" culture with each new arrival. Yes, it is safe to say that the old cliche of America being a "melting pot" has not written its final chapter.  In today's America, Latinos are, far and away, the fastest growing segment of the population.  And they HATE the GOP.

And rightfully so.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party has done little to nothing to accept those who do not fit their incredibly narrow vision of what an "American" is supposed to be.  In short, it seems as though anything outside of being a White, Evangelical, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, flag-waving, Rush Limbaugh-loving, Muslim-hating, meat-eating, apocalypse-loving "patriot" is unacceptable.  And guess what, the GOP has paid the price...big time.  

Last night's defeat (not just in the Presidential Election) reveals just how out of touch the GOP has become.  Instead of being the party of acceptance, they are the party of exclusivity.  Instead of being the party of innovation, they are the party of paranoia.  Instead of being the party of the future, they are the party of archaic irrelevance, and if they don't get their act together soon they will continue to pay at the ballot box.  

Here are just a few things that I believe need to change with the GOP:

-Climate change is real, Adam and Eve were not the first Homo Sapiens to walk the earth, evolution is a non-debatable fact and creating public policy based on the Book of Genesis is stupid beyond explanation. 

-Women who get pregnant as a result of rape is not God working in a "mysterious way." 

-Gay people don't cause tsunamis. 

-Corporations aren't living beings and there is nothing "socialistic" or "Marxist" about having them pay more in taxes (unless you want to call Adam Smith, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, etc. "socialists."). 

-Latinos aren't "taking over" America...but they also aren't going anywhere either.They are, by far, the fastest growing segment of the population.  Get used to it. 

-Dinosaurs were not on Noah's Ark. 

-The "end of days" is not a good campaign slogan, nor is it something to gleefully look forward to. 

-The flavor of the "Tea Party" was just sour grapes and that "party" is now officially over. 

-Being smart, educated, sophisticated  etc. are virtues  not vices.   Joe the Plumber is NOT the ideal, salt-of-the-earth example to put on a pedestal. 

-Conservatives are NOT more patriotic, brave and righteous than any other American of any other "brand." 

-Your future rests not with EXCLUSIVITY but with INCLUSION.  Quit trying to define people by such a narrow and limited set of ridiculous rules. 

-Quit trying to "restore" America to some lost "glory day" when things were better.  Bottom line: America has NEVER embraced what the Tea Party was selling...NEVER!  There is nothing to restore.  Move on. 

-Obama isn't a closet Muslim Kenyan who is going to take your guns and put your family into a FEMA camp. 

-Ronald Reagan would hate your guts.  Sorry, it's true. 

-Glenn Beck is an idiot. No joke, he really is a stupid guy. 

-There is no secret Muslim plot to infiltrate the American Congress and replace it with Sharia law.

But all hope is not lost.  With all of the problems/craziness that has hijacked the Republican Party over the past decade, I still maintain that the GOP could easily become the dominant force in American politics.  Of course, changes (more than those mentioned above) will have to be made, but change is a good thing.  It is time for Conservatism to replace the crazy with confidence.  

The Republican Party is at an important crossroads.  On one hand, they could elect to double down on their wacko "we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more" message of fear, doom and gloom and pseudo-patriotism, or they could return to their "glory days" of old.  Let us not forget that it was the Republicans who were on the cutting edge of innovation in the 50s and 60s.  It was Eisenhower who created NASA, passed the Interstate Highway Act, pulled us out of Korea, avoided entrance into Vietnam, was an early advocate for Civil Rights, encouraged science, math and greater scholastic pursuits, and challenged the Russians on the battlefield of innovation and progress.  This is the REAL legacy of TRUE Republicanism.  

Plus, I still believe that the Republicans could annihilate the Democrats on economic matters.  The free market (when it is truly free for all) is an idea that the overwhelming majority of Americans support.  Sadly, Republicans have done more to damage that ideal in the past 25 years than anyone.  The notion that deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and "trickle down" economics (which is nothing more than a nice way of telling people to enjoy the scraps) simply does not work.  A truly FREE market is one that protects the Middle Class from the greed of those holding all the money.  As Adam Smith, the father of capitalism stated:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. [my emphasis].

It is also time that the GOP accept the FACT that it is time to become more inclusive of others.  Let's face the the facts: Latino voters OVERWHELMINGLY supported Obama and the Dems. last night.  This was one of the key deciding factors in the election.  The GOP has done an atrocious job of courting Latino (and other minority) voters for quite some time and now they are paying the price.  If this trend continues, the GOP can forget about residing in the White House (or taking/controlling the Senate/House) for quite some time.  It's just a fact.

But, there is hope.  To my GOP friends, let me introduce you to a man who not only would bridge the Latino gap but would avoid a lot of the pitfalls that have been mentioned above.  He is a man who is pro-life but not in the psychotic way that the Sarah Palin's of the world are.  He is a true fiscal conservative who opposed the stimulus, has passionately pushed for limited spending, cutting entitlements and defense, and demanded the balanced budget amendment.  He is in favor of energy independence, increased funding for NASA, and accepts the reality of climate change.  And though he is far from perfect, he is, in my opinion, the future of the GOP.  Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you all to the 45th President of the United States of America (yep I am calling it now):

......................

......................

That's right; Marco Rubio is the front runner for the GOP in 2016.  This guy is a tough combination of good looks, eloquent speaking and hard-nosed politics.  I don't see anyone on the left who could tangle with him (maybe Cuomo?).  Plus, he delivers Florida AND closes the Latino gap (hell, he probably swings it to the GOP).  This is your guy, conservos.  Mark my words: Marco Rubio will be your candidate (if he wants it) in 2016.  

Let the campaign ads begin...just give us a few weeks.  =) 

Decades, Diamonds and Dollars

Queen Elizabeth II's Jubilee
and the Relevance of the British Monarchy
in the 21st Century

This past week has seen the British world gathered together in celebration to mark the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's reign.  Second only to Queen Victoria's reign of 63 years, 7 months (June, 1837-January, 1901), no British monarch has reigned as long as Elizabeth.

Her reign has been an eventful one to say the least.  Her ascension to the throne in the aftermath of the Second World War was not only a dramatic transition for the new queen but for the British nation as well.  Having already experienced the downfall of its once dominant world presence, Great Britain found itself playing a different role in the 20th century.  As the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed with one another for ultimate power, Great Britain adapted from being an empire to a commonwealth, and Elizabeth was the key to making it a smooth transition.  And though she has only been a nominal head of state for most of the nations of the commonwealth, Elizabeth has become an icon of stability, grace and royalty in a modern world than now largely laughs at the idea of a monarchy.

In addition, Elizabeth has seen the role of the Monarchy change in a number of dramatic ways in order to meet the needs and expectations of the people.  Instead of remaining as a stoic, uber-formal institution, the Monarchy has been forced into modernity.  There is probably no better example of this fact than the life and death of Princess Diana and her surviving sons William and Harry.  The days of formal, traditional reverence for the Monarchy have been replaced with "The People's Princess" and the Royal Family being on Facebook

And though it is obvious that the British monarchy is only a shell of its once great self, Elizabeth has given the throne new purpose.  She reigns without ruling.  She inspires without commanding.  She motivates without demanding.  In short, Elizabeth has helped to change the British crown from an institution of political power and divine entitlement to that of cultural custodian and solemn duty.  She is head of state instead of head of the government.

But the nobility remains every bit as strong.

For Americans, the continued existence of the British monarchy probably seems strange, even wasteful.  After all, why continue to maintain a nominal figurehead who has little actual power in a palace with servants?  But such an opinion is more revealing of American ignorance and arrogant presumption than actual reality.  Almost all relevant British polls show that the vast majority of the British people still favor retaining a monarchy.  After all, the Monarchy is a fundamental part to their history.  Their culture.  Their sense of what it means to be British.  They could no more do without the Monarchy than we Americans could do without baseball, Lady Liberty or Arlington National Cemetery.  The British Monarchy is the very embodiment of their nation.  It is an institution that prides itself on showing the world the glory of Great Britain.  We Americans have a hard time understanding this concept because we are a nation founded on a healthy disrespect of authority, whereas Britain (and many parts of Europe) have always had a healthy respect for authority.  Both perspectives are neither good or bad, they simply are what they are.

And it is worth noting that while the British people are still "required" to "support" the royal family (it actually works out to be roughly $1.00 per citizen, per year), the British Crown actually generates roughly $200 million in revenue.  Of course, the issue of financially supporting the Royal Family has been a regular source of debate for many citizens, but again, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of British people favor the continued support of the Crown.

And as Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee along with millions of her jubilant and festive "subjects," let us, the cousins across the Atlantic, join in the party.  She may not be our queen, but "We the People" still smell awfully British from time to time.  British history is our history.  It's a wonderful and noble history.  So, as an American, let me be the first to say to my distant British cousins:

"God Save the Queen!"

 

Why America Lost (and Caused) the War of 1812

The United States is a wonderful nation.  The United States may be the greatest nation in the history of history.  It is good to love and revere the United States.  But the United States is not a perfect nation...far from it.  In fact, our history is full of ugly skeletons that we would rather ignore or sweep under the rug.  The War of 1812 happens to be one of those skeletons.

As unpopular as it may be to say, the United States both caused and lost the War of 1812.  It was a horrible war.  A stupid war.  A war of idiocy and greed, and we were to blame.

And it isn't just historians of the modern era who feel this way.  Reality is that the War of 1812 was an incredibly unpopular war in the eyes of those who witnessed it.  In the official congressional declaration of war, the House voted in favor 79-59, while the Senate was 19-13.  This was the closest vote for a declaration of war in American history.  Of the 50,000 slots authorized for the U.S. Army, only 10,000 volunteers came forth.  In many states (particularly in the New England area) people flew the flag at half-mast, closed up shops, and protested in the mob-like fashion that was typical of the early 19th century.  Even Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong attempted to conduct secret negotiations with England, and suggested that the northern states should secede from the Union.

So if the War of 1812 was so unpopular, why did we fight it in the first place?  The answer is simple: Greed.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the United States was a nation that was beginning to flirt with what would eventually become the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.  The lands to the west seemed like an endless source of wealth, resources and prosperity just waiting to be plucked.  In addition, the lands to the north (Canada) and Florida (which was controlled primarily by Native Americans) were equally as enticing.  For many Americans there was a real sense of entitlement to these lands.    In Congress, influential leaders like Henry Clay (who was Speaker of the House) and John C. Calhoun led a crusade to claim these neighboring lands at whatever the cost.  Having been given the nickname "War Hawks," these congressional leaders ignited a fever for war among the Democratic-Republicans by invoking the "savagery" of the Indians and their rightful claim to neighboring lands. As historian Walter Borneman states in his book 1812: The War That Forged a Nation:

These twin issues of Indian unrest and a lust for additional territory beyond the Great Lakes heated the pot of war sentiment on the western frontier.  Thoughts of quelling Indian influence for good and ousting Great Britain from Canada became the rallying cry for Henry Clay and his close-knit circle of political compatriots who came to be called "war hawks." 

[...] 

Nationalistic in policy, prompt with a dueling pistol when polite discussion failed, the war hawks were the young Turks of the era: too young to remember the devastation of the last war and certain of their invincibility in the next. (Pp. 28-29).

The arrogance of the "war hawks" is one of the most underrated aspects of the War of 1812.  Case in point, Secretary of War William Eustis stated publicly that America would "take Canada without soldiers.  We only have to send officers into the province and the people will rally round our standard."  John C. Calhoun echoed those sentiments when he said that America would win "in four weeks from the time that a declaration of was is heard on our frontier, and the whole of Canada will be on our possession."  Henry Clay arrogantly boasted that "I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet."

Another justification that is regularly cited as a cause for the War of 1812 was the alleged impressment practices of the British Navy.  During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was not uncommon for nations to impress (force) other sailors they encountered to join their fleet. For many Americans, the thought of U.S. naval merchants being obligated to join the British navy via impressment was unacceptable.  But just how prevalent was this practice?  According to Smithsonian historians Tony Horwitz and Brian Wolly, these allegations were greatly sensationalized:

One of the strongest impetuses for declaring war against Great Britain was the impressment of American seamen into the Royal Navy...President James Madison's State Department reported that 6,257 Americans were pressed into service from 1807 through 1812.  But how big a threat was impressment, really? 

"The number of cases which are alleged to have occurred, is both extremely erroneous and exaggerated," wrote Massachusetts Sen. James Lloyd, a Federalist and political rival of Madison's.  Lloyd argued that the president's allies used impressment as "a theme of party clamor, and party odium," and that those citing as a casus belli were "those who have the least knowledge and the smallest interest in the subject." 

Other New England leaders, especially those whit ties to the shipping industry, also doubted the severity of the problem.  Timothy Pickering, the Bay State's other senator, commissioned a study that counted the total number of impressed seamen from Massachusetts and slightly more than 100 and the total number of Americans as just a few hundred.

Needless to say, the notion that impressment was a legitimate cause for war was more the stuff of sensationalized rhetoric than actual fact.

Regardless of the unpopularity and the ridiculous rhetoric, President James Madison and the "War Congress" took the nation into a war that had no legitimate justification.  It was a decision that would come to haunt the United States for a generation.  American forces learned almost from the start that the war wasn't going to be a walk in the park.  Attempts to invade Canada failed in spectacular fashion.  General William Hull, who commanded the primary American invasion of Canada, surrendered his entire army to the British at Detroit without firing a single shot.  Hunger, cold, and the superior forces and tactics of the British had backed General Hull into an impossible corner.  In addition, Canadian (British) citizens proved to not be as willing to join the American cause as had been thought by the War Hawks.  Canadians opposed American forces at virtually every opportunity.

The massive failure to capture Canada was only part of the story of how the U.S. lost the War of 1812.  Throughout the course of the war, British forces systematically dismantled American forces throughout the countryside, leaving towns and communities completely destroyed in their wake.  In 1813, Buffalo and large portions of New York were burned to the ground, while the budding communities of Detroit and Chicago were captured.  In 1814, almost all of Maine was captured by the British, who forced the citizenry to swear an oath of allegiance to King George.  Later that same year, the British conquered Maryland and burned the Capitol city to the ground.  In fact, President James Madison barely made it out of town before the city fell.  In short, the superior forces of the British had virtually strangled the United States to death.

So why did the British stop?  The answer is simple: Napoleon.  Though the British had virtually dominated the war of 1812, they had bigger fish to fry in Europe.  As a result, a petition of peace was issued by the British.  With the threat of an invasion to Boston, Richmond and New Orleans, President Madison and the now subdued War Hawks accepted the invitation to cut their losses and conclude their stupid conflict.  The only saving grace of the Treaty of Ghent was that it restored relations between the two nations to Status Quo Ante Bellum (the state in which things were before the war).  All of the lost lands and cities were restored to the United States and British forces, who were desperately needed in Europe, left without resistance.  In essence, this treaty allowed the United States to call the war a draw, when in reality the war was anything but.  Sure, the United States had a few small victories to call their own but they were largely insignificant.  Oliver Hazard Perry's naval victories had little impact on the overall outcome of the war, just as Andrew Jackson's attack on New Orleans (which came after the treaty of Ghent) was more of a moral victory than anything substantial.  Even the defense of Fort McHenry (where the Star-Spangled Banner was born) was more a survival of a bombardment than an actual victory.  The "rockets red glare" and "bombs bursting in air" reveal that the British onslaught was severe, but fortunately "the flag was still there" at the end of the conflict.  Whew!

And though it is clear that the United States lost the War of 1812, we can take solace in the fact that much good came from the conflict.  This "second war of independence" helped to unite a nation that was still in its infancy.  It gave birth to patriotic symbols like our National Anthem (which didn't become our anthem until 1931), Uncle Sam and Andrew Jackson.  With all of that said, the War of 1812 was an American disaster. It was a war of greed.  A war of pride.  A war of stupidity.  We were lucky that things didn't turn out worse than they did.  I've often wondered why the War of 1812 wasn't given a better name.  Could it be due to the fact that we cannot put a positive spin on its outcome?  On its origins?  What else would we call it?  The War of American Idiocy?  The "Bit Off More Than We Could Chew War?"  It's time that Americans face the facts: the War of 1812 was largely a waste.