Andrew Jackson vs. Donald Trump

I’ve been delaying this post because I felt uninspired to write about America’s seventh President – Andrew Jackson. Jackson is a big name in history for good and bad reasons. His face adorns the $20 bill and his name is often compared with our current President – Donald Trump. I am not going to write a dry list of all Jackson’s accolades, but instead, I just want to focus on three major components of his presidency. First, however, I must mention that the biography I read was American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham. My lack of inspiration with Jackson may partly stem from Meacham’s style of biography which was disjointed and a little heavy on 19th-century gossip. I like biographies which start from birth and end at death – American Lion focuses primarily on Jackson’s presidency – making it difficult to follow a timeline.

07_andrew_jackson1

Upon the completion of a book, I always have a few key takeaways that stick in my mind. For Jackson, I have three major points that I want to discuss. First off, Jackson was easily caricatured by politicians but in reality, his personality was far from the public imaginings. Jackson is responsible for the powerful presidency we know of today and this shift in thinking made him appear as a despot. Behind the scenes, Jackson loved his country and wanted to protect it like a father – he was highly successful in this arena. My second takeaway was that Jackson was a stubborn man who had conflicting philosophies. This was most pronounced with his views towards Native Americans and slaves. Jackson is responsible for the Trail of Tears which forced Native Americans to move “yet again” from land in the South to the West. This policy was due to Jackson’s belief that different races of people could not cohabitate together – separation or subjugation were the only solutions. My third takeaway was that this erroneous philosophy did not apply to the States in the Union. During his tenure, Jackson prevented South Carolina from succeeding and held the States accountable to federal laws; preventing a civil war and strengthening the power of the Supreme Court.

routes

As one can see, Jackson was a complex man who had conflicting philosophies which resulted in policies with negative and positive outcomes. Is the country better off because of Andrew Jackson? Like most Presidents’ track record, this is a hard question to answer. I think overall, Jackson did benefit the country by keeping it together during a time when it was falling apart at the seams. His policies with the Native Americans were disastrous, and that is why I have a hard time liking Jackson. This brings me to my comparison between Jackson and Trump. Donald Trump is a complicated man who is easily caricatured. He is either vilified by the left or overly praised by the right. Jackson changed the strength of the Presidency and Trump is continuing that tradition. I believe just like Jackson, Trump loves his country. But I also think that just like Jackson, Trump has some philosophies which cause contradictions – both helping and hurting the nation.

a2b03645788221-583d586396edf

For a long time, I caricatured Trump in my mind. After reading Jackson’s biography, I have changed my mind about our current President. Trump is a very intelligent man and in my opinion a political mastermind. He knows exactly how to rally his base and precisely what to Tweet – ensuring his message is spread throughout the internet. Many on the left think he is an idiot for his comments just like intellectuals thought Jackson was mad for some of his statements. Trump and Jackson are strategists. Some of these strategies have good outcomes for the country while others do not. The point I want to make is that both Trump and Jackson have flaws, but they also have strengths. It is our job not to caricature and be petty but rather to be rationale and discerning. When we caricature we dehumanize. When we dehumanize we become a caricature ourselves. Does that mean I support Trump? Yes and no. Just like Jackson, I have my critiques, but just like Jackson, I think Trump’s biography will give us a more complete picture. At this point in time, however, I am unenthused to write about Trump.

PS – The more I read, the more I see myself as an Independent in the realms of politics. I think party politics close ourselves off from seeing the other side. Thoughts, comments, or questions on anything I said…please send me a message.

The Last Founding Father vs. Donald Trump

It seems to be another hectic week for our President – Donald Trump. A government shut down never looks good for the leader of the government. I heard this news from my Dad who was quite upset – not at Donald Trump – but at Democrats. See, my Dad is not an anomaly. Whenever our views are attacked, our elephant instincts kick in. We “react” first and “rationalize” later – usually, that rationalization is far from sensical. My Dad and I like to bump chests politically, but in the end, we always just sit on the couch and watch sports. However, our discussions about politics are not zero-sum gains. Trying to understand another person’s views takes time, patience, and empathy. My Dad and I have learned a lot from each other and our conversations keep getting more civil – our tandem elephants are becoming more docile.

giphy9

As an extension of last week’s post about James Madison, I am going to further question what it means to be “presidential.” Time will tell how Trump does over the next years but how can we truly judge his performance? We need to know how other Presidents have done in the past so we can have rationale conversations into the future. To achieve this goal, I am reading every US President’s biography and writing about them for your enjoyment – here is a list of all the previous posts: George Washington, John Adams (coming next week), Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Herbert Hoover. This week I read about America’s fifth president – James Monroe – The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger.

sp-monroe2c_james-president_28bep_engraved_portrait29-533x300

James Monroe was the last founding father to be President and was actually born shortly before the American Revolution in 1758. Monroe was raised in Virginia, but unlike Washington, Jefferson, or Madison he did not own substantial plantation property. He fought in the Revolutionary War and was actually with Washington in the Battle of Trenton when the famous crossing of the Deleware River occurred; he was wounded in the battle but eventually recovered. The military at the time had a glut of officers, so Monroe was never able to receive a position of command. Upon National Independence, he took up law to begin supporting himself and his wife, Elizabeth Monroe.

elizabeth_monroe

Throughout this time, Monroe was mentored by a fellow Virginian – Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson pushed Monroe to join him in politics and Monroe initially split his time between law and the Virginian House of Delegates. He would go on to serve in the Congress of the Confederation and help ratify Virginia’s Constitution. His political career took off when he became Ambassador to France during the French Revolution, Ambassador to Britain and Minister to Spain – negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, land treaties, and peace negotiations while overseas. He would go on to be the Governor of Virgina for four terms, US Secretary of State, and US Secretary of War. While Secretary of War, he virtually ran the government because Madison was inept during that period of conflict. He would go on to be the most popular President since George Washington.

05_james_monroe

Monroe committed over 40 years of his life to public service and served in more public posts than any American in history. While President, he pushed for Western expansion and acquired more land from the Spanish in modern-day Florida. He protected American interests at a time in history when European powers could quickly take advantage of the young country. The Monroe Doctrine was a masterpiece of diplomacy for the Western Hemisphere and allowed independence for myriad nations in Central and South America. Monroe was described by friends and foes alike as having plain and gentle manners. He was a bold and robust leader in times of war and peace and fought for the Bill of Rights and against secrecy rules in Congress – opening the halls of Government for the first time in history.

giphy10

Monroe established the first state-supported public schools and pushed the development of public roads and canals to further commerce. Monroe was secretly an excellent President who accomplished more than I had ever thought. He transformed a fragile nation into a glorious empire – by making the United States impregnable to attack and rich in natural resources. He allowed Americans to expand westward and gain a democratic vote through the ownership of land; his Presidency saw the largest redistribution of wealth in the annals of history. Monroe was so popular that there were no political parties during his presidency; he was able to bring people together and put his country first. James Monroe indeed achieved “presidential” status during his Presidency – unfortunately, Trump is nowhere close to his level at this point…but I’m hoping he will pull through.

James Madison vs. Donald Trump

How would you rate Trump in his presidency? I don’t watch the daily news, but I do hear about the significant events through the grapevine; the most recent “Shit Hole” remark is not entirely surprising and falls in line with Trump’s previous propensity to say unpresidential remarks. But what does it mean to be “presidential?” Since I am fully immersed in Plato right now, my brain is constantly scanning for the root definitions of words. According to Plato, to be “presidential” would require one to be a “statesman” – a position of power which disseminates the knowledge of the “good.” What is the knowledge of the “good?” In a sense, it is the correct understanding of human morality and virtues.

giphy6

The question, however, gets more complicated because Plato argues we can never entirely obtain knowledge of the “good;” we have to try our best to seek out knowledge throughout our lives through dialogue and personal revelation. So does Trump seem to be on a lifelong journey of wisdom? To follow Socrates example, we’ll leave that question unanswered. Another component of understanding true “statesmanship,”  is to understand past examples in history. How can people honestly know what a good President looks like if their only comparisons are those of living memory: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr, Ronald Reagan, etc. To further add to the conundrum, how many of these Presidents have been personally studied – what do you actually know about their intrinsic virtues and morals? In an attempt to get to the base of understanding “good” leadership, I am reading all the United State President’s biographies. My most recent is on James Madison – James Madison: A Life Reconsidered by Lynne Cheney. Next week I will post on James Monroe.

giphy7

James Madison was born on March 16th, 1751 to the Virginian planter class. He grew up accustomed to slavery and didn’t do much to further its abolition – less than George Washington and John Adams. Madison suffered from epilepsy at a time when epilepsy was thought to be a personal weakness, and he was a frail man in general – barely breaking the 5-foot barrier. Because of his health conditions, he took to erudition and became a prominent Virginian politician after attending modern-day Princeton. He was mentored by Thomas Jefferson and was close to leading figures of the Revolutionary War.

maxresdefault

Madison championed religious freedoms in the Virginian Constitution and cherished Enlightenment ideas. He was the father of the United States Constitution which was his political Magnum Opus. To push ratification of the Constitution, he partnered with opposite party member – Alexander Hamilton – to publish the famed The Federalist Papers.  Madison straddled party lines for the sake of his country and in the end, helped America form a stable central government while maintaining individual freedoms through the Bill of Rights. He would go on to serve in Congress, as Secretary of State, and as the 4th President of the United States.

constitutionimage_smaller1

Madison was by far a not a perfect President and did not make satisfying decisions with respects to the War of 1812. His leadership skills were weak when it came to acts of force, and he had difficulties inspiring fellow cabinet members. By the end of his presidency, his successor James Monroe was practically running the government in his place. Madison’s gifts were behind the scenes, and he is most responsible for the United States withholding the Constitution we hold dear today. A Constitution which he designed to be changed according to ultimate liberties – the abolition of slavery to name one. Without Madison, the United States would never have had a Government which could defend itself from foreign attack while simultaneously preserving the rights of individual citizens.

james_madison-h

While in office, Madison had many opponents and is actually credited with forming the first political party with Jefferson. He was a scholar who believed in himself even though many people pushed him to the side because of his physical impediments. Was Madison “Presidential?” He is by far not the best President I have read about, but I do appreciate his quest for compromise and his pursuit of genuine liberty – a liberty that had to balance between the British Monarchy and French Jacobins. His virtues seem to be cooperation, determination, flexibility, and idealism. So how does Madison compare to Tump? I’m going to pull a Socrates again and let you ponder that question.

Scoop

I may sound like a broken record but I am going to say it again, “news is crap.” Most news is just gossip that does nothing for our life except waste our time or make us more depressed. For example, I turned the nightly news on and it was all about a murder that had taken place the previous night. How do I benefit from knowing about this murder? Am I going to change my habits? Should I buy a gun? Should I refrain from drug deals at 3:00 AM? The only thing that will change is my equanimity – from peaceful to paranoid. I don’t listen to the news and I know very little about current events. Does this make me ignorant? Yes and No. I am oblivious to trivial matters but if the news is important enough – the word will eventually reach me; but when I do hear about it, I have a breadth of knowledge to contribute which the news could never provide. I am ignorant about Donald Trump’s myriad mishaps but I am not ignorant about the mishaps of the French Revolution. I am ignorant of the most recent natural disaster but I am not ignorant about Plato’s philosophy on human suffering. It is better to study the past so that you have a foundation to understand the present. This point is best illustrated by a toddler who is told by an older brother that an evil clown lives in his closet. With no background information or knowledge of clown behavior, the kid pees himself for the next month.

I bring this topic up because my 5th classic, Scoop by Evelyn Waugh, is a satire on the news business and how the news “supposedly” educates the public. Scoop was written in 1938 and is acclaimed for its portrayal of the Fleet Street culture in London. Fleet Street was the mecca of England newspapers and there was a lot of money to be made from constant news. The problem in Scoop is that there is a lack of stories happening in the world and the bigwigs are anxious to keep the printing press hot. They end up sending, by mistake, a part-time columnist to an obscure country to report on a potential war; the dilemma is that there is no real turmoil to report on. Journalists keep flooding the small nation in search of a “scoop” – in the end a story has to be partly falsified and exaggerated in order to sell papers. Scoop is actually pretty funny and is a critique on the deplorable state of new’s media and their incessant need for sensationalism – seemingly stamping “news” on everything. This book parallels our current media’s incessant need for material and the subsequent decline in reporting. Not even speaking of “fake” news, the “real” news is rarely ever worth a second glance; like a Shepard eternally crying wolf! Waugh could never have imagined the internet age but his novel is more applicable today than when it was published. Instead of chasing our tails, let’s spend more time in well researched books and periodicals which are respected. Don’t take the bait and believe your brother – “Breaking News: Killer Clown Discovered to be Vacuum Cleaner!”

“‘You know, you’ve got a lot to learn about journalism. Look at it this way. News is what a chap who doesn’t care much about anything wants to read. And it’s only news until he’s read it. After that it’s dead. We’re paid to supply news. If someone else has sent a story before us, our story isn’t news. Of course there’s colour. Colour is just a lot of bulls’-eyes about nothing.'”
-Evelyn Waugh Scoop

 

 

 

Would you be Sterilized?

Imagine today if Donald Trump made a decree that all morons and imbeciles must be sterilized to prevent further contamination of the American gene pool. Could you imagine the uproar? Even Fox News couldn’t spin that Twitter rant, but sadly, forced sterilization is still constitutional in the United States. Ninety years ago, in the infamous case of Buck vs. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., declared by many as the wisest man in the United States, wrote the majority opinion summarized by this one sentence:”Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The history of Buck vs. Bell and America’s dark marriage to eugenics is detailed in the fascinating book Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck by Adam Cohen.

Eugenics is defined as the purposeful cleansing of defects in the gene pool to improve a particular species. For example, eugenics is commonly used today when dogs are cross bred to remove negative health traits: English Bulldog + Labrador = Bullador. Human eugenics started in 19th century Europe with the advent of Social Darwinism. Essentially, people thought that “survival of the fittest” not only applied to animals but also to racist white guys. The whitest of the white, Nordic Europeans, viewed themselves as the beez neez and thought all other races should bow to their paleness. Many geneticists believed that every trait, belief, attribute, and characteristic of a person was passed on from their parents. There was very little understanding of the environmental impact on behavior and subsequently all vices were blamed on bad genes. Drunkenness in the Irish. Criminality in the Italians. Promiscuity in the Poles.  Usury in the Jews. Imbecility in the poor. Basically, anyone who was not a white-Northern-European-rich-pious-fricker was deemed to have poor progeny.

At the turn of the 20th century, America was becoming inundated with all sorts of new immigrants: tides of Irish, Jews, Eastern Europeans, South Americans, and Chinese. These new immigrants oftentimes lived in squalor and were more likely to commit crimes, have large families, and be less educated compared to their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Hence, “real “Americans decided to clean up the gene pool and the States began to pass laws that allowed the sterilization of anyone who had unappealing traits. Intelligence tests were given out to see whether people were imbeciles or morons. These tests were completely erroneous and in many cases found that half of test takers were mentally unfit.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed in direct connection to eugenic beliefs on racial inferiority. It drastically decreased the number of immigrants from countries that were not Anglo-Saxon in origin. The climax of the eugenics movement occurred in 1927 when Buck vs. Bell went to the supreme court to determine whether Virginia had the right to sterilize Carrie Buck –  a poor-white-southerner. The case was a complete sham. Carrie was not an imbecile but rather an intelligent girl who had the bad luck of being raped and blamed for promiscuity. Carrie’s lawyer was actually on the prosecutions payroll and she was not informed about any details of the case. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was a firm believer in the “survival of the fittest” and wrote that sterilization did not impede upon Miss. Buck’s constitutional rights.

The eugenics movement in America helped Hitler cement many of his policies during WWII. The Immigration Act of 1924 assisted the Holocaust by  barring Jews from entering America. Nazi Lawyers, during the Nuremberg Trials, actually used the case of Buck vs. Bell as a justification for 1000’s of sterilizations. In total, the US sterilized over 70,000 people throughout the 20th century – the last forced sterilization was in 1981. Today, Buck vs. Bell has still not been overturned and there are cases of coerced sterilizations in prison and mental health systems. Eugenics is still a major concern with advancements in technology that can screen babies for “undesirable” traits. Is it right for a couple to abort a child who has Down Syndrome? What if we get to the point that prenatal screenings tell us the risk of stunted height or ADHD? Who gets to define what traits are good or bad? America’s history with eugenics is scary but its future is even more precarious. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of Social Darwinism and nonsensical-immigration restrictions. I think Charles Darwin said it best:

“The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”

The Upside of Down

What makes America great? Is it the people? The beautiful landscape? The election process? I think a lot of citizens define the greatness of America through her economic and military prowess. Over the past 10 years there has been a lot of news about America’s dominance fading in the world. I hear things like, “China owns half of our country!” “Their is a new Cold War with Russia!””There are going to be taco stands at every corner!” “All of our jobs are being shipped overseas!” I never really looked into these claims before so I wanted to read a book about the true economic status of the developed world compared to the developing. I picked up The Upside of Down: Why the Rise of the Rest is Good for the West by Charles Kenny. Kenny was previously a senior economist at the World Bank and is now a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and writes for Bloomberg Businessweek and Foreign Policy magazines. To put it simply, this guy knows his stuff.

First off, China is definitely going to surpass the United States economy very soon – some economists argue that is has already happened. The math is simple: China has 1.3 billion people and the United States has roughly 350 million people. That is a billion more workers and consumers with an ever widening middle class that is ready to spend.

“…by 2030 the world will have four major economic players. China will be the heavyweight, with a share of global GDP around 24 percent (measured at purchasing power parity). Next will be India, the European Union and the United States – each with 10 to 12 percent of the global output. Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan will each control a little more than 3 percent of global GDP.”

Should this fact worry the United States? Not at all. It is great news. For one, the average Chinese or Indian will one day be able to buy more products from the United States. With more money flowing into America, there will be more jobs created and more services needed. Second, countries with large economies love trade agreements – allowing them to easily import and export. This increases alliances and decreases the risks of wars. Thirdly, with greater partnerships with other countries, the United States can reduce military spending and focus more on improving quality of life measures for her citizens (health care, infrastructure, worker benefits, etc.).

Now what about all the worries of immigration and jobs being taken by the “rest” of the world.

“…US offshoring may have been responsible for a 1.6 percent decline in manufacturing jobs over the period 1997 to 2007, but the impact on long-term productivity may actually increase employment (which may also be better paid). The idea is that firms save money by offshoring, which, by allowing them to sell more for less, increases both their own revenues and the revenues of those that purchase the goods they sell. As a result, they can hire more people, or their shareholders have more money to buy goods and services from other Americans.”

Yes, America has lost jobs overseas but the economy as a whole has benefited immensely from affordable goods and greater domestic purchasing power – the result being a net increase in job creation. So what about jobs at home being taken by immigrants? The United States attracts some of the best and brightest students from around the world. Our universities, with the help of foreign students, foster innovation that continues to make America a leader in patents and technology. Immigrants are vital to our growing economy, because as earlier explained, the number of people in a country is one of the biggest factors in economic health. With an aging population and a decreasing birth rate, the United States should be happy to take all the skilled labor she can get. What about the “illegal” immigrants? Shouldn’t we build a wall? It was found that immigrants from Mexico do not take jobs from Americans but rather help create new jobs (click here for clear example). By paying less for labor, businesses have more money for investments, purchases, and new job creation. Furthermore, between 2009-2014 there was net loss of Mexicans leaving the United States. This is due to an improving Mexican economy and better family reunification programs. It was found that increased border control actually increased the number of illegal immigrants in the country; due to the fact that it was harder for Mexicans to reenter their country.

All of this points to the need for more investment and economic teamwork throughout the world. We should not become a isolated country that is afraid of immigrants or the success of other countries. We need to remember that immigrants founded this country and that the rise of the rest is good for the west. If you liked this article please a related post, The World is Flat.

 

Mike Rowe-Not Everyone Should Vote

The election is less than a month away and we are all soaked from the political cloud that has been looming over our heads. This election year has been unique because it seems like facts don’t matter and conspiracy theories reign supreme. I am not a conspiracy theorist and believe that they are very dangerous for our society (The Sexiness of Conspiracy). Believing that there is always some hidden agenda makes people avoid facts (abstaining from vaccines for instance) and react negatively to certain groups (the persecution of Jews in the 20th century). I honestly don’t believe that everyone should vote in the election and Mike Rowe, the guy from Dirty Jobs, made this point perfectly clear when asked a question by a fan.

“Hey Mike, I have nothing but respect for you. Your no-nonsense outlook and incredible eloquence have really had a profound impact in my life. Can you please encourage your huge following to go out and vote this election? I would never impose on you by asking you to advocate one politician over another, but I do feel this election could really use your help. I know that there are many people out there who feel like there is nothing they can do. Please try to use your gifts to make them see that they can do something – that their vote counts.” -Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I also share your concern for our country, and agree wholeheartedly that every vote counts. However, I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms. I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens?

Casting a ballot is not so different. It’s an important right that we all share, and one that impacts our society in dramatic fashion. But it’s one thing to respect and acknowledge our collective rights, and quite another thing to affirmatively encourage people I’ve never met to exercise them. And yet, my friends in Hollywood do that very thing, and they’re at it again.

Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to ‘get out and vote.’ They tell us it’s our ‘most important civic duty,’ and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the ‘masses’ to vote, if they believed the ‘masses’ would elect Donald Trump?

Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our ‘civic duty’ to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but let’s face it – the bar is not set very high. If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.

The undeniable reality is this: our right to vote does not require any understanding of current events, or any awareness of how our government works. So, when a celebrity reminds the country that ‘everybody’s vote counts,’ they are absolutely correct. But when they tell us that ‘everybody in the country should get out there and vote,’ regardless of what they think or believe, I gotta wonder what they’re smoking.

Look at our current candidates. No one appears to like either one of them. Their approval ratings are at record lows. It’s not about who you like more, it’s about who you hate less. Sure, we can blame the media, the system, and the candidates themselves, but let’s be honest – Donald and Hillary are there because we put them there. The electorate has tolerated the intolerable. We’ve treated this entire process like the final episode of American Idol. What did we expect?

So no, Jeremy – I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn’t do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn’t need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process. So if you really want me to say something political, how about this – read more.

Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with “Economics in One Lesson.” Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.

Or, don’t. None of the freedoms spelled out in our Constitution were put there so people could cast uninformed ballots out of some misplaced sense of civic duty brought on by a celebrity guilt-trip. The right to assemble, to protest, to speak freely – these rights were included to help assure that the best ideas and the best candidates would emerge from the most transparent process possible.

Remember – there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor – ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.

In the meantime, dig into Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It sounds like a snooze but it really is a page turner, and you can download it for free

-Mike Rowe

Don’t rely on Facebook or even news for your primary information. The least everyone should do before voting is to read each candidate’s policies. Start reading now and by the next election you may see the entire world differently.

Theodore Roosevelt vs. Donald Trump

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt is my favorite president by far because he accomplished so many unbelievable feats during his lifetime:

-Preserved 150 national forests, 5 national parks, and 18 national monuments.
-He busted up 44 monopolistic corporations and enforced railroad regulations.
-Passed the Meat Inspection Act along with the Pure Food and Drug Act.
-Secured the Panama Canal and negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese war.
-Conducted two major hunting expeditions to catalog animals for the Smithsonian.
-Published over 35 books and read over 10,000 books.
-Posthumously won the Medal of Honor.
-Was the youngest president in American history.
-He preemptively strengthened the Navy before WWI.
-Negotiated a major coal strike.
-Gave Cuba back to Cubans.
-Invited the first black man ever to dinner at the White House.

Added to these accomplishments is the fact that Roosevelt was an easy going guy who treated everyone with fairness; he was a loving husband and father; and he was passionate about making life for all Americans better. Theodore Roosevelt along with Abraham Lincoln are my two favorite Republicans because they were light years ahead of their time in championing social, economic, and racial equality.

Fast forward to today’s Republican Party. What use to be a party that represented disenfranchised blacks, immigrants, and conservationists is now the party that represents primarily whites who don’t believe in global warming but do believe in xenophobia. The Republican’s main man is now Donald Trump. I am not a fan of Trump because he is in many ways the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt spent most of his life in public service while Trump spent most of his life expanding his father’s real estate business. The first 50 years of Teddy’s life could be summed up as a non-stop push to make America better. The first 50 years of Trump’s life could be summed up as a non-stop push to inflate his pockets and ego.  Here in lies the greatest difference between these two men-motivation. Roosevelt was a gentleman that treated his opponents with dignity and those who were disenfranchised with respect. Trump is a business man who uses derogatory language and authoritarian philosophies to make deals that increases his net worth regardless of the consequences. Some examples of these consequences include two divorces, four bankruptcies, and a mouth that vomits ridiculous material:

-“I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
-“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

-“The beauty of me is that I’m very rich.”

-“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

-“The point is, you can never be too greedy.”

-“My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.”

-“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”

This is the current state of the Republican Party. Trump will not be remembered for his list of accomplishments but rather for his list of stupid comments. Teddy won the Nobel Peace Prize.What will Trump win as President? A spot on Comedy Central’s Roast of Hillary Clinton. Lincoln and Roosevelt would not even fit into the Republican Party of today and I’m sure Trump would find pleasant things to say about the immigrant lover and tree huger. We need a President who embodies the attributes of these two great men-not the attributes of a misogynistic-xenophobic-demagogic-school yard bully.
If you liked this article read Abraham Lincoln vs. Donald Trump for another comparison.

How the West Won the Gun

Peanut Butter and Jelly. Chips and Dip. Simon and Garfunkel. Summer and Ice Cream. Americans and Guns. All these things go together and are culturally inseparable. The world knows that America is the land of gun loving-second amendment wielding-wild west winning red-blooded citizens. Americans view their own successful history tangentially with the success of the gun: single shot muskets in the Revolutionary War; Colt pistols in the western frontier; Winchester repeating rifles in WWII. Even my favorite movie during the holidays, A Christmas Story, details Ralphie’s unstoppable obsession with the Red Ryder Carbine Action 200-shot Range Model air rifle. Guns are constantly in the news because they beckon polemic arguments. Just last week Donald Trump incorrectly stated that Hillary Clinton wanted to abolish the second amendment, and if that happened, the gun lovers would have to take matters into their own hands (source). I for one am not anti-guns. I believe people should have a right to own pistols and rifles designed for hunting. I do not believe that people should be able to buy assault rifles that can kill dozens of citizens in a matter of seconds. Guns to me are like pharmaceuticals-they have the ability to protect but some come with severe side affects. And like drugs, guns should be regulated to prevent excessive harm to the public-think Antibiotics vs. Heroin. Many of our conversations about guns today are myopic in their view related to their long history in America. Were Americans always so gun obsessed? Why does American culture and the gun fit together like peanut butter and jelly? I found the answers to these questions in The Gunning of America: Business and the Making of American Gun Culture by Pamela Haag.

In 1756, a report found that the colonies’ “militia amounts to about 36,000 but not half that number are armed.” In 1776, the governor of Rhode Island wrote to George Washington that the colonists disposed of their arms due to feelings of security, that the colony was effectively “disarmed.” During the 18th and early 19th century, guns were made by gunsmiths. Gunsmiths would make one gun at a time per request and there was a high amount of skill required to complete the entire project. These early American guns were single-shot front loaders which were very heavy and not all that accurate. Since this type of gun was difficult to produce and limited in its capabilities, it was treated as a tool for people with specific needs-farmers, soldiers, Lewis and Clark expeditions, etc. The average Joe did not own a gun during this time. This would all change with Eli Whitney’s idea that he could make a gun with interchangeable parts.

Eli Whitney was one of the first gun manufacturers that made guns not with gunsmiths but with factory workers. Whitney was the forefather to Samuel Colt and Oliver Winchester who would begin their businesses in the mid 1800’s. Colt and Winchester are household names today but their businesses had very slow starts in the US. Americans simply did not see the appeal in semiautomatic rifles or handguns and in 1850, Henry William Herbert, one of America’s first sport-hunting writers, predicted that rifles would be obsolete by the end of the century. The Civil War kept the businesses temporarily afloat but afterwards, to stay in business, gun manufacturers used their factories to produce “sewing machines, horse carts, cotton gins, bridges, plows, mowers…” The only market that truly kept Winchester and Colt alive was the foreign war market. During the 1800’s, in South America, Europe, Mexico, and Asia, there was a huge demand for arms. The “American” gun only stayed out of bankruptcy because foreign nationalism required semiautomatic rifles. Colt and Winchester had to solve a problem, they had a ton of guns but little demand in America. How could they make a market?

Winchester and Colt were geniuses in marketing and they used the wild west as their primary medium. Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok, Billy the Kid, Annie Oakley, Belle Star, Calamity Jane, and many others were incessantly written about in dime novels. These dime novels were written as truth but were only fictional stories where “virtue must triumph, vice and crime must not only be defeated, but must by painted in colors so strong and vivid that there is no mistake about it.” What was the quintessential weapon of all these western heroes? Not coincidentally…Colt and Winchester. In addition to the dime novels, Winchester was a prolific user of full color advertisements that showed harrowing scenes of men in action making “The Finishing Shot” with their repeating rifle. It doesn’t end there, Winchester sent 3,363,537 boys between the ages of 10 to 16 a written letter about their .22 caliber that could be used to earn Winchester “Sharpshooting Medals.” This form of marketing extended to all forms of print and media-including Winchester sponsored movies that flashed ads for their guns. Over 750 westerns were released between 1950 and 1960 with 8 of the top 10 prime-time television shows in 1959 being westerns. The gun had morphed from a tool of war to a sexy symbol of virtue over vice, freedom, and individualism. Like so many other products, the gun was marketed towards our emotions and Americans soon connected this 1900’s gun mystique with all guns throughout American history. The guns of the American Revolution, that were sparse and clunky, were now prolific and majestic tools of freedom-just like they were with the winning of the west. Fast forward to today, where gun manufacturers have no problem selling guns because it is as American as eating apple pie. The second amendment gave us the right to bear arms but Samuel Colt and Oliver Winchester gave us the desire to bear arms.

 

 

Post 9/11 Potato Salad

Does anyone remember the War in Iraq? The Weapons of Mass Destruction? The invasion in 2003 with nearly everyone’s support? The War in Iraq and then subsequent war in Afghanistan was like a 4th of July party that starts out fun but ends with everyone getting food poisoning from the warm potato salad. We were fired up, we wanted revenge for 9/11, we wanted any excuse to right the wrongs. We got emotional. We didn’t look at all the facts. We jumped in blind holding George Bush’s hand. Eventually we would learn that shooting a hornets nest doesn’t get rid of a dangerous problem but rather makes it far worse. We are yet again repeating these mistakes with rhetoric following the Orlando shooting. There is fear against Muslims, ISIS, radical Islam, terrorists, and future attacks in general. Emotions are getting the best of us and leading us to irrational solutions: prevent all Muslims from entering the country, prosecute neighbors who do not call in suspicious behavior, patrol neighborhoods of Muslim-Americans, etc. How will these measures affect human behavior? They will divide Muslims and Non-Muslims even further. They will tell young Muslim-Americans that they cannot be trusted. They will create an “Us vs Them” mentality in targeted neighborhoods-decreasing the likelihood of sharing information. They will foster hatred, anger, and resentment in high risk individuals who are prone to “Lone-Wolf” attacks. They will shake the hornets nest and release even more dangers for America.

As I have previously written, ISIS does not practice anything close to Islam. It is like saying the white-supremacist Dylann Roof, who killed 9 people in a church last year in Charleston, practices Christianity. After that attack we did not bunch all Christians with Dylann Roof; and yes white-supremacists do use the Holy Bible and radical protestant views regularly in their zeitgeist of beliefs. There are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. According to the FBI, between 1980-2005, 94% of terrorist attacks in US were committed by NON-MUSLIMS (Source). During that same time period there were more Jewish terror attacks then Muslim terror attacks. Why don’t we ban all the Jews from coming into the country? Nazi Germany anyone? The reason these facts elude us is that most people get their information from the news. The news loves flaming our emotions and nothing gets us more scared or mad then the headline-RADICAL-ISIS-MUSLIM-TERRORIST KILLS AMERICANS!!! Since 9/11 less than 0.0002% of Americans were killed by Muslims (Source); you have a better chance of dying from your TV crushing you while watching FOX News. If we are going to group all Muslims with terrorists then we should group all Christians with members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

So what is the solution? I know that disenfranchising people and stereotyping whole religions will never bring about positive change. I know that jumping into policies based on emotions will never reap the desired results. I know that human nature is predictable and targeting people will make them more likely to fight back. Let’s take a lesson from our current involvement with fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. We are involving the Muslims in the area and empowering them to fight their enemy. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are all helping fight this terror group with US assistance. They are actually winning the battle and will have the proper infrastructure to fight ISIS in the future. Funny how partnering with Muslims is showing positive outcomes. Partnership is our only way of winning this war. ISIS wants us to fight them (see my previous posts below) and would love a hot head like Trump to be president. Trump would be there number one recruiting tool. Remember the past so we don’t have to repeat another Post 9/11 Potato Salad.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Part 1 of 3

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Part 2 of 3

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Part 3 of 3