The second case, the one that bothered me the most in her attempts to showcase her ignorance, was Bush v. Gore (2000). This case was what cleared the way for then Governor George Bush to become the President of the United States. She argues, “the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W.”  But apparently Ms. Dowd has never read the Supreme Court’s decision in that case. First of all, the Supreme Court called their decision a per curium decision, which indicates that it is nonbinding on jurisprudence or stare decisis. Secondly, the opinion states that if the recount had gone on it would have violated the Voting Rights Act as well as Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution. The Voting Rights Act assures all Americans of the right to vote and declares that every American of voting age is guaranteed of one person one vote. As is pointed out in the opinion, the various districts in Florida had separate procedures for how to go about recounting; particularly this was true of what constituted a vote. As a result, certain votes would have been counted in one district but not counted in another. This gross violation of the Voting Rights Act could only be remedied through an act of the Florida State Legisture, which leads to the second problem. Had Florida been permitted to do its recount under a new created procedure, it would have taken it past the date Congress has appointed as the date when the Electoral College meets to cast their ballots. Article II, Section 1, clause 4 gives Congress the authority to appoint a date when the Electoral College shall cast their ballots, Congress has selected the First Monday after the Second Wednesday of December. That is the reason why they were not permitted to continue their recount, the Court never mentioned who would become President.

In every instance Ms. Dowd not only ignores what the Supreme Court said and did but demonstrates she probably never actually read the transcript or the opinion.

Santorum’s victories in tonight’s primaries are blunted by the fact that he only one Mississippi by a few percentage points over Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. In Alabama he did slightly better but it is still far from a convincing victory. What makes things worse for Santorum is not that he can’t win by an overwhelming majority, it is that the front-runner Mitt Romney is finishing so close to him. In the primaries that Santorum has won both tonight and on Super Tuesday, he has failed to win a winner take all contest, which means that he has shared his victories with Newt and Mitt. By doing so, he has not seen his delegate count rise in any significant way to beat out Mitt Romney for the lead. Instead, Romney will finish tonight with close to or over 500 delegates.  If Rick Santorum hopes to catch Romney he needs to find a way to defeat him in contests where Romney won’t share in the spoils.

However, the truth is Rick Santorum will continue with results like tonight’s until Newt Gingrich exits stage right from the campaign trail. Gingrich’s second place finishes in tonight’s contest have done far more to blunt Santorum’s victories than the fact that Romney finished relatively close to him. Santorum will continue to struggle to put any kind of dent in Romney’s lead as long as Newt Gingrich is able to steal away his votes. And while tonight was supposed to be Newt’s, the losses only go to show that Newt has become a spoiler and not a viable candidate for the Republican nomination.

What is worse is that Santorum’s victories in Mississippi and Alabama may mean nothing after results from the Hawaii and America Samoa caucuses come in. It has been in the South Pacific where Mitt Romney has done his best in recent contests with victories in America’s territories over the weekend. And while neither Hawaii nor America Samoa have large delegate counts, mixed with his share of the spoils from tonight’s mainland primaries, Romney could walk away with more delegates than Santorum after Tuesday’s contests.

This nomination may very well end in a brokered convention for the Republican party. But one thing is clear, until Santorum can win in a winner take all contest or Newt Gingrich ends his campaign, Mitt Romney will continue rack up the delegates he needs to reach the magical number or at least finish far enough in the lead to put a brokered convention in the bag.

While you’re enjoying your President’s Day, try reading one of these books:

Star-Spangled Men: America’s Ten Worst Presidents

The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game

And if you think our Presidential politics are nasty, try thinking about the election of 1800:

Why exactly should Republicans get behind Mitt Romney for the Presidency of the United States? Consider these four reasons for a minute…

Executive:

Mitt Romney is the only member of the Republican party currently running for the nomination as the Republican Presidential nominee with executive experience. Newt, Rick and Ron are all career legislators and as we have experienced over the last 3 years, legislators make for very poor Presidents. In fact, it is generally a good policy never to support someone who has never been a governor or served in some other executive level position in government. Mitt Romney’s record as the governor of Massachusetts may not be the most ideal but he is still more qualified to serve as President of the United States than the other three.

Electability:

Mitt Romney is electable. As the moderate candidate he is able to reach across party lines and won’t alienate the all too important independent crowd. It is important that the Republicans choose someone who can actually win. Ron Paul is probably the least likely to be elected simply because he is a polarizing character. Newt represents the establishment and has way too many skeletons in his closet to be a viable candidate against President Obama. That reminds me, people complain how much Romney and Obama appear to be the same person, but as long as Romney doesn’t govern like Obama it could b a good thing. Romney has to be able to make those who voted for Obama vote for him, as would any Republican candidate. They have to present an alternative view than what Obama will attempt to show during the General Election season.

Economics:

The General Election in November is most undoubtedly be about economics. Of the Republican candidates the one person who I trust when it comes to business and the economy is Mitt. If this election were about social issues or foreign affairs, then I would say let’s choose someone else. But unless something changes between now and the General Election, voters are going to the ballot box with the economy on their mind. Will Mitt Romney single-handedly change the economy? No, but as a business leader he knows what it will take to help rebound our economy.

Politics:

The one thing I hate when talking about Presidential politics is politics. The President of the United States should not be a political figure in the sense of having an agenda. Since day one President Obama has made his administration about his agenda. The President’s job is to enforce the bills passed by Congress and signed into law. His job is not to create legislation, that job function is for Congress. Therefore, the President’s own personal feelings are less important because he should be an impartial enforcer. Sure, the President has to sign bills into law and he should do so based on the constitutionality of the laws first and the appropriateness of the laws second. He should never hold it over the heads of Congressmen to pass a law he wants passed in order to get anything else done. If anything, the President should listen most of all to the will of the people. It is unfortunate that our view of the Presidency is that they are the representative of the people, because the President was always meant to be separated from the people. The only way the President can effectively do his job is if he is divorced from the passions of the people.

“The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body.”- John Adams

“One day humanity will play with law just as children play with disused objects, not in order to restore them to their canonical use but to free them from it for good.” State of Exception Giorgio Agamben

“A government of laws, and not of men.”- John Adams

“In politics the middle way is none at all. “- John Adams

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”-Publius Federalist Papers #51

“Beware of white knight’s people, they don’t slay dragons they train them to serve their own dark purposes.”-Smallville

“Let nobody think otherwise, the vices of our bad lives have alone conquered us”-Salvian

The way we preserve our food is in large part the reason for such a longer living. We no longer eat food that rots in a matter of days. People today can go to the grocery store once every two weeks rather than going daily as they did less than a century ago. Those preservatives have made it so our food lasts longer. Yet people are fitting the preservation of our food in hopes of returning to a period when food would last for less than a week. They’ll make the argument that the preservatives in our food are causing dangerous diseases. But is that true? Are diseases like cancer more common today than any other period in history? We may never know because we have a superior medical system than they had even 40 years go. We can tell that someone has cancer earlier than if that individual lived a half a century ago. Our food has nothing to do with the increase in diagnosis of diseases. Our food has helped create a healthier, longer lifestyle in humans than we have ever experienced in history.

Are certain preservatives dangerous? Yes, if they are consumed in large quantities over a long period of time. But then again, every thing we eat or drink can cause us harm whether it has preservatives or not. The real trick to a healthier lifestyle is watching what we eat, not eating those things that have always caused harm to humanity. We are a fatter nation not because of the way our food is produced, but by the fact that most Americans have a job that requires little or not physical activity over the course of the work week. When we get home from work we just sit in front of the TV. We cannot, and should not, believe in the hype by those who only want natural foods or who profess belief in the Vegetarian or Vegan lifestyles. If you want to see the benefit of natural foods, go to Africa and see all the diseases that are caused by natural foods. If you want to see the benefits of a meatless diet, see the studies that show people who only eat plants are receiving less of what they need nutrition wise than they belief.

That isn’t to say that natural foods are bad for us, but we must remember that eating foods that are only produce through “natural” methods can still be dangerous.  Natural foods can be good if we enforce strict regulations against the way natural foods are produced. If you buy a steak that is produced naturally, it will inevitably spoil faster than the preservative based steak. It could also mean that the cow that was raised in a all natural way was exposed to worst natural-based diseases that can be passed on to humans.

It also isn’t to say that all Vegetarians or Vegans are unhealthy. Those that go out of their way to make sure that they take supplements can in fact have a very healthy lifestyle- but our species was never meant to simply survive on plants.

Finally, some food for thought. Why is it that those who support a “healthier” lifestyle, those that believe that animals shouldn’t be genetically modified to make them healthier to eat, are supports for genetically modifying humans?

This series finale of Chuck was last Friday, January 27th, and I couldn’t help but come to the realization just how much Chuck has in common with Homer’s epic poem Odyssey. Written nearly 5,000 years ago, Odyssey was the first comedic work. Odyssey encompasses all the elements of what the Greeks considered a comedy: a fallen hero who rises up to obtain the beautiful woman. Chuck also contains all the elements of a traditional Greek comedy: Chuck is a fallen hero who, despite his foibles, rises up to obtain the beautiful woman.

The similarities don’t stop there as both Chuck and Odysseus (the hero of Odyssey) both are forced to undergo numerous trials and tribulations before they are able to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Like Odysseus, Chuck encounters various obstacles in the way of women (Lou, Jill and Hannah) as well as a number of would be suitors for Sarah like Bryce and Shaw. The Odyssey comes to an end for Chuck when he and Sarah defeat Shaw at the end of Season 3.

However, they are thwarted from living their lives together as a result of their chosen careers (spies.) One might even assume that Odysseus and Penelope are thwarted by their attempts at normalcy by the fact that Odysseus is the King.

While it is a loose connection between the two, I think the creators of the show (Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak) were on the right path when they wrote this show. Homer’s Odyssey is an important piece of literature that is timeless and deserves the homage that writers pay when they base their stories on Homer’s.

Cover via Amazon

We Two: Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, RivalsBy Gillian Gill

I recently finished reading the biography of the Royal couple who helped shape the 19th century in their own image: Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. This biography by Gillian Gill is a decent book but overall is lacking. The book, divided into two parts, covers the lives of Victoria and Albert during their youths and then their epic marriage. However, this book is often times lacking the historical feel that one would expect out of a biography. Dr. Gill is not a trained historian as the “about the author” page tells us that she holds a PhD in French Literature from Cambridge. Her training in language is clear as Dr. Gill often uses words that prove her high education; one needs both the Oxford English Dictionary and a dictionary for just about every other language both modern and dead! Overall Dr. Gill presents a chronicle of the lives of England‘s most memorable monarch and consort. She begins each chapter with a general outline and then goes back to fill in the blanks; don’t be surprised if you need a note pad next to you just to keep track of all the names she throws out. Finally, this biography comes off more as a biography of Prince Albert than of Queen Victoria. At best this book makes clear that Victoria was never herself; her being was constantly governed by the men around her whether it was John Conroy, Lord Melbourne, Prince Albert or John Brown. The book spends too much time thinking itself a feminist by admonishing Queen Victoria and Prince Albert for their backwards thinking and then praising Prince Albert and condemning Queen Victoria for the way they lived their lives.

I am a strong advocate for the general public learning more about Queen Victoria, but this book is among the least that I would recommend. Should you choose to start learning about this woman, I encourage that you begin by reading:Queen Victoria (British History in Perspective)by Walter Arnstein.

Related articles

• Queen Victoria (federalistpublicola.com)
• Lost letter reveals Queen Victoria’s pain after death of Prince Albert (telegraph.co.uk)
• Christmas books! (threebookishgirls.wordpress.com)
• ‘Victoria & Albert: A Love Story’ Hosted by Prince Michael of Kent (royalcorrespondent.com)

The Protestant Reformation had already hit England in many ways before Henry VIII formally separated from Rome. The Scottish were exposed to the Calvinist brand of Protestantism and formed the Presbyterian Church. Their beliefs and ideology spread down into mainland England in the aftermath of the English Reformation. There were pockets in England who believed that the King had not gone far enough in reforming the Church of England. Among those who believed this were a group that I will generally call English Calvinists. This group was made up of the Puritans and the Pilgrims; religious cousins if you will. Both groups subscribed to Calvin’s particular brand of Christianity and believed that the Church of England needed to be purified. The distinguishing difference between the two was what this purification meant. The Pilgrims quickly became a more radical brand of English Calvinism going so far as to flee England for the Netherlands.

The Pilgrims believed that the Church of England was beyond salvation and utterly corrupt. As an extension, because the King of England was also now the head of the Church of England the state itself was corrupt. The Puritans on the other hand held out faith that King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and King James would all do their part to purify the Church more and more, eventually riding it of the Catholic influences. Puritans became integral members of their respective towns, including becoming political leaders. Puritans would even infiltrate the King’s own privy council with men like John Locke. And while members of the Puritan church did eventually leave England for the New World, their actions once they arrived separate them from the Pilgrims.

The Pilgrims received a charter to establish a colony in Northern Virginia along the Hudson Bay and immediately set sail for the New World along with others who they called “Strangers” on board the Mayflower. When they arrived the men on board decided to write a compact for the governance of their new colony. This compact was the first such document written by the people in the new world and while it was not a constitution, it was very much a proto-constitution. It also is significant because it did not come from the King nor Parliament and the men who wrote it did not have legal authority to do so. However, the Pilgrims had taken it upon themselves to govern their colony as they saw fit rather than depending upon the corrupt government in London to do so.

Unlike the Pilgrims, the Puritans did not write their own compact when they arrived in the New World in the 1630′s. Instead they had their own charter. And while they did have a government, it was not in the same manner we would recognize as in New Plymouth. Eventually such compacts would be written by Puritans in Connecticut, though. In all the Puritans were seeking religious separation but not necessarily legal or political separation from the state. Their charter was revoked in the 1690′s and the New Plymouth colony and the  Massachusetts Bay colony were merged.

Only some parts of this book are reviewed.

Most school children in America are taught the story of the Pilgrim voyage to the New World and their subsequent Thanksgiving with the local Natives. The name Squanto resonates in the minds of Americans and those who pay a bit more attention to history know the name belongs to a Native American who helped save the New Plymouth colonists from starvation. None of this is found in Nick Bunker’s book Making Haste from  Babylon.Without actually telling his reader what happened when the Pilgrims reached Cap Cod, he instead describes what William Bradford must have meant in his book on the history of New Plymouth. This history, published in 2010, of the New Plymouth Colony is more concerned with the landscape and seas than with the actual events. The book is divided into six parts with three chapters in each.

The first part tells the tale of how the Pilgrims came to the Mayflower and then adds in stories of other ships and the landscape that the Pilgrims and there ship must have seen. Only brief mention is made of the reasons the Pilgrims are uninterested in staying in England, despite the fact each of them are English subjects. He conflates the Pilgrims with their future northern neighbors, the Puritans. In all, the reader finds the discussion more interested in describing the history of the Mayflower and it’s skipper prior to taking the Pilgrims to America. This part is largely insignificant with exception of it’s description of why the English government chose to allow the Pilgrims to migrate. But as we’ll see, the book only picks up in part two; part 1 could almost be renamed “Prologue 2.”

In the second part of the book, Bunker decides to leave us at the banks of Cap Cod and tell another tale some 40 years prior to the voyage in 1620. The story of the origins of Separatism is actually quite interesting and tells the story of John Browne, but also the other influential leaders and families of Separatism. Many readers will be interested in finding that Sir Francis Bacon’s brother was actually involved in the formation of the Pilgrim faith. Chapter 5 is very useful for students of Puritanism and Separatism. Bunk helps to shed light on the origins of both faiths and who were the most influential thinkers associated with the movements.

This historian, if we can call him that, gets side tracked too often and ends up burying the actual point of his chapter, part or even book. Making Haste from  Babylon is an excellent read for those who are interested in the deeper historical aspects of the Pilgrim voyage. However, for those who are only interested in learning about the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, Cap Cod and New Plymouth this book is absolutely useless and a waste of money.

The book does have some very useful information in it and Bunker does a decent job at analyzing the history of New Plymouth. While at times the book drags on about the landscape of England or New Plymouth, it does provide the reader with an indepth analysis of the events leading up to the colony. However, as was said above if you are not familiar with the basic storyline this isn’t worth the purchase.