Talking Turkey: The Truth About Ben Franklin and the National Seal

Coming closer to the big turkey day, a common misconception is that the turkey could have been our national bird instead of the bald eagle. Some people believe that Benjamin Franklin himself argued to make the turkey our national bird. This is simply not true.

After the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin was one of several people tasked with coming up for an idea for the seal of the United States of America. A few ideas floated around, just not the idea of using a turkey.

It is true that Franklin talked about a turkey, but this was in a letter that he wrote to his daughter, Sarah. He praised the turkey, calling it "a much more respectable bird" and "a true original native of America." In contrast, he called the bald eagle "a bird of bad moral character" and "too lazy to fish for himself" because it tends to steal fish from hawks.

The revelation of the existence of this letter later hit newspapers a century later, long after Franklin and his daughter had passed. Franklin's disdain for the bald eagle being on the seal was never publicly revealed until then, as was his respect for the turkey.

Over the years, just as the subject can change when people play the "telephone game," the story of Franklin and the turkey developed into the false notion that he wanted gobblers to be the national bird.

He did not.

The turkey was never considered to be the national bird, thus never putting the status of a turkey in jeopardy from not being the main course for a Thanksgiving dinner.

Turkey and avocado sandwiches...safe.

Those large drumsticks that you enjoy at county fairs...safe.

Your ability to stay awake after a big Thanksgiving dinner...well, that's still in jeopardy because of the tryptophan.

Take a Moment on Memorial Day

Photo of Arlington National Cemetery posted on Wikipedia and taken by J.D. Leipold 

With Memorial Day around the corner it's time to take at least a moment in between your barbeques, furniture shopping, or getaways to the beach and give thanks for those who died in battle on behalf of America. Soldiers have given so much to the country that they should be recognized for what they do especially when it costs them their very lives. This is why it's the duty of our politicians to be cautious.

Cautious?

Yes, cautious. With wars going on around the world and 24/7 news coverage, it's easy for our own politicians to feel the need to intervene. Whether it's for personal gain coming for lobbyists or for genuine sympathy toward those who are going through tough times across the world, sending American soldiers should be the last resort option.

Young men and women usually just out of high school or college volunteer to protect their country. If the United States is under attack on our home soil then there shouldn't be a second thought about deploying our soldiers. If it is to intervene with another country and their war torn situation, sending out troops should be handled with care.

Have an exit strategy. Don't jump in every war possible. Make sure that at least one of the sides wants us there in the first place.

It's hard enough entering another country under a less than ideal situation, but when it's in a no win situation for anyone including our own soldiers then they're putting their own lives on the line for no reason.

Now there have been justifiable situations to intervene oversees in the past. Obviously World War II to stop Hitler was a good reason to get involved in Europe; going to war with Japan was a no-brainer since they attacked Pearl Harbor.

The problem is nowadays we get 24/7 news coverage of any remotely negative situation in the world and there is always a politician that wants to get involved. If it is to help the people who are under attack then the urge to help is honorable, but shouldn't be considered automatic. The United States military is not the police force of the world. Sending our own troops to intervene without being able to permanently fix the situation, or worse leaving the country in poorer condition than when we enter means we shouldn't get involved. Especially when the problem is localized.

Some may see this as cold-blooded, but if our soldiers volunteer to put their lives on the line for our country then our politicians have the responsibility to only put their lives in harm's way in extreme cases. Not for the hell of it and not for the profit of a weapons manufacture.

So enjoy your Memorial Day Weekend. Just take that moment whether it's internally or publicly to give those who have died in battle thanks.

Superdelegates Carry too Much Power

Photo from Bernie Sanders' Facebook page

Now that it's primary season, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders intensifies. Clinton was supposed to be the lockdown favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination, but thanks to social media and a message that reaches the first class, Sanders has become a serious contender to Clinton. This isn't too dissimilar to President Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 when he defeated Clinton through social media and his grassroots campaign. The problem for Sanders in 2016 is the superdelegates.

For those of you who don't know what a superdelegate is, they are a party leaders and distinguished elected officials that can choose whomever they want to endorse instead of being beholden to the voters' wishes of their state.

The problem with this is that their single vote could be equal to thousands of regular citizens' votes. This is unfair. In America, every vote should be counted as equal. The superdelegates have enough power to swing a primary election in the favor of a candidate that the general public did not choose to represent them.

Sanders has this problem currently. Already fighting an uphill battle with the media that gives him little airtime despite selling out rally venues up to the size of Madison Square Garden, Clinton has been presumed the party nominee from day one by the media, disrespecting the Senator from Vermont. Sanders has reached more people through social media than any other candidate for either party yet he is presumed to be a fringe candidate.

If you look at the delegate count as of March 4, Clinton has a modest lead with a count of 601 delegates compared to Sanders' 409. With the early southern states that have already held their primaries, this is not a surprise since Clinton polled better in the south. Sanders on the other hand polls better in western and northern states and if you look at the difference of the regular delegates, Sanders would be far from being knocked out of the race and would carry a certain momentum with him as states such as California and Oregon would hold their primaries in the future.

The monkey wrench is that Clinton dominates with the superdelegates. Instead of being a close race, when the superdelegates are factored in, Clinton is winning 1,058 to Sanders' 431. When future voters who have yet to participate in a primary look at this, it would appear that Clinton is destroying Sanders. This is only because she has 457 superdelegates compared to Sanders' 22. The 457 superdelegates she has have more power than the thousands of regular, everyday people that have voted for Sanders already. This is by far unfair.

On CNN, Jake Tapper asked the Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

This sounds awfully bad. So campaigns that gain their power from the everyday person instead of those already in power are considered to be not as important in Schultz's eyes. Power remains in power. The will of the people is thwarted by those already in power. Maybe she feels this way since she was in charge of Clinton's first campaign for President in 2008 which fell to the grass-roots campaign run by Barack Obama.

With the appearance that Clinton is destroying Sanders this badly so far, many undecided voters find themselves swayed to vote for Clinton because she is winning instead of voting for who they think is really the best candidate.

Because of the existence of superdelegates, Sanders could beat Clinton by 711 delegate votes, effectively winning the majority of the United States by far and still lose the Democratic nomination if all 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. Once again, extremely unfair and against the will of the regular everyday Democratic voter.

Neither party should have superdelegates. It's not fair to those who are not considered the front runner for their party's nomination at the beginning of the primary process. Sanders has proven that instead of being a fringe candidate, he is a real threat to win the majority of the regular everyday person's votes, but without the support of the superdelegates, it wouldn't matter.

Power keeps power.

Powerball Lottery Grows Higher

With no winners in the latest Powerball lottery, the newest jackpot will grow to $1.3 billion which is the highest lottery jackpot in United States history. On Wednesday, someone could potentially be able to afford the Playboy Mansion that was just put on sale for $200 million and still have a ton of leftover money.

With the millions of tickets purchased when it was just over $900 million, it is amazing to think that there was not a single winner among the millions of tickets. Yet here we are. Lottery drawing after drawing has left us with no new millionaires. Hope keeps growing and thousands of people out there are determined that they will be the next jackpot winner, that it is their destiny.

And why not? In a poll taken by Bankrate.com, over 54 percent of Americans under 29 believe that they will be rich within their lifetime and that one-third of all Americans think it will be "very likely" that they will be rich at some point in their life.

Some believe that this will come off of something they do in their work lives that will lead to this, but depending on what you do it is highly unlikely to earn that much money. Some believe that it could be from investing money, which is a higher probability, but many times this could be dumb luck that contributes to this (i.e. Forest Gump investing in a "fruit company" that turned out to be Apple). Some people are just fortunate enough by birth to be born into a rich family and have a large inheritance waiting for them.

For most of us, the lottery is the only real prospect of possibly becoming rich, but many people who play think they will eventually win. This can't be obviously, but people still try. This obsession fuels the sales of more tickets especially when the jackpot grows over time. People at home already debate what they will buy with the money with vacations, homes, and cars topping the list.

With that said, is it okay to be cynical and not play at all? It's okay not to play of course, but be resigned with the fact that if you don't play, you can't win. On the flipside, it wouldn't be advisable to spend a paycheck on lottery tickets, trying to up your odds of winning. You most likely won't and the money could be used to something more useful such as bills.

Buying a few tickets on occasion doesn't hurt and someone has to win even when the odds are stacked against them.