Does AI have a Since of Conscious?

 

Most of us are familiar with 2001, a Space Odessey, but we may not realize how many other films have also involved Androids who became a character in the film.  Those movies are fiction, but as AI computer systems show the ability to perform processes associated with the human mind, some people are asking whether we may be risking too much if we are not careful.

Consider the things we know that AI can do.  They have been programmed to drive cars.  They can recognize faces.  They can compose music, and those are the least of things.   Are we creating something that may be able to act on its own to become human like.  Experts disagree.

One theory argues that because consciousness is grounded in biology and synthetic systems are not composed in that manner, they cannot have the ability to experience consciousness.  In disagreement, another argues that biological brains are not necessary for consciousness.  A third argument is that since we don't know what makes us conscious, how can we know what AI needs to achieve consciousness.  

Since even some of the most intelligent people in the world either cannot reach a conclusion or cannot agree about these issues, I am very far out of my league.  However, I can share some of my research.

Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, who studies "existential risk" believes that artificial intelligence might be the most apocalyptic technology of all, with intellectual powers beyond human comprehension.  We humans could be enslaved or destroyed, if they wished.  Yet, he believes we could enslave them.

Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, has long believed that AI will bring about a technological revolution after which human existence will be so transformed as to be unrecognizable.  Instead of viewing that as frightening, he believes AI is a panacea for human problems.

In 1957 future Nobel laureate Herbert A. Somun declared that the age of intelligent machines had already dawned.  He collaborated with RAND researcher Allen Newell, and although their efforts may seem silly today, they were pioneers.  Their failure resulted in eliminating the continuation of going down the wrong path.  Those that followed learned a great deal about what did not work.

Elon Musk described A-1 enhanced technologies as "summoning the demon," and technologies may still be extremely dangerous, primarily because it has the potential for amplifying human stupidity.  As Edward Moore Geist concluded in his 2015 article, from which I have shared some of the forgoing information, "Nor does artificial intelligence need to be smarter than humans to threaten our survival--all it needs to do is make the technologies behind familiar 20th-century existential threats faster, cheaper, and more deadly."

How many of us pause to reflect on what is happening, and even if we do, what can or should be done about it?  For our entire lives we have lived with change, with little pausing to question their use.  We have accepted the loss of privacy in exchange for conveniences that came with it.  Today, who is the watchdog?

    

     

Is AI taking Over?

 A few years ago, I blogged about AI.  I was concerned about kids using it to cheat on assigned compositions.  I bemoaned the impact of artists being displaced by AI created images. I resented the work of authors being downloaded to educate AI how to write, essentially stealing our work without compensation.  Was I ever naive!  Today, objecting to AI is like the old story of Pandora already being out of the box!

I am not unaware of the potential AI represents, but I am concerned that the positive potential was recognized and rushed to go forward, without understanding the full impact.  Clearly, positive possibilities are still being discovered, with others already at work.  What concerns me is whether AI has a conscience.  

I cannot explain how all of that works, but as I understand it, the intelligence of humans, discovered and developed over more generations than I can imagine, is fed into the massive storage of AI.  What once took researchers hours or months or years to discover or create can now be accessed from an AI search with significate speed. The wisdom of generations has been downloaded.

Obviously, the benefits of that are enormous.  However, the ethical impact was not carefully examined before the ability to create this monster of human intelligence was set free.  When you think about what it can do, it is difficult to decide where to start in controlling the potential power.

Once I was concerned about taking human work without compensation.  That remains an issue, but now I realize that far more concerns exist.  The more responsibilities that are transferred to AI, the more important issues arise.  To list a few, should AI be responsible for values like fairness, accountability, safety and other human values.   Before 'turning AI loose' should we have built in concepts of ethical guidelines, risk management, bias, unintended consequences, and accountability. 

The implementation of AI is not just an American decision.  Other nations are involved, and developing common rules and standards requires international cooperation.  The rapid pace of AI development has outrun the speed of regulation, and defining and standardizing AI across the world somehow requires coming together to establish not only ethical principles but also safety and regulatory agreements.  Assuming that is accomplished, who becomes the watchdog and the authority to hold offenders to account?

Assuming that is settled, have we really taken into account whether humans might have created artificial intelligence with consciousness.  Some would suggest that we don't even fully understand how our own intelligence works, and lacking that knowledge, how can we control AI?  We have already gone past the point of pausing to figure out the ramifications of AI before implementing it, already benefitting from positive uses.  

There are, however, those who wonder if we have ventured into the world of the 1968 "2001: A Space Odyssey."  I will pause for now, but there are already those who are looking ahead to see whether we are moving too fast. 

 

Don't Forget the Ladies

What really matters!

 

 

I have written often about Presidents, but far less often about the Presidents' wives.  Many things impact the influence of the stability of the nation.  This blog considers the important of presidential wives.  Only one U.S. President was unmarried throughout his life.  Six presidents were unmarried when they took office.  Cleveland married while in office.  Four were widowers when they took office and never married again.  Three lost their wives while in office.  However, in recent years our presidents have had wives beside them as they campaigned and served.  Do First Ladies matter?  If the issues predicted by Ulysses S. Grant in the comment above are significent, do such things apply to First Ladies?,  

   The role of the President's wife is undefined, but First Ladies have gradually carved out roles.  In addition to social duties in the White House and representing the nation when they travel, many of the modern wives have chosen causes they wish to support. 

The absence of a title for the President's wife was left to Washington, and he chose Lady Washington.  Early presidents followed his example.  Today, presidential wives are called First Ladies.  Our modern First Ladies are seen as partners to the president.  Some are outgoing and involved in their husband's activities, including campaigning, and participating in their husbands' policy advocacy.  Others have social causes of their own.

Some are close political confidantes of their husband, even crafting political speeches.  It is common today for first ladies to campaign for their husbands.  Most modern First Ladies have specific causes of their own, speaking out to bring attention to the causes they support.  Eleanor Roosevelt set an example for First Ladies, and most since have continued to follow her example, although with less involvement by most.  Eleanor was not afraid to get out of the White House and advocate for her causes, and because her husband had been crippled by polio, her willingness to travel in his place was important. In surveys, Eleanor's popularity continues to the present time, generally at the top.  

Early wives of the past are often unknown to modern women taking polls; however, Abigale Adams is an exception.  The letters between the second president and his wife, have survived, and his respect for her opinions are apparent, including her ability to manage their farm while he was away.  She is perhaps best remembered for her quote, reminding her husband "to remember the Ladies."   

The grace of Jacqueline Kennedy following her husband's assassination keeps respect for her alive.    Michelle Obama often ranks highest among modern First Ladies. 

One survey divided responses into 10 categories:  Background, Value to the Country, Steward, Courage, Accomplishment, Integrity, Leadership, Being Her Own Woman, Image, and Value to the President.  Mrs. Roosevelt topped that list, followed by Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Lady Bird Johnson.    

Perhaps in the early years of our nation, far less was expected of the President's wives.  Yet, I was surprised that many surveys ranked wives of early presidents quite high.  I could not help wondering how those responding even knew the early wives.

Today, most Presidential candidates utilize their wives and children in the campaigns.  Do citizens like that, or would they prefer the old-fashioned campaigns when wives and children were left at home...or seated in the back!  

The only conclusion I could make from my research was that people do pay attention to the wives of the presidential candidates. Whether publicly using the candidate's family or leaving them at home and out of the picture is better I do not know.  Personally, I think meeting the candidates family is relevant--especially since their wives may host important visitors.     

     

 

What is morality?

Do we face a setting sun?

In a recent editorial in The Atlantic, David Brooks wrote "Today we live in a world in which many, if not most, people no longer have a sense that there is a permanent moral order to the universe."  He added, , "Individuals get to make lots of choices, but they lack the coherent moral criteria required to make those choices well."

That quote sent me in search of a definition of morality, and perhaps I should not have been surprised to find many definitions from which to choose.  In today's world, different definitions might have been expected.  I selected two examples from the possible choices, but you can find many others.  The first definition of morality: " A code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be endorsed by all rational people."  And second, "A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specific person."  Both of these definitions define certain limitations or conditions.  As Brooks suggested, finding complete agreement about much of anything is difficult.  

Even such a generally agreed belief--Thou Shalt Not Kill--has exceptions, including killing in self-defense, killing in war, killing in defense of others, and choosing who to abandon when only on can be saved. 

The obvious importance of America's Freedoms is the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, yet our freedoms have limitations.  The often-quoted example of those limits is the restriction that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because others might be injured trying to escape from the imaginary danger.  That classic example is obvious, but the restrictions on Untruths verses Opinions is far more challenging to tie down. 

Consider these examples of differences of opinions that involve types of morality.  

Should those who did not want to be vaccinated or wear a mask during covid have been forced to do so?  If they knowingly infected others, should they be responsible for the medical expenses or punishable for knowingly infecting others?  Must children be vaccinated if their parents' faith opposes it?  Is trans-gender eligible to be recognized for all reasons?  Should capital punishment be practiced.  Should cloning be practiced on humans or animals.  Should animals suffer and/or die in experiments to aid humans.  Should there be a death penalty?  Should polygamy be sanctioned?  Should Doctor Assisted Death be allowed in all states, with proper counseling and circumstances?  Should a woman be responsible for her own body?  Should wearing animal fur be prohibited?  

This blog was not written to provide answers but rather to encourage reflection on how to preserve a sense of morality, not only our own but a respect for others.  We are a nation of many ethnicities, beliefs, traditions, and extreme differences of wealth.  Generations of Americans have treasured our system of government, and the responsibilities entrusted to us.  That freedom depends on our morality and a respect for the differences among others.  Yet, defining morality is difficult.     

This blog isn't about answers, but I believe reflection on the issues that we can see all around us is   important.  My personal reflection has reminded me that answers are complex, but that should not mean that today's world has become 'anything goes.'  Neither does it mean that only my way is correct.  Defining morality is complicated by the extreme differences and rapid changes between generations.  Yet, if we cannot bridge all of these differences, defining morality may become impossible, and without morality a nation based on freedom faces perhaps more challenges than in any other time of our American history.      

            

    

I like you!

 When I was young, our family tradition was for my father's family to gather at the farm.  My father had inherited the home where he and his siblings had been raised.  His brother's family lived only a few miles away, and one of his sisters lived about an hour's drive away.  However, the other two sisters lived in California and Texas.  The sister in California did not visit regularly, but the family from Texas came nearly every year.  

It was a dream come true for all the cousins.  Usually, they came after wheat harvest and planting, so my father was not so busy.  We kids roamed the farm unsupervised, climbing trees, creating hide-aways in the sandhill plum thickets. playing hide-and-seek, roaming, and making up our own games.  I thought cousins were the best!

Anne Frank's Journal

Not long after a family visit, my mother and I had gone to Hutchinson, a small city--at least it seemed a city to me.  Unlike my freedom to roam at the farm, I was told to stay near my mother.  Suddenly, I saw someone remarkable.  A black man, or perhaps a boy, was standing nearby.  I was delighted, and I called out to him, "I like you.  You are my cousin."  It was the best compliment that I knew.

He smiled back, but my mother was flustered.  I had no idea why, but she rushed me away from my new friend.  He smiled, and I smiled back as my mother pulled me away.  Many years later I still remember my confusion.  I didn't think I had done anything wrong, but I could see that my mother was upset.  Certainly, telling him that he was my cousin was the friendliest thing I knew to do.

Years later I had married, and my husband and I were in college.  Most of the students were like us, from farming communities or the small towns that serviced farming.  We both crammed our classes into the morning so that we could rush to our jobs, working until the stores closed.  A social life was slim. Among the classes I took was one that awakened me to different populations and the mistreatment of minorities.

Our trips home were limited, because of the class loads we took and the jobs we both had.  I was very close to my father, and he was interested in the classes I was taking.  I must have been especially excited about the social science class, and I was sharing what I had learned in that class.  As I expounded on the importance of fare treatment of others, my father agreed.  He began to describe a man he had worked with at the Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game, before returning to the farm.  All of his comments were positive, until he closed with what he thought was a compliment by saying "and he knew his place."  I immediately responded.  "And what place was that?"  My question confused him, for he had never considered what he had said as demeaning.

After graduation my husband was stationed in New England as a young lieutenant. I taught High School English, with the variety of students to be expected in a city.  Students, soldiers, others were black, white, and brown, as were my students, and it was all so different from my Kansas background that I simply accepted it as an introduction to America.  One of my student's parents had tattooed numbers on their arms, and I had to be told why.  I was embarrassed to have been so ignorant about WW II that my student had to explain to me why his parents were tattooed.  Our eyes were opened to the Melting Pot that America is, and we took it all in as a discovery of history and the uniqueness of our nation.    

A lot has changed for the little girl who saw the black young man as just someone new friend to meet.  As I reflect on my innocence, I cannot but ask myself if we have become too fearful of others who are different from us, missing the opportunity to meet a new "cousin", as I had done as a child.

I close with Anne Frank, who knew the horror of the war and the danger around her, but she wrote in her journal "in spite of everything I believe that people are really good at heart.  I hear the ever-approaching thunder which will destroy us too, and yet, if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again."  Of course, we know that what she had believed too horrible to happen lead to her death in a concentration camp. 

History warns us, yet we ignore the messages from the past and the dangers of the present.  I was right when I told the dark-skinned boy that he was my cousin.  He understood that it was my way of wanting to be friends.  The world needs to listen to the child who saw a brown skinned boy as her cousin.  We need to listen to the Jewish girl who believed that cruelty would end and peace and tranquility would return.  Our leaders need to listen to the innocence of children.    

 

   

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine

 It is important to remember that the American colonies began by fighting for rights, not separation from England.  When those efforts were exhausted, they fought for freedom; however, that transition was not easy.  Perhaps no one had greater influence in that transition than Thomas Paine.

He had recognized that it took more than the shouts of anger and hate to bring patriots together to create an independent nation.  Paine had helped inspire soldiers with his pamphlet, "The American Crisis."  In fact, in 1776, Washington had ordered his troops to read Paine's pamphlet before crossing the Delaware River to defeat the British army's best troops.  Washington understood the influence of Paine's writing.  He was not alone.  Among the leading patriots familiar with Paine were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and others.

 Paine understood that it was one thing to inspire troops but quite another thing to convince patriots to separate from England.  He carefully planned.  He chose language that common people would understand, in order to convince them that negotiating with an unwilling King had failed, that shouts of anger and hate would not succeed.  His responsibility was to make patriots see that the time had come to leave England and the King behind and become an independent nation, a democracy, with a written constitution that allowed trade with other nations, and to be able to live within their own laws.  

The significance of Paine's book," Common Sense", a pamphlet really, influenced the common people to whom he was writing, but also influential educated men.  It is believed that his carefully chosen words achieved more than any other single person in the determination to become independent.

If that is so, why do we not celebrate Thomas Paine Day, in the same way we celebrate other American heroes.  Why is he largely forgotten?  Some of the explanation rests upon himself.  When he disagreed with someone, he was outspoken about it, including a disagreement with his friend George Washington.

Another explanation concerns his faith.  He was a deist, believing in God as a creator, but disagreeing with how organized religions saw God.  There were other deists of prominence at that time.  However, Paine was outspoken about faiths that believed in miracles, supernatural healings, and other things he found irrational.  Clearly, he was an outspoken man, and as deism declined and other religions increased, Paine lost his earlier reputation.  

He died June 8, 1809, age 72, and was buried on his farm.  Four years later he was removed from the original grave, perhaps with a good intention to bury him in a different place.  However, whatever the reason, his bones were lost, and his final resting place is unknown.  

While there seems to be no monument in our Capitol, there are some memorials elsewhere. One is in downtown Manhattan, near City Hall, others in various places, including one in Paris.  Although not entirely forgotten, he has not received the recognition of other Founding Fathers.

     

  

Teddy Roosevelt's Unique Achievements

 I have mentioned Teddy Roosevelt in other blogs, but I want to share what a monumental influence he left, things we do not always think of when remembering presidents.  He is rather special to Kansans because of his friendship with W. A. White, including many visits to Red Rocks, the home of the well-known news man in Emporia.  

Roosevelt & Muir 

He was such an interesting person, starting from his childhood, when his intelligence and curiosity impressed adults.  He wanted to learn how things work, his collection of birds, some of which he learned how to preserve, being a particular advanced hobby.  His respect for nature continued into adulthood, and in the office of President, he applied his respect for nature in establishing approximately 230 million acres of public lands, including 55 federal bird reservations, 150 national forests, 5 national parks, and the first 18 national monuments.  His establishment of the Antiquities Act in 1906 was continued by Presidents that followed.  For me, this may be one of his greatest achievements, for without his interventions to protect these natural wonders they might have been destroyed.   

I have such respect for those who preserve irreplaceable things, leaving them for unborn people to experience.  That alone is reason to appreciate Roosevelt.  His passion for hunting and killing trophy animals seems rather contradictory, but at that time perhaps it seemed the natural reproduction of animals was capable of constant replenishment.  Generations have enjoyed them, and our responsibility is to protect them for future generations.

After holding many state and national offices, he was the Vice President...not entirely popular with Republican leaders.  The assassination of President McKinley left many powerful Republicans doubtful of Roosevelt's ability to maintain the alliance between business and government.  He tried to assure them by retaining McKinley's cabinet, but even that was not enough.  There was also the concern about the Populists, and his breaking of norms, such as inviting Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House, shocked many. 

Despite all of that, he moved forward, aware of the importance of the connection with business but willing to prosecute those that he thought to be "bad trusts."  He went after those Indian Agents who had been cheating Native American Tribes.  He worked with Democrats to correct unfair rates imposed on those shipping their products by rail.  He tried to correct the abuses of the food packing industry.  He condemned what he called "Predatory Wealth."  He was unlike any other president. 

Out of office, he became so displeased with the management in Washington that he ran for office again, and while campaigning a delusional man tried to kill him.  Showing the uniqueness of his character, he called out to the crowd and the police not to harm the man in making the arrest.

 He did not win his attempt to return to the presidency, but his voice was not silenced.  There is no question about the impact he made on the nation.  

The Importance of John Adams

  

A quote from John Adams:  Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  

 Our founding fathers understood that their actions, should England prevail, and the dreams of a free United States of America fail, they would be treated as traitors, subject to punishment and probably death.  Yet, they risked their lives to establish this nation.  They had definite concerns, particularly about how long such a nation could survive.  The concerns they expressed are worth considering, particularly in our current times.  

 Although John Adams served as Vice President for George Washington, our first President, for two terms, and was elected as president following Washington, he is less well known.  However, he played important roles in the drafting of our constitution and the various roles he played, both during the colonial years and in the early years of our independence.

He was born in 1735, the son of a farmer and shoemaker.  The family could be traced back to the first generation of Puritan settlers in New England.  He had two younger brothers, but being the oldest, his father wanted him to become a minister.  He attended Harvard, still uncertain about his future, teaching for a while before settling on the law.  Although he did not become a minister, as his father had hoped, he did marry a minister's daughter.  History indicates that she was a perfect match for him.

He was an important leader from and before the Battle of Bunker Hill, and that continued when he served as a delegate for Massachusetts at the Continental Congress.  He assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence.  He had been the primary author of the Massachusetts Constitution, and it became influential in the drafting of the United States Constitution.  He served as Vice President under George Washington for his two terms and was elected as President following Washington. 

The disagreement between Adams and his former close friend, Thomas Jefferson, is well known, and they did not speak for many years, but it was Adams who reached out to his old friend later in life, and their correspondence in the later years of their lives is a part of American history.

If I had to select one of the greatest achievements of Adams, besides selecting Abigail as his wife, it was probably selecting his Secretary of State to be the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  John Marshall shaped the court during his long service, and the respect for him among the other members of the Court established rules and practices that had not been particularly defined until Marshall took the bench.

Adams served only one term in the White House, but although he would probably have preferred to return home to be with Abigail, he continued to serve his country.  His peers did not always believe he was the right man for the jobs he was asked to do.  As Benjamin Franklin summarized, "He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, is absolutely out of his senses."

I believe that his warning to future Americans that our nation depends on our morality for it to survive is true.  We are a people of many religions, ethnicities, and nationalities, probably more that he may have imagined, but his warning that the survival of America depends on our morality rings true.

 

       

Sometimes a Maverick

 

The way we choose our Presidents is sometimes less than logical.  I recalled the day an intelligent, thoughtful young women made a comment to me about John McCain, who was running for president.    She said something like, "I just find the odd way he holds his hands and shoulders sort of creepy."  

She had no idea of the reason his hands and shoulders were held that way, but on that alone she had made a judgement about him.  In other words, it is unlikely that she would have voted for him because of the strange way he held his shoulders.

She did not know that McCain had been an American pilot.  His plane was shot down and both arms and a leg were fractured.  He parachuted into a lake and could have drown, but he was taken prisoner and was bound so tightly that it caused more harm to his shoulder.  He was beaten every 2 or 3 hours for 4 days by different guards, and his left arm was broken again and again, together with the repeated cracking of his ribs. 

After years of solitary confinement, he was offered release, as a moral trick by the enemy to make it seem that he had been given privileges, while those imprisoned longer were left behind.  He refused.

My point is that an educated young woman might have avoided voting for John McCain because she found the way he carried himself to be "creepy," unaware of his service to the nation or his character.   Sometimes all of us make our voting decisions carelessly.

Another example of McCain's character occurred during his run for the presidency in 2008.  A a political rally a woman called Obama, McCain's political rival, "an Arab."'  It was at the height of the time that Obama's birthplace and whether he was a native born American was being challenged.  McCain could have let the woman's words go, but instead he spoke up.  "No ma'ma, he's a citizen and a decent family man that I just happen to have disagreements on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about."  The crowd applauded him.  He did not win the election, but he gained the respect of many Americans.  It may also be true that it might have lost him some votes as well, but the point is that voters would know where he stood.  Just as he refused to be sent home early, he also refused to let lies against his opponent go uncorrected. 

He did not win the election, but he served his state as the six-term Senator of Arizona, and his final role is a further example of his determination to vote as he thought was right.  Health Care was a cause he championed, but he was displeased with what his party had put together.  From his perspective, so many things had been negotiated that the Republican proposal had been unacceptably weakened.

Although he had been diagnosed with brain cancer, he returned to Washington to cast his vote, which he concluded that his party had rendered unacceptable by all the concessions they had made with each other to weaken the original bill.  By joining two moderate Republicans, two independents, and every Democrat, he voted against his own party to defeat their proposal. Despite his very poor health, he forced Republicans and Democrats to find something better than the bill he voted against.  He didn't get all that he wanted, but he did stop something he opposed, and he did it according to the rules.    Sometimes a stubborn maverick is called for!   

The Way We Talk

Mark Twain was a master of words.

 Am I the only one who has noticed increasing vulgarity in everyday speech?   This blog looks at changes in what is acceptable in social speech and how it has changed over the years.   

It may surprise you that in the English language, very early curse words evolved from the Bible, because utilizing the Bible in expressing contempt was the worst means of hatefulness.  Also, a disgusting insult was calling someone the name of a different race or ethnicity.  

All of these vulgarities evolved over time, but it is thought that a great change occurred when in WW II when war correspondents were permitted to quote soldiers directly, bringing some 'colorful' language to civilian vocabularies.  Gradually, words that would probably never have been used by earlier generations embedded themselves in our vocabularies.

In recent decades, swearing has become more widely acceptable.  People swear in casual conversation to emphasize what they are saying, or to create humor.  It is also common to show agreement with others by repeating the swear word they had spoken to show their agreement.   

Years ago, the world was shocked when Vice President Cheney spoke directly to candidate Sen. Leahy, using a vulgar expression.  Cheney's words became the headline in many newspapers.  Although politicians had long used curses in private, in public they rarely did so.  There were examples of politicians being overheard using a curse word, or of being caught on a 'hot mike,' but in general politicians avoided cursing publicly.  However, times have changed, and some politicians, even those of high rank, curse openly.  

The way we talk has changed.  I doubt that we will ever go back to Victorian days during which women's speech was genteel, her words as tightly bound as her corset.  Men would never have intentionally sworn in the company of ladies.  

I confess that I do prefer that professionals maintain a certain public dignity and reserve their more colorful language for friends in private conversations.  Unfortunately, I fear that the less that people read, the worse their vocabularies shrink. The great speakers of the past may no longer exist in significant numbers.

Can the 1st Amendment be called upon for help?  Freedom of speech is a highly treasured right, and it seems unlikely that courts would become involved in the now ordinary vulgarity heard today. Most of us are familiar with the prohibition that you cannot stand up in a crowded theater and scream "Fire," putting people at risk of harm as a joke, because of the likelihood that people could be injured in their desperation to escape the theater.  However, common vulgarities are unlikely to receive the Court's attention, unless there is some risk of harm or exceptional circumstances.  

The position of the First Amendment emphasizes the importance of these freedoms:  religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the Government for redress of grievances should be a reminder of their importance.  However, their very placement should also be a reminder of the respect they are due.     

  

The Concerns of Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was only 14 when his father died, and he inherited the responsibility of the family estate.  In his youth he had studied Latin, French, and Greek, Math, and History.  He was well prepared for entering the College of William & Mary, where he studied law.  Later, he married a well to do widow, and fathered 6 children, only two of whom survived into adulthood.  His wife was frail, and soon after the death of her last child, she died.  There was help for raising his children, but only 2 of them reached adulthood.

What history knows best about Jefferson are his political roles.  He is largely credited with writing the Constitution, although John Adams played an important role in its drafting.  Nearly unknown today is that in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence there was a passage blaming the slave trade on George III.  That clause was quickly                                                                                     deleted.  

In 1782 Jefferson served as a delegate to the Continental Congress in Paris.  When he returned in 1789, he served as George Washington's Secretary of State, assisting with matters of foreign policy.  All of this had occurred before the serious rift between Jefferson and Adams. 

Politics were very ugly during this time.  Washington had warned against the trouble political parties could cause, and this period represented an example of just how ugly opposing parties could get.  Adams had served one term, and he planned to follow Washington's example by running for a second term.  Jefferson decided to run for the presidency, in opposition to his friend, and opposing parties became personal.  Adams was displaced, and Jefferson became President.  The false and hateful tactics during the political campaigns severed their friendship.  Jefferson served two terms as President, the Louisiana Purchase generally regarded as his greatest achievement.  

The ultimate part of his legend, however, may be the reconciliation of their friendship.  John Adams reached out first, and their back-and-forth correspondence continued for the remainder of their lives.  The letters of both men were preserved for history, a total of 158 letters between 1812 and 1826.  Their deaths could not have been written better as a Hollywood script.  The two friends died on the same day of the same year, slow correspondence of that era causing both of them to die without awareness of the death of their friend.  Even more remarkable was the fact that the day of their deaths was the 4th of July. 

The example of the political ugliness engineered by political parties between two men who had been friends is an example of what concerned President Washington.   Washington realized that political parties could do great harm if they cared more about their candidates winning than they cared about the things for which our constitution stood.  It remains a good example.      

Jefferson also had concern about threat to the system of government that our founding fathers devised, if the original purpose of the three branches ignored the original purpose.  During his two terms in office, he expressed his warning that "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show what road it will pass to destruction..."  His fear was that the loss of the original purpose of the three branches of government was being ignored.  He warned:  "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary.  That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and alarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the [state] governments into the jaws of that [federal government] which feeds them." 

And here we are...with similar problems existing today. 

The Guidance of Lincoln

 Over the years, I have had reasons to admire various Presidents, but Lincoln always impresses me.  What a challenge he faced.  But he never wavered about the Constitution.  His wisdom saved the Nation.  I turn to Lincoln in our troubled times, and I am sharing four of his quotes to guide us through our present challenges.  Lincoln's words are in dark print.

        Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution.  That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our nation. 

The simple fact that our nation has endured for generations, when other nations have failed, is evidence of the amazing wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who so wisely established the checks and balances of our Constitution.  Benjamin Franklin feared that it would be "well administered for a course of years"...(until) "people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being unable of any other."  Franklin was wrong.  The wisdom of the Founding Fathers has endured.  Our responsibility is to respect our Constitution and leave it alone. 

        The people - the people are the rightful masters of both congress and courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. 

America is in trouble when ordinary Americans forget that they have the responsibility to protect and preserve the Constitution in order to protect and preserve America.  Our ancestors protected it for us, and it is now our responsibility to protect and preserve it for future generations.  It is not for us to change the Constitution, but rather to vote wisely and judge carefully those we have entrusted to preserve the Constitution for the children living now, and generations that follow.

        Stand with anybody who stands right.  Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.

Sometimes we may feel helpless.  What difference does my single vote make?  We may or may not always believe we voted wisely, but our vote is not the only action we can take.  Write to the people you voted for to let them know you are grateful for their work, as well as writing to tell them when you are dissatisfied.   Attend town hall meetings.  Visit with friends.  Run for community and state offices.  Encourage the teaching of civics in your schools.  But, always protect the Constitution.  

      Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's Character, give him power.  

We learn from experience, and if we do not learn anything from disappointment, how are we going to avoid future disappointments.  If you are pleased with the person to whom you gave your vote, let him or her know, and if disappointed, let them know that as well.  Even if you did not vote for the person, you can still let him or her know how you feel.  Just as Lincoln said, the people are the rightful masters of both congress and courts, and those we elect need to be reminded that they serve the people...all the people.  But above all, they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and the oath they took did not include an oath to reshape it to their liking.      

  

 

        

A Reader's Comment

A reader responded with the following words:  The problem is that many school districts do not require a basic course in civics.  Back in Hays when I was growing up every student needed to take that course in 8th grade.  

It is what got me interested in political science which led me to major at FHSU and to get my master's and then later my Ph.D. at Missouri.  It shaped my whole career in both public and academic realms.  

Obviously not everyone needs to do that but if you do not have the basic understanding of checks and balances, separation of powers, the Constitution and the kinds of democracies that exist you are not doing your job as a citizen.  

Democracy only works if you have an "informed" citizenry.  If you do not then you are on a slippery slope.  We have been on that slope for a long time and now those running the executive branch clearly do not have that basic understanding. 

Comment by B.J. Reed, Sr. Vice Chancellor (retired), University of Nebraska at Omaha authorized for publication in response to "Understanding Our Government."

Understanding our Government

 

A few weeks ago, I posted a diagram of how our government works.  You may want to return to that blog to review the diagram; however, I hope you enjoy this additional explanation of our system.

First of all, I want to explain something that may be confusing.  The provosion of checks and balances has three separate but equal branches of the Government--the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.  However, within the first branch there are two different houses--the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  Together, they are spoken of as the legislative branch, but they operate separately. 

  The Legislative Branch.  The House of Representatives, known as the Lower House, is so important because it makes and passes Federal Laws, including the power to initiate all revenue bills.  It also is entrusted to initiate the impeachment of the President.   The United States Senate is referred to as the Upper House.  In a way, they are the watchdogs on the House and the President.  They have the power to pass or defeat federal legislation, to approve or reject treaties, and to revoke or approve the impeachment of the President. They also have the power to vote up or down the president's choices for his Cabinet.  This check & balance on the President's choices is not intended necessarily to be a party vote but rather an evaluation of the qualities of the persons selected for the job,  

The Executive Branch.  Now to the Executive Branch, headed by the President of the United States.  The President is charged with implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress.  He is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he selects the members of his cabinet, subject to the approval by the Senate.  

The Judicial Branch.  The third branch, part of the effort of the founding fathers to create a balance of power from becoming too strong for any one branch, is the legal branch.  Article III of the Constitution invests the judicial power of the United States in the federal court system, but Article III gives Congress the power to establish inferior courts, the authority to create the lower federal courts, and the ability to decide how to organize it, which has included over the years altering the number of Associate Justices.     

The genius of the Founding Fathers was to create a system of checks and balances.   Each branch has its own authority but is subject to the check of another part of the system.  These checks and balances keep any one part of the system from assuming full control.  Our system fails if the checks and balances are ignored.    If any branch attempts to dominate another branch by intruding into its authority. our system is threatened.  If we as citizens do not understand the importance of the Three Branch system or intentionally facilitates wrongful use, we threaten our democracy.  

Unfortunately, most of us do not fully understand exactly how this works.  I don't recall a civics class in school, although some schools have included civics' classes.  The Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey found that less than half could name all three branches of government. When asked to name the protections in the First Amendment, Freedom of speech was cited by only 62%, Religion by 24%, Freedom of the Press by 20%, Right of Assembly by 16%, and the right to petition the government only 6%.  All of these were down from previous survives. 

If we are to protect and preserve our precious Constitution, we must know how it works.  The survey quoted above suggests that too many of us have neglected that responsibility.        

The Right to Protest

Billie Blair's article about the local protest in Pratt Kansas included Pat Schwarts's Gandhi quote:  "Make injustice visible."  Retired meteorologist Greg Hanson shared his concern about the recent reduction of National Weather employees.  It could not have been more relevant, with the severe storms of last week!  It was as if Mother Nature displayed her agreement with Hanson's concern.  The local protestors did their part in showing their concerns, but the question is, do protests make a difference?

The Founding Fathers definitely understood the importance of protests, having employed such use in the Boston Tea Party and other protests to gain our freedom.  They understood the impertinence of including freedom of speech, of the press, and to assemble in our Bill of Rights.  There are countless examples of Americans using the Bill of Rights, from our earliest times to the present...when women marched for the right to vote, when unemployed men in 1894 marched to Washington asking for jobs in what was called Coxey's Army, and over the years when Black Americans have marched for their rights.  The War in Vietnam produced many protests, often turning to violence.  One of the most remembered was the Kent State Shootings.

Women Marching for the Vote

While some marches are for National issues, such as Earth Day, others are for protesting against a single person or event.  An example is the protest of Police brutality following the death of George Floyd while in police custody.  

There are countless examples of protests, but do they accomplish anything?  Yes and no.  Sometimes the ones they are protesting may be embarrassed and react quickly to eliminate their bad behavior.  However, others may simply harden their positions.

There are many answers to the issue.  Sometimes it is enough for the protesters to simply feel that they have done something--at least they tried.  Sometimes friends and acquaintances are surprised to see the person protesting and will ask for a conversation about the issue, actually willing to understand the problem.  While research has shown that non-violent protestors are more successful, a success may simply be drawing attention to injustices that have been overlooked or ignored.  

The success of the protest may not connect with the person causing the problem.  However, it may provide the opportunity to reach those who did not understand the issue.  Our opportunity to protest and be heard is a right the Founding Fathers understood.

      

Remembering Memorial Day's Purpose

Memorial Day is just around the corner, but for many Americans its purpose is forgotten.  For them, it is a celebration of Summer's arrival, the purpose of honoring those who served the Nation forgotten.

In her book, A Patriot's Handbook, Caroline Kennedy explained what she felt about the responsibilities of parents on holidays.  "As parents, we are part of a continuum between generations and must decide what important values we want to pass on.  As we gather with family and friends... we have a chance to reflect on the continuity of ideas and principles that have inspired Americans for the past 225 years.  That process must be ongoing, for now it is our turn to reinterpret these values for our children, to strengthen their belief in America, and in the spirit of limitless possibilities that will determine their future."

She continued by describing gatherings at the home of her grandmother, who carried on the tradition, which "almost always included a recitation of Longfellow's poem 'Paul Revere's Ride."  As a result of her memories of those family gatherings, and the impact of her grandmother's tradition, she too believes in the importance of using family gatherings to share American history.  She believes that "children have an immense capacity for faith and for patriotism.  If their introduction to the story of our country is captivating, they can develop a lifelong interest in history and a willingness to engage in civic life."

Her book was published in 2003, now over 2 decades ago.  I do not know whether young children today would sit still to listen to parents and grandparents tell them about how unique and amazing our constitution is, but stories of the greatness of America are certainly needed, now more than ever.  You might even scroll back to my blog about the Battle of Bunker Hill, although reading 'Paul Revere's Ride" might take a bit long to read.  However, you can find the full version performed by Rick Taylor on YouTube.  

My choice to share with you on this occasion is from Benjamin Franklin's vote for our Constitution, although he admits the difficulty for men to get everything exactly right. Franklin said, "I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults--if they be such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.  I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinions. their local opinions, and their selfish views.  From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?  It therefore astonished me, Sir, to find this system approaching  so near a perfection that it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear, that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our states are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats.  Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."

On this Memorial Day of 2025, may we be reminded that our Constitution has been the wonder of the world, and may we respect and preserve it for generations yet to come.    

 

Beware Statistics!

 

Search for Accuracy

Recently I came upon this statistic:  "Internationally the U.S. ranks 125th for literacy.  Fifty four percent of Americans between 16 & 17 read below a 6th grade level." I was shocked until I saw a correction! It said, "U.S. ranks 36th for literacy."  That was better, but still disappointing.  However, equally concerning was how someone could post that kind of misinformation, and if the first information was wrong, should I believe the correction?

The internet can be very helpful, but before information is believed, it is important to search other sources.  In addition, it is important to determine the intention of the researcher.  Is there a bias in the research?  Did you bring your own bias and select only the information you wanted to find? 

As an example, after finding the statistics in the first paragraph, I went in search of other statistics to determine the accuracy of the first paragraph.      

 Data Pandas framed their survey as Education Rankings, and their conclusions begin with Iceland and continued as follows:  Iceland, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK, Slovenia, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and placing the US at 13th.

Obviously, the way the research is framed makes a great deal of difference.  Rather than a narrower definition, U.S. News split their research into two evaluations:  Literacy and A Well-Developed Public Education System.  For example, their research found Denmark first in literacy, but 10th in public education.  The U.S. was 12th in literacy, but 3rd in public education.

 If you search online, you can find both accurate information and inaccurate information.  The point is, that even accurate information can be misleading if we do not understand the context of the research.  .  

The internet, and the world in general, are full of tricksters, as well as innocent but misinformed people.  It is easy, even in good faith, to be misled.  Access to information on the internet is so valuable to all of us, but we must always remember that just because something is posted online does not authenticate its accuracy.  I suggest that you check more than one source, do not rely only on sources with whom you already agree, and if you find a source guilty of misinformation more than once or twice, look for another source.   

Here is another suggestion.  Reading, whether it is fiction or nonfiction, tends to make us more aware of words.  We develop a skill that alerts us to awkward excuses, that makes the text feel false.  We don't always know we are developing those skills, but gradually we find ourselves choosing better books to read.  Ultimately, it makes us recognize illogic reasoning.  As reading is less a part of our lives, we become less efficient in identifying logic and reason.  The thing about a good book is that the story unrolls gradually, forcing us to follow the characters, fictional or real, and try to figure them out.  "What are they up to?  Can they be trusted?  What will they do next?"  The characters force us to reason things through, without someone telling us.  Logic and reasoning skills develop as we read, without us realizing.  With those skills, we are better able to think about what we hear all around us.  Reading Cliff Notes or the summary on the back of the book does not develop these skills. 

Children are more likely to become readers if they are read to soon after they are born--even before they can actually understand the words.  If you want your children to become readers--and I hope you do--then let them see you reading from the time they are born until they are grown.  

 I happened to be reading a book on writing by Stephen King, and he urged that the best way to learn how to write well was to read books by good authors, not to copy their style but rather to see how good writers of all kinds put words together well. Here are some of the books on Stephen King's own list of favorites.  (From his book, "On Writing.")     

    A Death in the Family, James Agee; Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens; The Poisonwood Bible, Barbrara Kingsolver; To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee, The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini, and All the Light We Cannot See, Anthony Doerr.  My own reading list is heavy on history, and you might like Joseph Anton, by Salman Rushdie, or if you are really ambitious, Nigel Hamilton's history of FDR's leadership in WW 11.  As for myself, I still have a stack of history books about American leaders that should keep me busy...  

  

Old vs. Young

 It is no wonder that I have run out of space for proper storage in my closets and cupboards.  The explanation is that I save too much, and the proof of that is the clipping that inspired this blog.  I hope you enjoy this blog, inspired by a clipping from about 4 decades ago. Unfortunately, when I cut the Letter to the Editor from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram I failed to include the date.  However, it was during the administration of President George Bush, in office from January of 1989 to January of 1993.  

The woman who wrote the letter to the Editor used the title, Old vs. Young.  Her explanation came from the film classic It's a Wonderful Life.  In the movie there is a run on the bank, and Jimmy Stewart tries to explain why everyone's money was not in the bank vault, because it had been loaned to people in the community to build homes, open businesses, and provide money for other improvements in the community.  In other words, the money was out in the community working.  

The woman writing to the newspaper compared that explanation to Social Security, established when the nation was suffering a financial crisis.  She explained that Social Security "wasn't designed for individuals but rather as a collective helping hand from one citizen to another so that none of us would ever again work a lifetime and end up sleeping in an alley."

When the first George Bush took office, problems awaited him, particularly in the form of troubled Savings & Loan banks. The initial bail-out plan was replaced in August with a new government creation, the Resolution Trust Company, to oversee the merger or liquidation of troubled banks.  On November 5, 1990, the budget law, which was intended to reduce the federal budget by almost $500 billion over 5 years, was signed, including $140 billion in new taxes.

Retirement Fun!

On July 3, 1992, the Unemployment Compensation Amendment expanded unemployment coverage to 26 weeks.  Unemployment had reached 7.8%, its highest level since 1984.  On August 6, 2003, the Labor Department announced that the Nation lost an additional 44,000 jobs, and another 71,000 manufacturing positions.  These statistics describe what the woman who wrote to the Star-Telegram Editor was facing.

As often happens, although the tangled mess just described confronted George Bush immediately upon his election, fixing it was his problem, and the 4 the years he served as president were the difficult years voters remembered.  He was not reelected.

Sometimes the difficulties a president confronts are the result of events that happened long before his election.  After WW II, soldiers returned home, eager to put that horrible war behind them and start families they may have dreamed about during the war.  Their dreams came true, and what is known as the baby boomer years were the result.  In addition to the numbers of babies, the advances in medicine kept more of those babies alive--in childbirth, with vaccinations to keep them healthy, with new safety on jobs, and with medical advances to allow them to live longer.

These baby boomers looked forward to retirement while still in good health, with more years ahead of them to travel, to enjoy watching their grandchildren grow up, and to pursue hobbies they enjoyed and had been unable to pursue while they were working and raising children.  They had paid in to social security, and they looked forward to many years of retirement to enjoy.

However, the world changed.  Their children and grandchildren often saw the world differently, having fewer children or none at all, and not always working the long hours their parents had worked.  Some couples decided to have small families or no children at all, and others preferred to remain single.  Often, they had seen how hard their parents worked and decided to spend more time enjoying life. As a result, the system of Social Security's continuing income based on the outgoing payments to those retired being replenished by payments into the social security system by their children and grandchildren is no longer keeping up as expected.  

Yes, we seniors did pay into the system.  However, just as Jimmy Stuart explained to those making a run on the bank in It's a Wonderful Life, the money we paid in while we were working was not placed in a separate bank vault with our name on it.  The money we paid helped our parents afford to stay in their homes after they retired, or travel, or live in a nice nursing home instead of moving in with us to be cared for.  

Just as our money was used for our parents, we were dependent on younger generations to pay into the system for our retirement years to enjoy.  Everything worked for a long time, but we are facing today the result of changes like those I mentioned.  I'm not sure how those in Washington feel about this problem.        

America's Greatest Newsmen

 

Harry Reasoner

Those of you who follow my blog know my respect for Walter Cronkite, who is generally regarded as the Greatest News Caster of all time.  However, this blog was inspired by a different man, who was the Evening News Anchor Man, as well as a correspondent for 60 minutes.  His name is Harry Reasoner.

Reasoner was respected for his honesty and his straight forwardness.  However, what I also admired about him was his beautiful mastery of words. I was a young high school English teacher in New England when I became particularly aware of Reasoner.  Having grown up in Kansas, I did not realize that I had any kind of accent.  My New England students were of another opinion.  I was required to teach spelling in my high school classes, and my pronunciations of words out of any context often confused them.  Inevitably, someone would raise their hand and ask, "Mrs. Fenwick, can you please say that word in a sentence?  As part of expanding my student's vocabularies, I suggested that they listen to Reasoner on the evening news. and I also took that advice for myself.  

By the time we went home to Kansas for a visit, I noticed the unique pronunciations of certain words in my own family.  Teaching in New England made me aware of various accents, but I had to be told by my students that I too had a regional accent.  Since then, having lived in many different regions of our nation, I have experienced many accents, often the remnants of their ancestors' origins before migrating to America.    

Harry Reasoner's, beautiful diction was worth listening to every evening, regardless of the content of the news he was reporting.  Many of my students were first or second generation Americans.  At that time, the various ethnic newcomers tended to cluster together, Germans in one locality, French in another, and so on.  My students generally spoke English, but I believe that they appreciated improving their accents by listening to Harry Reasner.  One of my students came to America without knowing a single word of English, but she taught herself at home by watching television before starting school.  She was a brilliant young lady. 

As men like Cronkrite and Reasoner retired, younger men took their place.  Three young men who assumed those positions gained the nickname of The Big Three.  All three were respected and had large followings.  They were Peter Jennings on ABC, Dan Rather on CBS, and Tom Brokaw on NBC.  

Peter Jennings came from Canadia but loved his adopted home of America so much that he became a dual citizen.  Dan Rather manned the CBS Anchor Desk for 24 years, but his desk was far from stationary, for he delivered the news from places around the world, such as reporting the Fall of the Berlin Wall, covering JFKs assassination, the Gulf War, Nixon's trip to China, the Watergate Scandal, and more.  Tom Brokaw Co-anchored the Today Show with Jane Pauley from 1976-1981 and then anchored NBC Nightly News for 22 years.  

I will close with Brokaw's good-bye address on New Years Eve, 2004, honoring a passing generation.  "They came of age in the depression, served in WW II, and came home to find common ground here and abroad in which to solve our most vexing problems.  They did not give up their personal beliefs and greatest passions, but they never stopped learning from each other and most of all, they did not give up on the idea that we're all in this together. We still are.  And it is that spirit that I say Thanks for all I have learned from you."

Those of that generation have passed.  A few of us listen to the evening news regularly, but it is not the same.  On previous blogs I have honored those early TV newsmen.  I miss them.

What Should Children Read?

  

I have quoted Albert Einstein's remark about the importance of reading to young children, and when asked what else he would suggest, he replied, read   to them even more.  I have blogged about students in college who cannot read, as well as about efforts by teachers to help students that are falling behind because they cannot read and yet receive no time for special instruction and are passed on.  Recently, I have read that educators are trying to correct those inadequacies with special teachers to help students struggling to read.

I have written about banning books in the past, but because encouraging children to read is so important, I thought it was time for an update.  Perhaps covid caused more parents to be working from home, where they noticed the books their children were reading.  For whatever reason, there was a particular attention given by parents who chose not simply to speak with their child's teachers and librarians about concern for allowing access for certain books, but also demanding the removal of these books from all children. 

In the Wichita Eagle an article quoted a Superintendent justifying his screening process, declaring "We aren't banning books.  We just want to make sure that our parents trust us, that we're communicating information with them, and that we're being good stewards for their children."  The books at issue had already been approved by the School Board and individual teachers. but he felt more scrutiny was needed.  Whether he was pressured by parents to ban books, made the decision on his own, or reached an agreement with the staff, the parents, and is own judgement is unknown.    

The American Library Association reported a record-breaking number of attempts to ban books in 2022, up 38% from the previous year.  A Graduate School of Education professor comment that "Books can change outcomes for students themselves when they see people who look like them represented," an example of the harm of excluding books with black characters from libraries, harmful not only to black students but to all students.   

As for protecting young people from books parents regard as inappropriate, I recall a book from my early teens titled "Peyton Place."  Although it was banned in 1956, copies must have circulated, and young boys thought they were very clever to memorize page numbers of the most disapproved pages and call out the page numbers to embarrass girls, despite the fact that the girls had not read the book.  For those boys, banning only encouraged them to read that book, or at least pretend they had.  I am not suggesting that "Peyton Place" or other inappropriate books should have been in school libraries.  Rather, I am suggesting that banning something can sometimes be the most effective way to draw kids to an inappropriate book.  

More important, as a Columbia Professor in Education Leadership explained, "Book bans diminish the quality of education students have access to and restrict their exposure to important perspectives that form the fabric of a culturally pluralist society like the United States for all students."  She added, "It's about what we teach young people about our country, what we determine to be the truth, and what we believe should be included in the curriculum they are receiving." 

Parents may think no problems exist in their community, or that banning books has made it safer for their children.  Fortunately, book banning is not a problem everywhere.  However, in some areas, often with good but misguided intentions, book banning has silenced young people from important books.   The inability to discuss problems with adults, including parents, may result in seeking advice elsewhere, less appropriate.  School districts, administrators, librarians, and educators may feel at risk for their jobs by simply mentioning the harm of book banning. 

As I have researched for this blog, I found that some of the topics parents find unacceptable are easily found on television and other accessible sources.   When parents ban books in schools, they may be withdrawing an opportunity for teachers to help their children by having removed the very books that were banned.  Kids can be curious, sometimes rebellious, or insecure.  Instead of leaving students to find the wrong places for answers, books can often provide the right guidance, as well as offering the opportunity to ask teachers and other trained educators for the guidance they need.  Of course, parents want their children to come to them for guidance, but that is not always the decision that children make.  Retreating to private schools and home schooling, where the books they disapprove are not in the library, may sometimes take away the very information and professional guidance kids need.

     

 

What are Tariffs--A Simple History

Paris Monument after WW II

  

I brought little previous knowledge about tariffs to this blog.  In fact, I was so inadequately informed that I decided to do some research to help me understand the basics.  

 The definition of a tariff is a tax on imports. The next thing that my research found was the following statement:  "There is much misinformation about who actually pays tariffs."  I decided to turn to history, but as I cannot read the future, my history will stop before the tangle of today!  

For those of you who read my recent blog about the Battle of Bunker Hill you will be familiar with the fact that the Americans were angry with the British for imposing the stamp act, requiring taxes on paper, including taxes on such papers as playing cards and legal documents.  This seems to be a good introduction to the use of tariffs and the disagreements and anger tariffs can cause.  

Despite the resentment the Americans felt toward the English Tariffs, the Tariff Act of 1789 was one of the very earliest bills George Washington signed following his election.  He imposed a tariff of about 5% on nearly all imports.  Ironically, much as they disliked the fact that the British had imposed taxes on them, once they became a nation, many believed that America needed Tariffs in order to catch up with other older nations.  

Although Thomas Jefferson initially disapproved of tariffs, as President he admitted that his views had changed.  His explanation could not but remind me of the old saying, "It all depends on whose Ox gets gored."  One of the problems for American Presidents was the size of our nation and the differences in protection needed through tariffs.  Manufacturers in New England saw things one way while cotton plantation owners saw things differently.  

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged his change of perspective.  James Monroe acknowledged his preference in favor of unrestricted commerce, but admitted that it is not always possible, since reciprocity and international peace "has never occurred and cannot be expected," causing him to believe that "strong reasons...impose on us the obligation to cherish and sustain our manufactures."

In contrast, Democratic President Grover Cleveland campaigned against the tariff as not only corrupt but also inefficient.  Different presidents saw the need for tariffs differently. 

Jumping ahead in time, after WW II, the United States promoted the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, which became the World Trade Organization, replacing the previous methods regarding taxes.  American industry and labor prospered.  Yet, as most things happen, the world has changed, and as I promised at the beginning of this blog, I will not attempt to explain today's positions on Tariffs, nor will I predict outcomes.  Different generations have seen the use of Tariffs differently, and whether it will change again and who might pay I cannot say.

 

 

Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

As those of you who regularly follow my blog know, I often include Presidents and other important men and women who have served our Nation in various ways.  Much of what I write about is history, before I was born, but it occurs to me that I have reached an age when more Americans think of "history" as years I regard as "several years ago." 

My family was stanchly Republican, from the earliest years of the Civil War when my Great-grandfather served in the Union 4 years, to the years of my grandfather serving 3 terms in the Kansas House of Representatives, to the years my father held local positions, and I assumed that I would follow. I was not born until after WW II, so was not aware of Kennedy's courage in rescuing his men when their boat was shot out from under them, despite his own injuries.  I had not read Profiles in Courage when he won the Pulitzer Prize.  I was too young to vote when Kennedy was elected, and frankly, I wasn't particularly interested, although I did like his call to America, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country.  Perhaps My strongest memory of the young President was during the Bay of Pigs, worrying that my boyfriend would be eligible for the draft.

For many years, it was said that if Americans were asked what they remember about President Kennedy. it was not the things he achieved in the incomplete terms he served.  It was where they were when they received the news of his death.  I am one of those people.  My husband and I had taken only a few steps from our home, headed for the afternoon's classes, when our next-door neighbor walked out to join us, saying "Did you hear that the President has been shot?"  We may have paused for a moment, but what I remember is that we went to our first class, and the professor dismissed us, as did the professor of our next class.  We must have found places to listen to the news, perhaps hoping for something encouraging, but by the time our third class arrived, we knew he was dead.   The professor of our third class that afternoon walked sternly into the classroom and said, "Open your books."  She was a stern Republican and found no reason to dismiss a class of red-eyed students who had spent the afternoon grieving.  My memories are mostly of her disrespect for an assassinate President, and the tragedy for the children who would grow up without their father.         

Some of you may also have memories.  The younger ones of you may have studied him in history classrooms.  I confess, I was not aware, or had forgotten, that he was such a lover of the arts.  He is said to have arrived at work with the sun, but to have worked long past sundown, and music was often playing in the oval office.  Nor did he limit his respect for the arts to music, saying" We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth." 

The idea of a national cultural center goes back to the efforts of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as a way to create employment for unemployed actors during the depression.  In the 1959s the idea of a national theater was again suggested, but it was really going nowhere until President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a new law the National Cultural Center Act, which provided momentum for the project.  Unfortunately, fundraising for the center went nowhere.  

It was John F. Kennedy's love of the arts that brought the leadership to a successful beginning, wit Roger L. Stevens getting things moving and recruiting First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy as honorary chairman of the center, and former First Lady Mamie Eisenhower as co-chairman.  In January of 1961, Jarold A. Keiffer became the first Executive Director, overseeing many funding efforts.  Congress allocated $43 million, which included 20 million in bonds.  However, there were many important donations, including $599,000 from the Kennedy family, $5 million from the Ford Foundation and many other wealthy donors.  Foreign countries provided gifts, including 3,700 tons of marble worth $1.5 million from Italy.  Artists also provided their magnificent work as gifts.

There are 3 main theaters: the Concert Hall, the Opera House, and the Eisenhower Theater.  There are the Justice Forum 144 seat lecture hall, the Millennium Stage 235 stage, the River Pavilion with 268 capacities, and even many more.  Throughout the year among the productions are Dance, Symphony Orchestra, opportunities for teachers and school administrators, the America College Theater Festival, Ballet for students ages 14-18, Festivals celebrating cities, countries, and regions of the world, Jazz, and much more.  Americans from all over the United States, as well as visitors from around the world, come to participate in the various classes offered for students and teachers. These are only a sampling.  Even the building itself is an example of the art of placement, scale, form, and acoustics.   

The Kennedy Center is a nonprofit organization, required to submit public tax returns, and the most recently available indicated a budget able to manage current programs, as well as a surplus.  About 16% of the budget comes from a congressional appropriation specifically earmarked for the physical upkeep of buildings and monuments. The Kennedy center was dedicated in 1971 as a national memorial to honor President John F. Kennedy Jr., who died in office at the hands of an assassin.

In the planning of the Kennedy Center, it was mandatory that a separation between the federal government and the art itself would always be an express core value.  Preserving that separation prohibits inappropriate use of Federal funds which in turn prohibits the government from interference in artistic decisions.  The rules to define separation between politics and the arts are clearly defined, both in its intention and its purpose.