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.       

The Relevance of Opinions

 I understand that people today are reluctant to sign their names to opinions in today's angry world.  I have blogged in the past about how I miss the days when we went to parties and argued politics but left at the end of the evening as friends.  What was essential to those arguments was the accuracy of the information about which we argued.  One would think that today we have access to even better sources for accurate information, but it seems to me that traditional correspondents like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite have been smothered by news filled with opinion rather than information.

Make sure you are getting aboard the right Band Wagon before getting aboard.

  There is little point in discussing politics with friends when both believe their source is the only accurate information in a world of so much misinformation, as well as so many people who no longer care about anything but the price of eggs.  The bird disease that required killing countless chickens to stop the spread is important, but it requires a government that relates the problem to making sure the disease is not spread to people rather than a government that spreads misinformation. 

My first responsibility as a young attorney was in a government office.  I remember my experience of creating forms that could be completed by typing in a few blanks.  The typists who had been stuck typing the page-long forms were thrilled with the amended forms, but their supervisor was furious.  She demanded that we go back to the old way of doing it--with my reading the entire form into the Dictaphone, the typist typing the entire document, and my having to proof the entire document to be sure there were not mistakes.  When I tried to explain how much more efficient the form would be, she furiously demanded that the old way of doing it be continued.  She refused to give me any reason why.

That example, although it occurred years ago, is an example of government waste, and soon after, I was recruited by a law firm and left the government position.  I hope my director resolved the unnecessary typing to relieve the typists from the wasted time of typing those boring forms.  In that case, it certainly was not the typists wanting to preserve a boring job.  There probably still are supervisor's wasting time to hold on to their jobs, and probably young attorneys who turn the problem over to their boss.  However, firing everyone in both offices would not have been the appropriate solution to the problem. Nor is it now! 

So, what does this have to do with the relevance of opinions?  The freedom we were given under our constitution requires responsibility.  Our leaders take an oath to the constitution, not to the person under whom they serve.  The Founding Fathers designed a system which is actually quite amazing in that it both gives and takes away power from each branch of the constitution.  I found it quite interesting in reviewing that remarkable American system of governing, and if you missed it last week, I hope you will read it.  However, it only works if those we elect are responsible enough to read and understand our Constitution and brave enough to do what they believe is right, not what they think they must do to be reelected.  

Many of us today, if not most, avoid discussing politics at parties.  Perhaps that is because we are more inclined to believe the other side is always wrong.  House leader Newt Gingrich was the Leader who made everyone sign an oath to always align with the party.  That was a bad decision, regardless of which party is in the majority.  If everyone in the party must vote the same, why do we waste time and money for voting and flying them back and forth from their homes to Washington.  If Senator Cassidy, a medical doctor, felt such concern about a candidate who does not believe in proven medical vaccinations and treatments, why was he pressured by his party into voting contrary to his own training and judgement.  Our system gave the President the right to select his choice, but the system also gave the members of the Senate the duty to decline to agree if they had cause.  That responsibility is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and if they are compelled by others to ignore that responsibility, they are ignoring their oath to the Constitution.  The President might as well just select whomever he pleases.  

It is not just the roles those that we elect play, but also the responsibility we have in electing them.  The friendly arguments we were once able to have at parties mattered.   

The Wisdom of a Triangle

 

Look at the triangular shape of the image above and imagine the triangle as the three branches of our government--to the left the Legislative Branch, in the center the Executive Branch, and to the right the Judicial.  The point of the image I chose is the beauty and strength of a triangle as a symbol of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.  

 

My blog of March 5th, 2025 made clear that the desire of the Americans was not a dislike of the British people.  In fact, they had family and friends there, they did business with the English, and sent their children to school there (if they could afford it).  It was the desire for independence as a free nation, not ruled by a king, that drove the desire for freedom.  

To achieve that, a new type of government was necessary.  That is how the structure of the triangle,  appeared.  They created The Legislative Branch, The Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.  Each branch held power over the others in some way, but were also subjected to the powers held by the others.  

Here is how the triangle works.  The Legislative Branch has both the House and the Senate.  The House has 435 members, elected every 2 years, the number held in each state determined based on state population adjustments.  House members must be at least 25 years of age, a U.S. Citizen for at least 7 years, and a resident of the state they represent.  They introduce Bills and Resolutions, offer Amendments, and Serve on Committees, and they have the authority to impeach the President.  The Senate is also part of the Legislative Branch but is separate from the House.  There are 2 Senators from each state, regardless of their state's population.  They must be at least 30 years old and a citizen for at least 9 years.  They serve 6 year terms, with elections of 1/3rd of the Senators rotated to maintain experienced Senators.  They have the authority to not only approve or disapprove the President's nominations for his cabinet, they can overrule the President in certain situations, and should the House impeach the president, the Senate has the responsibility to conduct the trial and either dismiss or convict the President. 

As you can see, the Legislative Branch has powerful responsibilities, often influenced by whether they are majority or minority parties serving under a President. There are also differences in whether different parties have chosen to work with or ignore/oppose the other elected party members.  In recent years there has been less cooperation. 

The next part of the Triangle is the Executive Branch, which includes the President, Vice President, and his Cabinet, as well as government agencies.  The President holds important parts of the Triangle, but he is not a King, which of course was the whole purpose of the war with England.  There is no question that the President has significant powers, some of which are in question.  This blog is not my attempt to define those powers.  It is about reflection on the intentions and efforts of our Founding Fathers to create a Nation without Kings, with checks and balances to keep our precious nation on course.  The third branch in the triangle is the Judicial Branch.  Members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President.

We tend to pay attention to the Supreme Court, however there are many Federal Courts that can be important on a national level. The United States Supreme Court is able to try only a small portion of cases sent to them on appeal.  Most are rejected, left for the rulings of the lower courts.  However, according to Sandra Day O'Connor, "Each year the members of the court must read the briefs in the 100 or so cases on which the court hears oral arguments.  After argument, the case has to be decided and explained in published opinion."  From her book, The Majesty of the Law.  I can only imagine the amount of responsibility on the Court today, nor am I familiar with the manner in which they try to perform those responsibilities.

In the Triangle of the Judicial Courts, from District Courts to Courts of Appeal, to the Supreme Court, I am generally proud of my profession as an attorney. Today, being a government judge is an ominous responsibility, and sometimes a dangerous one.  Members of the Supreme Court are not beyond disciplinary action, although it has almost never been applied.  I am troubled by some of the neglect of traditional rules of past members of the court, like dissociating themselves from tempting "gifts"' and obvious expressions of opinion by family members of some of the Justices.  But, I am proud of the responsibilities, discipline, and courage other judges, lawyers, witnesses, and members of juries have shown.  Without those courageous and disciplined people, there could be no third Triangle.    

             

 

 

Aesop's Fables

Do you think these children read Aesop's Fables?
Emerson Country School, Stafford County, Kansas

 It is said that Aesop lived 600 years before Christ, a dangerous time during which survival could be brutal.  It is interesting, however, how relevant his fables can be to modern situations.   Aesop used animals and humans as subjects.      

For example, when a monkey was chosen to become king because of his dancing, fox was angry and set up a trick to fool the new king with vanity.  "I am not worthy for this meat I have found, so I have saved it for you" the fox tempted the new king.  The foolish monkey rushed forward and was caught in the trap set by the fox.  "You tricked me," the monkey pouted.  "Yes," admitted the fox, "but do you really think someone with so little sense should be chosen to rule over us?  This is what happens when we make an important decision without thinking it through.  We bring trouble and ridicule on ourselves and the others who depend on us." 

Other times Aesop used humans to tell his fables, and one example was when a man approached him, asking if he might share his autobiography with Aesop.  Not only did the man read a lengthy portion but he also praised his own greatness.  When he finally concluded reading, he said, "I hope I haven't portrayed myself as being too wonderful, but I truly am a genius."  Exhausted by the man's imposition with the long reading, Aesop replied, "I applaud the fact that you praise yourself.  Nobody else is going to do it!"

Aesop was a slave of a wealthy landowner in the heart of modern Turkey.  He is referred to as a "hunchback" and as so unattractive that he sometimes made children cry.  Yet, his fables are still published, illustrated by some of our most respected artists.  His stories are simple enough for children to understand, and wise enough for adults to respect. 

I wonder if the children pictured above read Aesop's Fables.  Perhaps they did, as giving their children an education was important to parents of that era, and Aesop's Fables were popular books.  Traveling book sellers encouraged the importance of encyclopedias, and they sold them on a monthly basis, if families could not afford to buy the entire encyclopedia at one time.  I have an old encyclopedia owned by my grandparents titled The Home and School Reference Work, A Library of Practical, Authoritative Information, published in 1920.  (They also had the full 10 volume collection of Journeys Through Bookland, published that same year, filled with stories, poems, and other delights.) 

 Volume 12 of the Encyclopedia described the Telephone, factories, wildlife and birds.  It had photographs of the Garden of the Gods and Pike's Peak, and the Grand Canyon, as well as other sites.    There were photographs of Woodrow Wilson and George Washington, and a 26-page description of the American Government, followed by 10 pages of American Universities.  There were diagrams of the moon and explanations of the impact on tides.  Those are only a sampling of Volume VII that must have intrigued my father and his siblings for hours.  

Yet today school children are falling behind in reading.  While it might seem exciting to have so much information immediately available to children on the internet, it seems instead that the easy access has made students indifferent to the wealth of knowledge immediately at hand.  After all, if there is something they need to know, they can look it up on their phone.  Unfortunately, that has led to little experience in not only reading but also failure to develop logic and reasoning skills.  Also lacking are empathy and compassion skills.

I will close with two quotes from Aesop:  "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted." And also, "If you choose bad companions, no one will believe you are anything but bad yourself."  

 

(My father is in the front row, second from the right in the school picture.)     

The Battle of Bunker Hill

U.S. National Park Service

 I recently came across a reference to the Battle of Bunker Hill, a famous battle in the Colonies' quest for independence.  We won that battle, didn't we?  Actually, no we did not.  If we did not win, why is it remembered as so important?

I suspect that I am like a lot of us.  I recognized the name and thought I remembered it had been important in our early history, but I did not really know what made it important.  I wrongly assumed that we must have won.  The New Englanders who fought in that battle were mostly a rag-tag collection of farmers, bringing their own weapons, led by men whose military experience had been largely in fighting with the British against the French. 

 The British had experienced leadership, but the soldiers themselves were not seasoned.  To make their effectiveness even worse, they were ordered to march side by side in their heavy red uniforms while taking fire from the New Englanders.  Their plan was to slaughter the Americans in close quarters as they struggled to load their muskets.  British discipline failed, they did not follow orders, and they did not reach the colonists to slaughter them with their sabers. The British soldiers fled, stumbling over their own dead and wounded. Later, they returned and took the ground, but at a terrible sacrifice.  The rag-tag Englanders did not win, but they showed they could stand against the British, despite their ragged clothing, limited ammunition, and fairly sketchy knowledge of military discipline.  

Washington did not arrive until later, and ultimately the rag-tag nature of the soldiers was improved with discipline and training, but their stand at Bunker Hill reinforced the idea of independence, not merely demanding better treatment from the English.  Until then, it was resentment about taxes, particularly 1: the stamp act: with taxes on paper, playing cards, and legal documents, 2: the tea act, giving the East India Company a virtual monopoly on selling tea to the colonies, and 3: the sugar act, a tax on molasses as an example, --which brought more dissatisfaction in the Northern States than in the South.  

Bunker Hill changed that.  George Washington agreed to lead the Army, and gradually more of the Colonies began to accept the idea of Freedom.  Washington demanded better military discipline, and few of the New Englanders who had led the farmers were made officers under Washington.  Yet, the role they played is accurately respected for bringing the colonies together and igniting the idea that the Colonists could beat the English.  In short, they kept the notion of American liberty alive, while those less certain gradually joined the cause of Freedom.  

Prior to Bunker Hill, it was so-called radicals, who whispered the word of Freedom, but after Bunker Hill, the whispers spread, and voices grew.  Without Bunker Hill, would America have found the courage to fight for freedom.? 

Daniel Webster spoke at the laying of the cornerstone for the monument on Bunker Hill in 1825, and his words have warned the generations that followed.  "There remains in us a great duty of defense and preservation...(and) may the country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever!"

Perhaps today is the right time to be reminded of his words.

   

Poetry and Reason

 For those of you who follow this blog, you already know that I often turn to history in an effort to make sense of the present.  However, I also find poetry a source of clarity, and I will share part of a poem I recently read.  (Please excuse the condensing of the stanzas.) 

"Let America be America again.  Let it be the dream it used to be.  Let it be the pioneer on the plain seeking a home where he himself is free.  

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed-- Let it be that great strong land of love, where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme that any man be crushed by one above.

O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned with no false patriotic wreath, But opportunity is real, and life is free, Equality is in the air we breathe."

As I read the 3 stanzas of this poem, it spoke to me about the division among Americans today, I thought of the divisiveness in Washington, the voting on such strict party lines.   

However, my sharing of the 3 opening stanzas omitted something important that the poet included between each stanza, concluding with "There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this 'homeland of the free' ".  

Image:  Library of Congress

The poet is Langston Hughes, a poet born in 1901, who died in 1967.  He wrote that poem in 1936, and while Black men had been given the right to vote in the 15th Amendment in 1870, attempted legal impediments and violence significantly delayed actual voting for many.  He certainly grew up in and continued to live in an era of separate drinking fountains, schools, restaurants, and much more. Consequently, he added between the opening stanzas of his poem, 'America never was America to me."  Yet, it is important to remember that he wrote the poem in 1936, and he lived through many changes in America after that.

His family history is important.  Both of his Great Grandmothers were enslaved, and both Great Grandfathers were their owners.  His Grandmother attended Oberlin College, and the man she married joined John Brown and was fatally wounded in the attack.  She remarried, and her husband brought their family to Kansas.  They were both educators, and their daughter and her husband remained in the same area of Missouri and Kansas, although he left the family to seek a more welcoming country.  Their son, Langston Hughes received most of his education in Lawrence, Kansas.

Langston Hughes is known for his novels, short stories, plays, poetry, operas, essays, and work for children.  At the time he wrote the poem I shared he had been invited with a group of Blacks planning to make a film in Russia.  The film was never made, but he did travel in China, Japan, and Korea.  Given his travels and his writings such as the one I shared, it is not surprising that he was among those hounded by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Hughs explained the accusations against him that he did not have political feelings, nor did he read political documents.  Rather, his travels were an emotional effort "to find some way of thinking about this whole problem of myself."

What deeply changed his thinking was the willingness of Black soldiers, and perhaps particularly the Tuskegee Airmen, known as the Red Tails, who were willing to give their lives fighting for America in WW II.

Having researched all of that, I went back to his poem.  Yes, there is resentment and disappointment, yet there is also hope.  He wrote:  "I am a young man, full of strength and hope..., A Dream--Still beckoning to me!  O, let America be America again--The land that never has been yet--And yet must be--The land that's mine--The poor man's, Indian, Negro, ME--Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again."  

He concludes with these words:  We, the people, must redeem our land, the mines, the plants, the rivers, The mountains and the endless plain--All, all the stretch of these great green states--And make America again!

I don't believe most people think of Langston Hughes as a Kansan but just listen to his closing words:  America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath--America will be!  An ever-living seed, Its dream lies deep in the heart of me.  We, the people, must redeem Our land, the mines, the plain--All, all the stretch of these great green states--And make America again!

Yes, he did write "America never was America to me" between the first 3 stanzas of his poem," and many Americans today, in conclusion of the first month of our President, may be questioning whether America is excluding them, ignoring the Constitution they love.  But, in the end, Langston Hughes found hope.

Rules, Oaths, and Ambition

 When did the idea of 'Every Child Gets a Trophy' become an education idea?  That is not easily answered, but, the emphasis seems particularly prevalent in the late 1980s and 1990s.  I was a teacher during that time, and I remember an angry mother who objected to her daughter's B.  The assignment was to select a few favorite poems and then find pictures (or draw illustrations) that illustrated the poems.  The mother could not understand why all the work filling a thick album with Christmas cards had nothing to do with the poems her daughter had selected.   The B was for the selection of poems the girl liked, but both mother and daughter missed the point of visualizing the imagery of the poems.  

When I taught at Baylor University School of Law I had a surprise quiz, requiring students to explain the significant issue in a case they were to have read for class.  A young woman wrote a long description of the case, making it obvious that she had read the assigned legal case; however, she failed to identify the significant issue that would resolve the case. A young man briefly identified the significant issue and explained the correct outcome.  The situation was sad, since the two students were husband and wife.  He was an outstanding student; but, hard as she tried, understanding the law was difficult for her, and she could not understand why her answer missed the point.  However, grading on good intentions is not going to prepare students for the ability to succeed in life.

Previous blogs have described the tendency for colleges to raise grades to make it easier for graduates to compete for jobs because they believe other universities are raising grades. Research has shown that Rules and Traditions are important.  Giving students grades they do not deserve is cheating everyone--the students, those who hire them, and those who depend on the legitimacy of their training.  I believe these examples of falsifying accurate grades, reference letters, and other misrepresentations, whatever the intentions, have cheapened a broad area of personal integrity. 

Sandra Day O'Connor

In her book, The Majesty of the Law, published in 2003, Sandra Day O'connor expressed her concern that freedom of speech only matters if we have some way of protecting against calculated lies.  She included a quote from a lawyer she respected, who had decided to leave the profession.  He told her why:  "I was tired of the deceit.  I was tired of the chicanery.  But most of all, I was tired of the misery of my job caused other people.  Many attorneys believe that 'zealously representing their client's means pushing all rules of ethics and decency to the limit.'" 

 I have not practiced law for several years, but I have watched enough trials and interviews under oath on television to share the disappointments expressed by that man, and also by Sandra Day O'connor.  I fear that our world is filled with calculated lies.    

  

Making Progress?

History--Repeats or Rhymes?

Recently we were trying to get organized by getting rid of papers no longer worth keeping.  Some of the documents were no longer relevant, but other import/repeats records were inaccessible in the piles of neglected 'stuff.'  The good news is that we have made progress with our discarding and organizing!  However, this blog is not intended to motivate spring house cleaning.

One of the things discovered in our cleaning effort was a newspaper clipping from The Waco News-Tribune, dated Monday, August 20, 1973, saved all these years because of a picture of a handsome young stockbroker, my husband.  However, it was what we saw on the back of the clipping that inspired this blog.  The content of two articles, published eight decades ago, addressed issues much like current problems of today, with the same empty political language.  For example, the former Colorado governor warned that Environmentalist's should "seek a better balance" between developing resources and protecting the environment.  He concluded that if the environmentalists did not compromise, there might be a "backlash among groups affected by energy shortages.  He was more concerned about energy shortages than the environment.  That has changed, but have we made enough progress? 

The other article on the same page opened with the headline "McGovern Claims Impeachment Necessary if Nixon Defies Court." The article continued.  Congress would "have no other recourse should President Nixon defy a court order to release tapes of his Watergate related conversations."  Of course, Nixon did not defy the Court but rather turned over the tapes, and, ultimately, he resigned.  Actions of the current president are different but no less controversial.  

The happenstance of reading the 1973 newspaper articles, with political events dealing with their own serious issues--different but still involving environmental issues and power of the president, could not help but make me reflect on the similarities. handled so differently but leaving unresolved issues as well.  The happenstance of reading these newspaper articles from so long ago seemed a strange coincidence. 

    

Storms of a Different Kind, number 3.

 

Fossils from our yard in Texas

When we moved into a new development in Texas, the land had been an unplowed prairie, it's commercial use having been a pasture for cattle.  It was covered with beautiful wildflowers, and once we built our home and I gardened, finding fossils was common.  We know our planet has gone through changes.  The question is, are more changes coming?

I love the farm on which I was raised.  I enjoyed reading the books I checked out from the library, but if the weather allowed, I was probably outside.  The pasture south of the house had never been plowed, and it was a favorite destination. My favorite spot was an old buffalo wallow, where buffalo had once rolled around to scratch insect bites or in the spring to rid themselves of their thick winter coats.  The buffalo were gone, but they left behind their history for a little girl. It was also where the sandhill plum thickets made hiding places and left memories of the jelly my ancestors made, jelly my mother and I continued to make.  Between the house and the pasture were trees to climb, planted by my  great-grandmother and her son. Many of these reminders no longer remain for younger generations, to remind them of how generations have changed our planet.

My father did not irrigate, but I was certainly aware of the need for rain.  In our farming community, we have been struggling over water resources for decades. I was the 4th generation to live in our house.  After college, my husband and I lived in large cities, but in retirement, we came back to the farm.  Things had changed.  Many farmers irrigated. Machenry was much bigger and more expensive, and they farmed far more land.  My father's Farmall M and the acreage he farmed to support a family was a thing of the past.

Of course, the fossils I found in our yard in Texas were deposited there far longer than the years of my lifetime, but we cannot be blind to the changes on our planet. Since about the time my great grandparents came to Kansas to homestead, the average global temperature on earth has increased by at least 1.9 Fahrenheit.  However, since 1982 the rate of warming is increasing 3 times as fast, and 2023 was the warmest year since keeping global records began in 1850, that is, it was the widest until 2024 increasing was even faster.  

Is there something we should be doing?  Is there anything we can do?  As this three-part series about storms and other weather issues comes to an end, I thought it might be of interest to you to see the results of research done by the Pew Research in 2023, testing how Americans feel about the research on Global Warming. It is provided for two reasons--as an opportunity for you to reflect on these issues, and as an opportunity to see how other Americans feel.

1.  A majority of Americans support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources.

2.  Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it.

3.  Views are more mixed on how the federal government should approach activities to reduce carbon emissions.  

4.  Americans see room for corporations and the federal government to do more to address the impacts of climate change.

5.  There is a division between Political Parties.

6.  Climate change is a lower priority for Americans than other national issues.

7.  Perceptions of local climate impacts vary as to whether they believe climate change is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, age, wealth, politics, education, personal impact, and many other things divide decision making, so taking action will be challenging.  However, one thing is certain.  Decisions must be made by people who know what they are doing, not by grandiose orders given for publicity.      

 

Storms, part 2

A Tornado over a Reservoir

To improve effectiveness of weather warnings, the Weather-Ready National Program was established by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  In short, they wanted to determine whether all Americans are benefitting from Severe Weather Communication. Their research established three specific things to consider: 1. How well are all members of the public informed of the severe weather threats? 2.  How prepared are they before the event?  3. Did people take appropriate action once an event occurred? 

One of the ongoing considerations for the Weather Service is balancing "False Alarms," particularly relevant for Tornado warnings.  If too many warnings are given, and no actual Tornado threat materializes, people begin to ignore the warnings.  On the other hand, watching too long to determine whether it is an actual threat may be too little time for people in its path to find shelter. 

Hurricanes give more time for warnings, but how many times have we heard people say they have stayed home, ignoring the threat with a sort of bravado, only to require a rescue that jeopardizes those who come to help.  A new problem, at least one I had not considered, was the problem for escaping in electric cars, when the water level rose rapidly.  

 A study by Professor Solomon Hsiangg focused on the impact on those who lived through severe tropical storms, but weeks and years later were found to have had shortened lives.  They compared general life expectancy against those who had gone through a hurricane and found that cyclones led to a 6% bump in mortality.  Cancer patients who lived through Hurricane Katrina in 2005 had lower survival rates even years later, probably because of disruptions in their treatment.  A more recent article suggests subtle, long-term changes causing stress that might also explain the impact on hurricane survivors, such as incurring debt or borrowing from their savings to recover from the hurricane, making their lives more difficult in later years.  I thought of other things, such as stress from losing a business or job, working to repair their own damaged home, which involved stress or injuries, being forced to move, or many other possible examples.  Psychological effects can damage physical health. 

An addendum:  I wrote this blog several months ago, but I find it necessary to add more recent events.  Climate.gov reports 27 individual weather and climate disasters in 2024 involving government assistance:  at least a billion in damages, at least 5 floods; and at least 166 who died in U.S. floods, the majority during driving.

As of January 28, 2025, in California there have been 312 wildfires, 365 structure fires, 5119 other.  To combat these fires, far more people are involved:  Medical, 32,496; Hazmat, 1,046; Law enforcement, 305; Public Service, 5,362.  There have been 27 deaths, 6,837 structures destroyed, 1,071 damages in Los Angeles.  

Americans do not always agree about the ways to confront these global changes.  Should America belong to the Paris Climate Agreement?  Is Global Warming real or simply a normal cycle, and if it is real, what is the appropriate response?  Is this a matter for politicians or scientists?  After floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters, is aid the responsibility nationally or the individual states.  If people keep building along shorelines, in crowed areas with histories of fires, in tornado zones, how many times should federal assistance be available?  Should insurance companies be able to refuse insurance in certain areas?  There are many questions to be answered.        

With more threats from hurricanes, floods, and fires, as well as increased melting on our north and south poles, is research on global warming a fact and no longer a political debate.  This blog began as a question of 'when should people in the line of danger from storms be warned so that they take proper precautions?'  As I reflected on my research for the blog, I seem to have raised a bigger question.     

Next Week:  Storms of a different kind, part 3. 

   

 

Storms, part 1

When I was a child, there had been a tornado, and the local television station covered the destruction heavily.  Interviews of those impacted by the tornado often described it as sounding like a train.  For weeks, I would lie awake on windy nights, listening for anything that sounded like a train.  Warnings then were not as sophisticated as they are today.  Recent storms have caused me to think about changes in storm warnings.   

Today we have significant opportunities to be warned, but in earlier times, that did not exist, although ancient humans did try to study the weather in search of patterns that might allow them to anticipate weather cycles.  Observation and the gradual creation of calendars helped, but what they needed were instruments, such as the thermometer and the barometer.  Even so, men were curious, Benjamin Franklin and his lightening experiment being an example. 

There were earlier efforts to warn others that a storm was headed their way, such as the telegraph.  The Smithsonian Institution launched a network of Weather Stations connected telegraphically to communicate weather events, which was the starting place for what became the National Weather Service. 

Ice Storm at the farm several years ago.

Today we may take for granted our access to weather notification as well as prediction in advance.  Lives can be saved by being warned in advance of weather threats.  Long term predictions can also help farmers.  We may think of tornadoes and hurricanes, but storms, heatwaves, and other weather related disasters can also be predicted and save lives.  Predictions of storms given 10 days or longer are accurate only about half of the time.  Seven-day forecasts are more accurate, at about 80% accuracy, and five-day forecasts are about 90% accurate for hurricanes.

 The problem is that if weather forecasters send warnings too far in advance the accuracy is lower, but if they wait too long to send the warning, there may not be time enough to take the precautions needed.  

Research has found that people are reluctant to change plans or their behavior unless they are fairly sure that it is going to impact them.  If they are told that they need to take cover, most people will, and if a tornado emergency or flash flood emergency is given, that often gets attention.  However, some people need to see the danger to take action, and there is the possibility that people are embarrassed by taking cover if no risk actually occurs.  

Studies have shown that different ethnicities respond differently to warnings, as well as how the warning is delivered, such as local TV versus national TV, or non-government websites.  

More research will follow next week!  

This series was written several months ago, so references to the tragic storm and fire recent events are not included.  However, they certainly are examples of the importance of warning, advance preparation, and frightening damages.

The Birth of Spin

It is difficult to envision the early decades of correspondence of American political communication, when communication relied on newspapers, letters that took days to deliver, and word of mouth.  Not only was delivery difficult and slow, but accuracy would also have been challenging, even for those acting in good faith.  As access and timeliness of correspondence improved, the challenge of bias or slant of information continued, whether only an effort to create a favorable impression or deliberate efforts to shade information were involved.  As the saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts."  Yet, the challenge of determining the accuracy of what we are told has existed for as long as humans learned how to communicate.

From long ago, the Owl has been a symbol of wisdom and truth, perhaps because of its ability to see in the dark. The need for truth and the challenge of discerning truth is as old as time, long before our nation existed.  Our nation's privilege of freedom of speech makes the importance even more essential that we honor that privilege.  However, it has never been entirely honored.  

Perhaps the 1980s were a professional turning point for the "art" of spin, with a gradual naming of the abuses: publicity, ballyhoo, propaganda, messaging, framing, strategic communication, bias.  The practice became so accepted that "spin rooms" to meet with reporters after news events to tweak the content became common.

Among the earlier efforts to combat misinformation were the Muckrakers, sometimes as outrageous in their attacks as those committing the falsehoods the Muckrakers exposed.  However, there were examples of investigations and disclosures by the Muckrakers that benefitted the public.  Perhaps the best example was Sinclair Lewis, and his book, The Jungle, that exposed the disgraceful and dangerous greed and abuse of the Chicago meatpackers. 

Presidents in particular struggled with communicating with the press.  President Wilson established the Committee on Public Information as a war time information bureau.  Franklin Roosevelt was particularly successful with his Fireside Chats.  On the other hand, radio also provided the abusive access for those who would spread prejudiced and false information, such as the broadcasts of Father Charles Coughlin and Huey Long.

The power of radio quickly diminished as television arrived.  One clever example was Ronald Reagan's dismissal of his age with a joke, telling his opponent, Mondale, that he would "not hold his youth and inexperience against him."  Not all presidents have been as skilled in using media, but they all recognize the importance of using it effectively. 

The media has tried to confront the spin, identifying outright falsehoods with fact checking, but it   proved less effective than might have been hoped.  Americans began to distrust the media.  Many sought news they found more agreeable.  The internet offered alternative sources, but checks on accuracy were often lacking.  Reporters, with rules that guided their responsibilities for accuracy, found themselves being replaced by commentators, who express opinions rather than unbiased facts.  

Gradually, the professional responsibility for those who bring us the news or host sources where information can be posted have become less vigilant, and recently Face Book has announced that they will no longer protect against misinformation by fact checking, leaving it up to individuals to recognize inaccuracies and intentional misrepresentation.  

The sad truth is that all of us prefer to hear what we want to hear, but for Americans to be entrusted with wise judgement, for themselves and their families, as well as for our freedom of speech, and informed votes, we must have access to the information we need.  As Roman poet Juvenal wrote, "Who will guard the guards themselves?  Who will watch the watchmen?" 

America's Inauguration Traditions

 

The Constitution is very limited in establishing traditional guidelines for the inauguration, saying only that there should be a taking of an oath. President Washington started the tradition of the Inaugural Address.  James and Dolly Madison started the tradition of a reception and an inaugural ball. Thomas Jefferson's second inauguration began the tradition of an open house at the executive mansion, but that tradition ended as a result of over eager crowds destructively overwhelming the White House. 

There are a variety of firsts resulting from advancement in technology. James Buchanan was the first to be photographed, William McKinley was the first in a movie, Calvin Coolidge the first on the radio, Harry Truman the first televised, and Bill Clinton the first to be live on the internet.

 Donald Trump's absence at the swearing in of Biden was the first to decline attendance since Andrew Johnson declined to attend Ulysses S. Grant's inauguration, but four other presidents had declined before him:  John Adams, John Quency Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Andrew Johnson. Two other absences from the full participation were Woodrow Willson because of health and Richard Nixon because of his resignation. It is not a mandate, although most outgoing presidents have chosen to attend.   

The Constitutional omission of defining guidelines for the inauguration has provided the opportunity for presidents to introduce personality into the ceremony.  Only 4 presidents have included poetry.  Kennedy was first, with Robert Frost.  Clinton invited poets to both inaugurations, Miller Williams first and Maya Angelou to the second inauguration.  Obama invited Richard Blanco and Elizabeth Alexander.  Biden invited Amanda Gorman.  These excerpts seemed particularly relevant today:  "Who were many people coming together cannot become one people falling apart."  Miller Williams.  "More Kindness, dear Lord of the renewing.  That is where it all had to start."  James Dickey.  "History, despite its wrenching pain cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again."  Maya Angelou.  

Music has also had a place in inaugurations.  Marian Anderson sang for two presidents--Eisenhower and Kennedy.  Jimmy Carter is well known for his love of music of all kinds, and that was apparent at his inauguration when he included Willie Nelson's 'Crazy' sung by Linda Ronstadt, Irving Berlin's 'God Bless America' sung by Aretha Franklin, and 'Take Care of this House' by Leonard Bernstein.   Biden also selected a range of musicians for his inauguration, with Lady Gaga, Jennifer Lopez, and Garth Brooks.  Republicans have also rocked the inaugurations with George W. Bush bringing Livin' la Vida Loca, and Reagan bringing the Beach Boys.  

Much has changed since George Washington swore his oath in New York City, planned for March 4, 1789 but delayed until April 6, 1789 because harsh weather delayed the congressmen traveling to count the votes.  Then, as today, there may be some bumps in the road leading up to our inaugurations, but our system has held.  May the wisdom of the founding fathers and the character of those whom we have elected honor, protect and defend the constitution as they have sworn to do.  As Ronald Reagan said, may our nation be "the shining city upon a hill...teeming with people of all kinds, living in harmony and peace."  

        

In memory of President Jimmy Carter

 

When Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States, I was an attorney at the Veterans Administration in Waco, Texas.  At that time, there was a man employed there who looked so much like Jimmy Carter that he should have taken a leave of absence for four years to impersonate the President.  He was from Texas, and although he did not have the same sweet southern accent that the President had, his Texas southern accent would have given him a head start over the other impersonators from the North who tried and failed to master the President's genuine smooth Georgia accent.  

My husband and I happened to be in New Orleans when Jimmy Carter was there campaigning for the presidency, and we joined the crowd around him, at least getting close enough to catch one of the peanuts he threw to the crowd.  I suppose we still have that peanut somewhere, unless we forgot it's value as having come from the hand of the future president. 

Notice the competing Republican posters in both photographs, brought to counter Carter's rally. 

Like others, I may have been disappointed by Carter's lack of grandeur in the office of the Presidency.  He really wasn't much for the pomp and circumstances of the office.  The truth is, we Americans seem to like a bit of grandeur surrounding our presidents, even if they are not kings.

He was not extremely popular during his presidency, often criticized as trying to do too much himself, rather than benefitting from participation of others with particular credentials on the many responsibilities of the presidency, which could have assisted the president in making his decisions.  

Not only was he an untraditional president, but his wife Rosalynn was also a unique first lady.  At the presidential inauguration balls, she wore a gown she had made, the same one she had worn to Balls in Atlanta when her husband was governor.  Her tastes were sometimes more homie than was typical, for example, for the Christmas tree in 1977, she chose ornaments made from pinecones, peanuts, and eggshells.  Her husband respected her skills and encouraged her participation in serious issues not typically addressed by first ladies.

Another thing unusual was his invitation to his wife to sit in on meetings with his staff.  Men were not particularly pleased to see Rosalynn taking notes during their meetings with the president.  She did not speak when she sat in on cabinet meetings, but her mere presence was objectional to many.  When asked why she took notes, she said, "I was there to be informed so that when I traveled across the country, which I did a great deal, and was questioned by the press and other individuals about all areas of government, I'd know what was going on."  I'm not sure that explanation would have pleased those in the President's cabinet, since it seems to suggest that she might have shared things they regarded as confidential.  Nevertheless, the president had great confidence in his wife's abilities and enjoyed being able to discuss things with her.

He was open with the people.  Perhaps they thought he was too much so, for example, in 1976 he sat for an interview for Playboy magazine, in which he spoke about the role of religion in his life.  The following quote was published.  "I try not to commit a deliberate sin.  I recognize that I'm human and I'm tempted...Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'  I've looked on a lot of women with lust...and God forgives me for it."  It is hard to imagine any man more devoted to his wife or less likely to commit sin by lusting at the sight of another woman, but Jimmy took the Bible seriously.  Not every President can say the same.

Three things may have resulted in his failure to be reelected.  First, he was challenged in the primary by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, an unthinkable thing to challenge a sitting president of your own party, even though the challenge was defeated.  Second, not everyone agreed with his decision to negotiate with Panama's future control of the Panama Canel.  (On December 21, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump threatened retaking control from Panama.)  Third, perhaps worst of all, in November of 1979, Iranian students captured the American embassy and detained more than 50 Americans for 444 days.  The longer they were detained, the more Carter was criticized.  For further humiliation, the prisoners were released immediately after the swearing in of the new president, Ronald Reagan.  

Perhaps Jimmy Carter's greatest achievement in office was the successful Camp David agreement in 1978.  As a citizen, he was widely admired for his hands on work building houses and supporting safe elections in other countries.  I think it is fitting to close with his own words.  When asked what things that you cannot see are most important, he replied:  "I would say justice, truth, humility, service, compassion, love.  You can't see any of those, but they're the guiding lights of a life."  Rest in peace Jimmy Carter.  You certainly strived to live by the list of unseen but important responsibilities you described.

Photograph credits taken in New Orleans:  Larry Fenwick

What Was He Thinking!

With a New Year just beginning, it is a good time to think about resolutions to improve yourself--the typical vow to lose weight, clean out the cupboards, or some other sincere commitments that too often are short lived.  Instead of worrying about resolution for ourselves, this is a suggestion for young people.

How many times have you seen something in the news, or maybe some foolishness in your own community, that made you think to yourself, 'What was he or she thinking?'

Today, logic is not taught as a separate study in most schools.  Should it be?  In our increasingly complex world, perhaps teaching critical thinking is more important than ever.  Protecting children from access to inappropriate information is challenging.  Perhaps the better solution is teaching them Logic and Critical thinking to enable them to distinguish between fact and opinion, to recognize and evaluate the credibility of information.

Whether it is something they see online or television, or it is something they hear from friends, kids are bound to encounter misinformation.  By teaching them logical thinking skills, they can learn to evaluate and assess the validity of information and arguments.  They can learn to identify biases and distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources.  

When are children old enough to be exposed to Logic?  There are differences of opinion, some believing it is best to wait until middle school, but others believe younger kids can benefit earlier, although care must be taken to avoid-- as they would have said back in my childhood-- 'avoiding letting younger kids get too big for their britches.'

With younger kids, training should be done with brain teasers, puzzles, experiments, and other problem-solving activities to activate their thinking, without directly relating it to activities that would make them disobedient.

For older students, the need for teaching logic is growingly important.  Today's students need to be able more than ever to evaluate the validity and reliability of sources of information.  Logic and critical thinking can enable them to distinguish between fact and opinion, to recognize illogical fallacies, and make informed judgments.

Whether young people are exposed to things on the internet or are influenced by other kids, it is important that they have the skills to evaluate the reliability and credibility of information, to identify flawed arguments and misleading claims, and to analyze arguments and assess their validity. 

Whether schools teach students how to think or not, they will learn--for good or for bad.  If your child's school does not have a qualified instructor for teaching Logic, it might be worth inquiring whether such instruction could be added to the curriculum.  

If that is not possible, there are ways you can encourage your children and upper grade students how to think Logically. 

 1.  Ask your children "why" frequently.  The importance in doing this is not to make them feel criticized but rather to encourage them to think things through.  I don't have children, but I suspect that asking them "why" regularly is going to result in your being asked "why" often too, but your willingness to respond with a reasonable reply will show them that having reasons for what you do is important. both for children and parents.

2.  Playing board games with your children can encourage strategy and logical thinking.  I recall a youngster visiting us who had a way of opening his first move in the game in the very same way every time.  The result was that he always lost, but when asked whether he might consider a different approach, he refused.  He was our guest, so we did not push him, but perhaps we could have helped him is some way.  Family board games may not be as popular as they once were, but it does seem like a great way to teach logic, and a nice way to bring the family together.  Try Chess and get out some of your favorite board games from childhood--Monopoly, Scrabble, or others

3.  Check online or in bookstores to see if there might be a method for teaching kids logical reasoning.

4.  Provide your kids with puzzles and brain teasers that they can enjoy on their own. 

Perhaps there are some good suggestions in this blog to consider as your family's New Year's resolution.  If you haven't played board games with your kids lately, maybe encouraging playing board games together isn't a bad New Year's resolution to make!  I know that kids today are busily scheduled with school activities and various other commitments, but I remember many different board games our family played, including playing with aunts and uncles when they visited.  As I researched this post, I realized that although I do not recall taking a class in Logic, I did play all kinds of board games with family and friends.  I remembered the fun, but looking back, maybe I learned more Logic than I knew from those board games!