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.       

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.