One Chance to Make an Impression.

My great grandmother and her daughter, her son's daughter, and me--four generations in my family were teachers.  

     The old saying is "You only have one first chance to make a first impression.  This week's blog discusses that old saying in a modern world.  I will begin with teachers to honor my ancestors and generations that have followed.  

    Education:  Studies show that teachers dressed in formal business attire are perceived by students as more knowledgeable and organized.  Further, Adult attire sets a tone for the classroom.  Yet the attire I was expected to wear as a teacher, as well as male teachers wearing suit and tie is not required in all schools.

    Medical Professionals:  It has been found that medical attire directly influences patient trust.  My experience is that is true, although jeans may peek out under the jacket.  

    The U.S. Army:  Recently the U.S. Army has updated its appearance, believing that professional standards of appearance have a direct impact on soldiers.

    Political Candidates:  Traditional attire of suit and tie for men and professional dresses and suits for women are still apparent, but more frequently men are going without the tie.

    Business Attire:  Business attire has softened from formal suits for some men to "Smart Casual" in some offices.  As for women, they are unlikely to wear suits and jackets (as I did when I was practicing law), but they continue to have a tailored wardrobe.

    Police and Law Enforcement:  The traditional attire for Police and Law Enforcement does change, but the importance of attire is maintained. The attire for Police and Law Enforcement plays a role in recognition and public trust.  A professional uniform is a non-verbal statement that insures the public of a sense of trust and safety.  A recognizable uniform also keeps officers accountable for their actions.

    This blog covers a large range about identification, from respect for teachers to medical professionals and others.  But what this blog has been about was the importance of how what we wear matters.  This brings me to a current problem in the news--the dispute regarding the attire of members of ICE.  Unlike other Police and Law Enforcement, ICE has sometimes chosen to hide their faces and avoid uniforms.  Although they are required to carry their badges with them, they are not required to display them.  Several states have begun legal action to require visible identification, excluding secret missions. 

    People have been terrified by unidentified ICE agents pulling them from cars and making other assaults without identifying themselves.  The ICE agents argue that it is necessary to protect themselves and their families by hiding their identities.  However, it is also true that police daily confront dangerous situations without masks. 

    Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons has said "I've said in public before, I'm not a proponent of masks.  However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE do to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it."

    Wearing cameras is important, although too late for the victims.  Nor does it serve it's importance if local police are refused the film.   

    Perhaps this is time to return to the heading of this blog.  You only have one chance to make a first impression.   In a modern world,  where things can happen so fast, perhaps two things do remain intractable, but with a new importance to pause long enough to assess with certainty what you are about to do.     

 

        

 

Sanctuary Cities

 

I had some understanding of Sanctuary cities, but I realized that I needed to do more research to better understand.  I had no idea of the events that would occur during the time I spent researching, and ultimately, I decided it was something important to share.

Initially, the idea of Sanctuary came from churches, trying to help people fleeing from wars--In Salvador in the 1980s when 75,000 were killed, and in Guatemala where 200,000 were killed.

What followed was San Francisco in 1985, when the issue of using city funds to assist immigrants arose.  

It was not long before other states and cities had their own issues.  The legal justification of Sanctuary Cities used the framework of State Sovereignty, allowing local governments    their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement without violating Federal Law, based on the idea of the balance between Federal and State government under the U.S. Constitution.  

Courts have upheld the legality of local jurisdictions having the right to establish their own immigration policies without federal interference.  Not everyone agrees, some believing such policies undermine federal immigration laws.

Very few of us can overlook that our ancestors were immigrants, often not far in the past.  Immigrants have contributed to our culture and continue to do so.  However, does that mean we should open our doors to everyone.  In 2024 the number of individuals who became American citizens were 818,500.  However, current statistics report that between October 2019 and June of 2024 eleven million illegals arrived. although the exact number is uncertain.  Entirely locking the door to immigrants is impossible, for jobs are often done by immigrants because Americans cannot or will not do them.

My research for this blog has shown me many things, but few answers, but here are a few.

1. The U.S. Constitution has held that the federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

2.  Each State has its own state constitution, which serves as a foundational document of their laws.

3.  States possess the fundamental power to create, implement, and enforce the rights of citizens.

Today the disagreements between states and the U.S. Government are embattled.

The current challenge is that Federal statutes provide different mechanisms for bringing National Guards under federal control with no simple statuary law.  As an example, Rule 12406 is ambiguous, "one part appears to let the president act unilaterally, while another provision suggests orders should be issued through the governors, creating a conflict." 

While rights of authority are uncertain, simple but very important laws continue unresolved issues.    One important example is the wearing of masks. Some states have or are about to pass laws to prohibit law enforcement officers from hiding their ideates.  The New York City Bar Association argues that masks hide accountability.  

My efforts to better understand many important issues has succeeded in terms of a better understanding. However, the problems remain.  It would seem that the benefit of unbiased, educated, experienced people would be best qualified to work on addressing these problems. Ordinary Americans may not be able to draft changes, but they can and are making their feelings known. 

Presidential Pardons

 

President Washington was the first to grant a pardon.  The purpose of pardons was to grant mercy, correct judicial errors, and promote national unity or reconciliation in times of division.  It has served as a check on the judicial system, but also a means of healing, such as when used after the Civil War...to forgive crimes or correct miscarriages of justice.  

Gerald Ford used it to pardon Richard Nixon, believing there was a need to end the Watergate scandal to help the Nation heal.  

The idea of pardons, ironically, came from English Law, with the perspective that mercy given by the King was analogous to forgiveness from God.  How ironic that the Founding Fathers would have associated that analogy in making their decision to provide for pardons, given their strong effort to create a nation without kings, a nation of the people.  It was true that they struggled with the idea of giving the power of Pardons to the President, but ultimately, they did,

Pardons have been given for various reasons.  Jimmy Carter pardoned draft dodgers to help the country put Vietnam behind us.  In general, Presidents have used the power of the Pardon sparingly, and as intended.  Andrew Johnson's pardon of thousands of Confederate Soldiers may have influenced President Carter.  What one President does can tend to open the door for other President's to act accordingly.  Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, which might have influenced Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son.

The number of pardons varies from President to President.  Franklin Roosevelt pardoned 2,819; however, it is relevant to recall that Roosevelt served 4 terms, although he died during his final term in office.  Harry Truman pardoned 1,913.  In his first term, Donald Trump ranked third in the number of pardon's granted among all of the other presidents.  In his second term, on the first day he was in office he pardoned 1,500, charged and convicted in the Capital Riot.  Without determining pardons since, Donald Trump is well ahead among presidents in regard to the use of the Pardon power.  

In general, earlier presidents were more constrained in using pardoning power.  Andrew Johnson's grant of thousands of former Confederate Soldiers was the first of the massive granting of pardons.  Many presidents in the early years did not issue pardons beyond 3-digit numbers.

Was the decision by the Founding Fathers to grant a Pardon Power to Presidents a bad idea.  Is it time that a separate branch be created to make the decision of pardons?  Or are the votes of American citizens in electing our presidents the best source of entrusting that power to the wisdom of those they elect.?   I do not know the answer, but it does seem to warrant consideration.        

      

 

George Orwell's Animals

Buddies

Have you noticed just how intelligent animals can be, and how sometimes they have buddies, like these two that we watched for several years.  Perhaps George Orwell had noticed that when he wrote "Animal Farm."

But first, it was the word " Dystopia that prompted this blog.  A Dystopia is an imagined, deeply flawed society, where life is wretched, dehumanized, and fearful.  Two good examples of the word are the books of Aldous's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four."

The description of dystopia includes acts of extreme control, forced labor, mass surveillance, wealth, worker exploitation, and environmental neglect.  Examples of dystopian behavior include wealth inequality, with stark differences between the rich and poor, increasing homelessness, financial instability, and social and economic dystopia. 

In addition to George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," and his many other works, he wrote "Animal Farm."  "Animal Farm" has been called a fairy story by Orwell himself, but "Animal Farm" has also been called satire, a masterpiece, and a view of the future.  The title of the book, as well as the characters being talking animals might cause you to assume that "Animal Farm" is a children's book.  It is not.

"Animal Farm" is a dystopian book in which the main characters are animals laboring in the field, forced by humans to live a dystopian life.  What Orwell did was use animals to address issues he saw happening to humans, whose abuse was often ignored.

Here is a taste of what Orwell's fusion of political and artistic purpose moved forward.  

The farmer for whom the animals worked was a drunk and sloppy farmer, and Old Major knew he had not long to live.  He decided to speak out about the things he had learned over the years.   "Let us face it:  Our lives are miserable, laborious, and short.  We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty.  No animals in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old.  No animal in England is free.  The life of an animal is misery and slavery:  that is the plain truth."

Old Major did not live to guide the animals to rebel, but he inspired them to proceed forward on their own.  The book goes forward to explain how they achieved independence and how they managed once they took charge.    

I hope some of you might find "Animal Farm" worth reading.  

As for why I used the picture that I did at the top of the blog, I believe it is proof that animals are smarter than we give them credit, and they have emotions that we overlook.  Orwell chose farm animals to represent how humans are able to respond to opportunity, just as the animals did.  Did it work? 

Campaign Promises

Recently I came across a campaign speech for the presidency.  The candidate chose to make one of his first speeches in Kansas.  His theme was about how we should do things better.  The candida spoke of hungry children, of those on reservations with 80% unable to find work, of poverty, locks on doors and riots in American streets.    

He did not win the election, so we will never know whether he might have corrected the problems he had addressed, for Robert Kennedy was assassinated before the election.  

His brother Ted eulogized him with these words:  My brother need not be eulogized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life: to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.  

Certain speeches remain familiar.  For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's during the depression spoke these words: " All we have to fear is fear itself."  In also, John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."  George W. Bush after 9/11 declared: "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."  Barack Obama, even before the election, declared "Yes we can," and Eisenhower warned, "The potential for misplaced power exists and will persist".  Donald Trump declared, "The golden age of America begins right now."  

Do campaign speeches matter?  Sometimes.  However, other factors determine success, such as legislative achievements, public opinion, use of the media, and whether what a candidate says in campaigning aligns in his actions in office later.  Would he have fed the children, found jobs for everyone, erased poverty, poverty, riots, and the need for locked doors?  

You may be surprised to learn that Political Research shows that presidents fulfil an average of 2/3rds of their campaign promises.  Whether that is good or bad is left to you.

The Final Thoughts of a President

     I have sometimes wondered how Presidents feel on the day they leave the Presidency.  Are they satisfied with the decisions they made?  Do they regret some of those decisions?  In past blogs I have quoted Washington's warning about the potential harm of political parties, yet political parties continue to exist. Have Presidents whose lives have been cut short while in office thought about things they wished they had completed, or have they wished they had spent more time with their families.  

    In his farewell speech, Ronald Reagan acknowledged the tradition of presidents ending their final speech with warnings.  The following 2 paragraphs are part of Reagan's farewell speech.    

"An informed patriotism is what we want.  And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what America represents in the long history of the world.  Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America.  We were taught, very directly what it means to be an American.  We absorbed almost in the air, a love of country, and an appreciation of its institutions.  If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, and if you didn't get them from the neighborhood, you got them from the father down the street who fought in Korea.    Or, you could get a sense of Patriotism from school.  And if that failed, you could get a sense of Patriotism from the popular culture.  The embroiled democratic values implicitly reinforced that idea. and TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed.  Younger parents aren't sure that an ambivalent appreciation for America is the right thing to teach modern children.    As for those who teach modern culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style.  Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinitiated it.  We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise.  And freedom is special and rare.  It's fragile; it needs protection.  So, we have got to teach history based not on what's in fashion, but what's important."

    Was President Washington successful in his warning about political parties?  Was Ronald Reagan successful in his ideas about what needed to be done to regain respect for our precious Bill of Rights in a modern culture.  

    Do those we elect on all levels of government ignore the warnings of those who have served in offices before them?  Six men have held the office of President since Reagan made that speech.  Did we respond to his concerns, or was he just another politician whose words were forgotten the next day?

    

Holiday Traditions of Indigenous People

    A regular follower of my blog reminded me that I had not included the ways in which those earliest people to occupy the Northen Hemisphere celebrated the holiday season.  Having been made aware of that omission, I will add to my earlier post some of the interesting traditions celebrated by Indigenous People. as they too celebrated the Solstice with their own traditions. 

    Many of their celebrations are similar to those I described in my earlier blog.  Feasting is common, although the contents of the feasts vary. Dancing is also common, just as that is in many cultures.  However, there are wonderful traditions that are not practiced elsewhere.  

    While elderly relatives may be common guests in other cultures, it seems that Indigenous people regard the presence of elderly guests in a particularly respectful way.  The San Carlos in Arizona might invite an older man to visit, share a meal, and then tell stories most of the night.

    The Ojibwe Minnesota Chippewa Tribe also enjoy story telling.  A Storyteller is regarded as a gift.  As a matter of courtesy, the traditional stories including animals are told only in winter, when animals are less active, so they are less likely to hear stories about themselves being told.  

    The Syilx in Washington State and British Columbia have dance ceremonies, prayers for the new year to come, and songs, dancing, feasting, and a give-away. 

    In doing this research, I learned that while some of the traditions are similar to our own, other traditions are far less common to our own. In particular, we Americans seem to devote particular attention to children, while many of the Indigenous People focus more respectfully on the elderly.  Story telling is very common among most tribes.  In the Acoma Pueblo of New Mexico there is story telling of the coyote and other animals.  Also, there is more emphasis on the sharing of knowledge.

    As is true in many cultures, spiritual sensing and prayer, sometimes singing, and the lighting of sage, sweetgrass, or cedar, as other cultures light candles, are common.  Just as the elderly are important to the holiday traditions, some Indigenous people honor those who have passed.  

    In summary, some of our traditions are similar to traditions of Indigenous people, but in doing the research for this blog, I learned of other lovely traditions that they practice.  Perhaps as the New Year arrives, we all might choose to pause to remember those who are no longer with us to share the new year.  Thank you, my friend, for reminding that I had overlooked the Holiday and New Year traditions of Indigenous people.   

The Wisdom of Oz

 My husband and I are gifting our collection of the Wizard of Oz to Fort Hays State University, and I am going through all of the collection, getting it ready to deliver.  Along the way, I am enjoying reading bits of Oz Wisdom found among the many books.

I discovered that there are some of those bits of wisdom and advice that might be helpful to the thinking in Washington D.C. today, delivered with the humor and satire of L. Frank Baum.   For example, "Laws were never meant to be understood and it is foolish to make the attempt."  The Marvelous Land of Oz, 1904."

"The reason most people are bad is because they do not try to be good.  The Emerald City of Oz."

"Whenever an appeal is made to law, sorrow is almost certain to follow--even in a fairyland like Oz.  But it might be stated the people of Oz are generally so well behaved that there is not a single lawyer amidst them.  Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. 1908."

" A good many laws seem foolish to those people who do not understand them, but no law is ever made without some purpose, and that purpose is usually to protect all the people and guard their welfare. The    Patchwork Girl of Oz, 1913."

"When we try to deceive people, we always make mistakes.  The Emerald City of Oz, 1910."

"People often do a good deed without hope of reward, but for an evil deed they always demand payment.  The Emerald City of Oz. 1910."

"It is such an uncomfortable feeling to know you are a fool."  The Wonderful World of Oz.  1900."  

"The Princess looked at her more closely. 'Tell me, she resumed.  Are you of Royal blood.?'  'Better than that Ma'am, said Dorothy.  'I came from Kansas.'  Oz of Oz, 1907." 

"In Oz we are loved for ourselves alone, and for our kindness to one another, and for our good deeds.  Ozma, The Road to Oz, 1909.

        Thank you, people, from Oz for helping me write this Christmas blog, (and thank you Linda Sunshine for your book, collecting 'All Things' from all the Oz books.  

    Wishing Happy Holidays to all of you!    I could not think of a better message to share with you than these thoughts from Oz, and if you are still shopping, I cannot think of a better gift to children, or those of us who are kids at heart, than the gift of Oz books!

    For those of you who live near Hays, Kansas, or for those who might be traveling near-by, the Larry and Lyn Fenwick Collection will be open for viewing this spring in the FHSU Library.

Something to Think About

 We are in the midst of the winter holiday season.  It is a good time to reflect on the special nature of our history.  Certainly, the traditions passed to us from our childhood tend to be repeated from year to year until we begin to define the traditional holidays as what we grew up enjoying.  More recently, some families have become less traditional, with family gatherings at Thanksgiving but Christmas more flexible, like ski trips or holidays some place warm. Children are out of school longer.  This year may be the exception, with concerns about whether they can afford trips away from home.

In America, we have our traditions, but we are a nation of many ethnicities.  Sometimes, the majority overlooks the traditions and customs of smaller populations of Americans.  I found some interesting traditions among smaller American cultures.      

German emigrants observed Krampus Night. when the Christmas Devil scared bad children.  The next day, Saint Nicholas rewarded children who were good.   Germans represent a rather large number of early settlers in America, and they brought many traditions. 

Hindus, who now represent perhaps 3 million citizens in America today, celebrate the Winter Solstice.

St. Nichola comes from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, representing a population in America of 11 percent.  Their practice was giving gifts.  They called St. Nicholas Sinterklaas, which evolved to our Santa Claus.  

On December 8, Buddhists celebrate Bodhi Day, on which thy remember Buddha, who determined to sit under a tree until he was enlightened.  The memory of his decision is honored by studying and meditation and also performing kind acts.

Latin countries have a religious holiday recognizing Mary's nine month's pregnancy.  Jewish families celebrate an eight-day festival by lighting a candle on the menorah.  A more recently created group, called Kwanzaa, is a holiday honoring Africa culture,

These are only some examples of the various faiths in America, past and present.  Without agreeing or condemning the faith of others, from the past or the present, it is relevant to remember that faith came to America from its beginning.  Part of that is the wisdom of the founding fathers to respect the faith of Americans, whether of the majority or the minority or the nonbelievers.  

 

 

Reflections on Time

     There has been so much reporting on the news about immigration, a topic I assumed was a distant matter in my own family.  However, one day I realized that my grandmother was an immigrant.  She came to America in her mother's arms. 

    I do not know why her parents made that decision.  My Great Grandfather's brother came ahead of him, and they were very close, but that does not explain why either one of them came to America.  The rest of their family remained in England and seemed to be doing well.  The decision to come to America proved to be a successful decision.  

    The realization that I was closer historically to someone who had chosen to immigrate was a surprise, although not particularly significant, yet it does make me wonder if many people living today are unaware of the close history of their own family's immigration.  

    Emigration was not always controlled by the federal government. Yet, early on we chose to open the door for some and close it to others.  That included bringing men to America to do dangerous work but refusing to let them stay when the work was done.  

    Some examples of immigrant labor, whether by those who were refused citizenship or those who became citizens provide an example of the enormous value of emigrants to America: The suspension of the Brooklyn Bridge, Mount Vernon was created by Immigrant Craftsmen, Immigrants were Transcontinental Railroad workers, and the construction of the Hoover Dam are all examples, as well as many more.  

    Even today there are many examples of those who brought a variety of talents to America.  Some examples are Albert Einstein, Germany; Audrey Hepburn Belgium; Henry Kissinger, Germany; Andrew Carnegie, Scotland, and many more.  

    Yes, many immigrants of the past and the present are not famous, nor do they do daring or beautiful things. Yet, farmers depend on immigrants to work on their farms, they work in hospitals, hotels, and restaurants--or open restaurants of their own.  They baby sit our children, work in slaughter houses, and clean our houses, schools, and nursing.  The do what many of our ancestors have done to get a start and make a better life for their children. 

    We see these things every day, but if my "discovery" is an example, we often fail to consider that not many generations ago our own families took the risk of coming to America to make a better life for their children.  It is obvious that current immigrant issues are in a mess, and decisions and appropriate actions are needed.  But, my personal realization that I exist because my grandmother's father decided to come to America in search of a better life for his family made me reflect on the dreamers of today a little more sympathetically than before.                     

Thanksgiving History

 

Was there really a Thanksgiving Meeting between English colonists and Wampanoag people?  Apparently yes, but it was not necessarily what we have mythologized today.  It was not called Thanksgiving, nor was its purpose a celebration of thanks.  The most likely purpose was a harvest feast.  It is questionable whether the Indians were invited guests or simply Wampanoag men who heard the gunfire of colonists hunting for the feast and they joined them. 

It seems that there actually was a three-day harvest feast in 1621 by the colonists that were joined by Wampanoag men who joined in the hunting and were included in the celebration.  There was a feast, but it probably consisted of deer, corn, and shellfish, not the turkey we traditionally enjoy.  

Thanksgiving is a lovely holiday, but it is not the romanticized version we celebrate today.  The holiday we enjoy today was not established until 1863, not the 1621 gathering of English colonists.  Our modern holiday was declared by President Lincoln in the midst of the Civil War. 

While my research described above seems about as accurate as an event that occurred in 1621 can be, other versions can be found.  Some suggest that Massasoit, chief of the Wampanoags, and ninety of his men were invited to a feast to celebrate a land deal.  

A more gruesome story is that in 1637 more than seven hundred Pequot were gathered for their annual green corn dance and Colonists surrounded the village and set it on fire, shooting any Pequot who tried to escape. The next day the Massachusetts Bay governor declared it a day of thanksgiving. 

 I think for most of us, Thanksgiving is a day of family and traditions. I have many memories of Beck families, gathering at the home where my father and his siblings were raised. Somehow, we made room around the table for everyone. My husband and I lived away from home for many years, but we continued the traditional family meals for Thanksgiving, adding a few of our own.  If we were invited to join friends for Thanksgiving, my husband would ask me to make our own traditional dinner the next day, so we could enjoy our traditional meal and have leftovers to enjoy.  Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Rights, Responsibilities, and Wisdom

The First Amendment

 Congress shall make no law respecting or establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for redresses of grievances. 

We live in a world today where people doubt science, yet they go to the Doctor when they are sick, and they get into airplanes to fly off to visit family for Thanksgiving without understanding how the pills their doctor gives them helps them get well or how the airplane keeps them in the air.  So long as we are comfortable trusting those wiser than ourselves, the world moves along fairly well.  However, it is when we trust those whom we follow, not because we believe they are wiser or better educated, but because they tell us what we want to hear.  That is what gets us in trouble.

The world is full of charlatans, and if we follow them blindly to get what we want, there is really no excuse for blaming anyone but ourselves.  The Founding Fathers gave us the gift of living in a Nation which requires responsibilities.  

Unfortunately, civics has been removed from many, probably most, school curriculums, and many of us have little awareness of the way our political system works, nor the important personal responsibilities placed on each American.  Past blogs have described the checks and balances intended to keep any one part of government from exceeding its intended power.  

I remember when I first registered to vote.  My party choice was easy:  my great grandfather had fought for the Union, and he would always vote for Lincoln's party.  His son served in the Kansas House of Representatives for 3 terms. My father and my mother were Republican County Representatives.  Of course I registered as a Republican.  I suspect that many people register for the party their family followed, without giving it much thought.  That might have confused the Founding Fathers, who regarded the right to vote as a serious responsibility.

The Founding Fathers also regarded matters of Faith as extremely important, and they gave churches a significant privilege of being excused from taxes on churches and other religious property.  In exchange, churches were not to use their Sacred places for political matters.  Yet, we all know of examples when that is done.    

I was very surprised and confused when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United to reverse centuries-old financial campaign restrictions and enabled Corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on politics.  Today, a huge amount of fundraising for advertising political matters comes from "super pacs."  That court ruling has changed elections, and I am still confused with the decision of the Court.  The idea of "one man, one vote" is smothered by Citizens United, in my opinion.  Unless the Supreme Court changes its ruling, that will continue.  

What would go a long way in informing Americans about our constitution and how it works would be to return to classes in Civics, not just one class in student's senior year but rather, age-appropriate classes starting in Junior High School and continuing until High School graduation.  

When I see the nonsense of long lines at voting places because they refused to provide adequate locations, disruptions of depositing ballots in Post Office Boxes, and refusing to allow water to be given to people waiting in lines on very hot days because inadequate voting sites were provided, I cannot but think of the ridiculous obstructions imposed on Black Americans in the South after the Civil War.  

Voting is our right, and when we take the time to vote, knowing that our little vote is tiny in a nation of so many people, and yet we vote, the Founding Fathers would be proud.  Those we see finding ways to   impede votes they assume to be in disagreement with their preference--disgrace themselves.         

The Challenge of Finding Solutions

My blog last spring titled "Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts" addressed the upheaval when President Donald Trump named himself President of the Kennedy Center and replaced the Board of Trustees.  President Kennedy has no other memorial in Washington D.C.  The Kennedy Center is his memorial, together with a recognition of President Eisenhower by the naming of the Eisenhower Theater.

A young John F. Kennedy announcing Adlai Stevenson

Since the Spring changes, people have shown their disapproval of the changes to the Kennedy Center with their dollars.  At the time of President Trump's naming of the new board, the Kennedy Center was supported by 40,000 individual donors who formed the foundation of the Center's financial support.  Since then, many of these donors have shown their disapproval of the changes by withdrawing their financial support.  From September 3rd to October 12th 43% of seats across the Opera House, Concert Hall, and Eisenhower Theater went unsold.  In comparison to the previous year, ticket spending fell by more than half.  

Removing their support is about the only way donors have to show their disapproval of the replacement of professional leadership and laying off staff.  Some artists have withdrawn their work from the Center.  These results hurt the Kennedy Center itself.  

 With regard to certain proposed changes of the Center, according to the U.S. Code, "After December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public area of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts."

The Kennedy Center is an American treasure.  Ways must be found to please people who love it, including not only the patrons who have been financial supporters, but also children who can learn to appreciate the arts of all kinds, and visitors from across America and the World can enjoy the Kennedy Center once again!     

,

 

  

Something to Consider

Sometimes the ideas for my blog just pop into my head with no explanation.  Last night we were returning from a wonderful musical performance and these words popped into my mind out of nowhere.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The words come from the Declaration of Independence.  I had not thought about these words for some time, and I do not know why they came to mind out of nowhere, but they are powerful words, especially the declaration that all men are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yet, at the same time, America sanctioned slavery.  We had taken the land from the indigenous people who lived here before us. The rights described spoke of men, not men and women.  

It took a war for America to abolish slavery, and even longer for women to get the vote, but eventually it happened.  As for our treatment of indigenous people, it has remained complicated.

Those drafting the Declaration of Independence were considering what they saw as unacceptable treatment from the King of Great Britain, which they called "injuries and usurpations," such as refusal to "Assent to Laws."  Their list of abuses by the King was pages longer than the Declaration itself.

They declared, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."  

They acknowledged that such action should not be carelessly undertaken, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government."  What followed was a very long list of the violations made by the King.

Our Founding Fathers did not choose to elect a king.  Instead, they devised a system of divided powers, in which no single branch of the government has entire power.  The idea is that both the house and the senate have different responsibilities, the members of the house elected every two years, while the senators serve for six years.  With such a large nation, it was assumed that their votes would vary from state to state because of the different needs and opinions from the citizens they represented, avoiding block voting.  Abraham Lincoln warned against political parties, recognizing that political parties might form voting blocks, disrupting the benefit of independent states voting for their constitutions rather than as party leadership controlled.  Likewise, the independence of the Supreme Court, following the law rather than politics, would check personal and political influence.  

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is always "Something to Consider." 

Are People Better of Worse Than in the Past?

 While I was browsing online, I came across an article titled "Are we worse than people used to be.?"   Psychologists Adam Mastrocammi joined with Raul Rand to answer that often asked question.  They included a question that caught my eye.  They used the common comment, "You used to be able to leave your door unlocked at night."

That comment caught my eye because I remember exactly when we started locking our door at night.  It was 1959.  I came downstairs and went to the back door to go outside.  The door would not open, and since it was always unlocked, I kept yanking on it, assuming it was just stuck.  Very calmly my father said, "You might try unlocking it." 

November 15, 1959 was the night of the killing of the Clutter family.  Truman Capote wrote his book about the murders, and it was made into a movie titled "In Cold Blood", and after that night our doors were always locked.  Until then, we never locked our doors...not at night nor when we went to town, although I believe we did lock the doors if we were going on vacation.  I am certain that the news of the Clutter murders was the beginning of locking our doors.

However, this blog is about whether things in general were better than they are today.  Consistently, when asked, people today say that people were better when they were young than they are today.  Whether older people are asked or younger people are asked, the answer is the same.  People hold that opinion about a broad range of things, such as politics. One question commonly asked by social scientists to measure opinions about generosity or greed consistently gets the response that people today are greedier.  However, if they are asked that question about people they have known for at least 15 years, they generally say that their acquaintances are better today than they were in the past. 

Another example is that since older people and younger people both believe that people are worse today than they were in the past, logic would conclude that things must be awful, since things have been going downhill for years.   

The authors of this research concluded that people are not really getting worse.  Rather, as time passes, we do not remember the bad things that happened long ago, but we clearly remember recent bad things that just happened.  That is their explanation for why most people tend to think things are worse today.  

I followed their reasoning, and I am not sure that holds up.  Certainly, if bad things have just happened, they are going to be foremost in your mind.  However, the idea that we have an exagerated, sunny recollection of the past does not seem realistic to me.  Clearly, I am not the expert, and my memory may be different from others.  All that I know with certainty is that we never locked our doors until November of 1959.

I do think that traditions that made us feel good, like holiday traditions, like bringing friends and family together for holidays and birthdays, are less common, and that was a good tradition.  Chatting on the phone seems less common, and that reduces sharing news, becoming aware when someone is not well and baking some cookies or bringing a supper basket, simply staying in touch.  I don't know that such things represent being worse than in the past, but those traditions were nice.  Traditional customs did seem to make for a kinder world.

Just for fun you might try your own test by creating a personal questionnaire.  Think back to your clear memories of the past, good and bad.  Then reflect on recent events similar to the old memories you recalled.  Your personal test might not be accurate, but it might be interesting.   

The Impact of Fandom

 

My Older Brother,
back when a Senior could
drive the school bus

I must begin with my credentials, so you will not think that I am just someone who doesn't know a football from a basketball.  I was a high school cheer leader, and I once sat through a football game with a clear plastic trash bag over my body to keep the drizzling rain off.  I could provide more credentials, but you get the point.

The point is that my fandom credentials are apparently out of date.  Obviously, my idea that fans go to games to cheer for touchdowns and baskets is no longer enough.  I thought wearing school team colors was enough, but apparently dressing as a banana, or baring your chest along with some buddies to spell out the school name across your bodies--preferably knowing how to spell so you can get lined up to properly spell the name--is more acceptable.

Team support is no longer limited to yelling loudly--which I certainly practiced enthusiastically--but stomping your feet so loudly that construction strength is vulnerable and doing it well before anything is happening on the court is mandatory.  

Ok, I get that, sort of, but here is what really disturbs me.  I thought sports had something to do with encouraging being good sports, playing by the rules, focusing on a habit of good health.  In short, behaving like the players in 'Chariots of Fire.'  How out of touch I am!

In doing my research for this blog, I learned that sports are more than a game.  It is really about the importance of Fan Experience!  What is important is that fans leave the game feeling that they were a part of a unified group, that their self-esteem was justifiably raised because their team won and they played a role in the victory. 

Unfortunately, fans of the losing team may feel the responsibility of supporting their losing team with   rude and disruptive behavior. heckling, throwing tantrums, blaming the referees.  The old logic of my era might have criticized the referees, but in general we left the game with comments of "there is always next year, we almost won, if we hadn't run out of time we still had a chance to win, we will beat them in the tournament"  These responses for some fans today seem to be declining.

In my research, I discovered an article in which the author set up a sort of joke, putting together   irrational fan-based pairs, with nothing in common, and asking fans to vote which was worst.  It was such a useless challenge that she expected only a few friends to respond, but instead, over 17,000 votes were cast.  

What I concluded in reading her little senseless contest is that there is something inside us that challenges us to choose.  I suppose that in writing this blog I am also choosing.  Somehow, we do seem to need to decide one thing over another, and once we choose the unchosen thing is suddenly "less than."  In politics, life is much like a basketball game.  There is our team and the other team, and we favor our team.  And, like the silly game the woman set up as a sort of joke, there may be very little reason to favor one team over the other, but once we make our choice it inevitably influences us.

I began this blog to be about sports, but I could not help applying Fandom to politics.  Do we sometimes choose our political party in the same ways fanbases are chosen?  For example, Loyalty across generations, Expectations of others, Frustration during struggles, The need to be a part of community.  Those explanations were taken from an article on sport's traditions, yet they seem quite applicable to politics.

So, during the World Series season, when you choose your team, you might reflect on just how we humans choose our favorite sides, and whether it makes any sense.             

   

Advice from Atticus

 As an attorney, I have often talked with young people considering a career as a lawyer, some of whom had already been accepted and were asking for my advice.  I always tell them the same thing.  Read To Kill a Mockingbird.  

The wisdom in that book by Harper Lee is the best advice I can offer.  It is the story of a Southern attorney asked to represent a young black man wrongly accused.  His young daughter is taunted at school for the fact that her father has agreed to represent a Black man.  Those who taunted her used a vulgar word, which she repeated to her father' 

Before explaining why he had agreed to represent the young man, he corrected her use of the vulgar word.  

She tries to justify using the vulgar word by saying " 'its what everybody at school says."  Her father replies, "From now on it will be everybody less one--"

He gives his daughter a little description of the young black man, gently personalizing who he is, but admitting that "There's been some high talk around town to the effect that I shouldn't do much about defending this man."

She responds, "If you shouldn't be defendn' him, then why are you doin' it?

"For a number of reasons," said Atticus.  "The main one is, if I didn't I couldn't hold up my head in town, I couldn't represent this county in the legislature, I couldn't even tell you or Jem not to do something again."  

"You mean that if you didn't defend that man, Jem and me wouldn't have to mind you any more?"

"That's about right."

"Why?'

"Because I could never ask you to mind me again.  Scout, simply by the nature of the work every lawyer gets at least one case in his lifetime that affects him personally.  This one's mine, I guess.  You might hear some ugly talk about it at school, but do one thing for me if you will:  you just hold your head high and keep those fists down.  No matter what anybody says to you, don't you let 'em get your goat.  Try fighting with your head for a change...it's a good one, even if it does resist learning."

I don't know how many young women and men have taken my advice and have read "To Kill a Mockingbird" but I hope that some did.  If you have not read it, I would encourage you to find a copy and read it.  

Harper Lee was well known for declining to correspond with her fans.  I never expected a reply, but I decided to write to her.  To my complete surprise, she replied.  She was elderly at that time, and she apologized for her shaky writing, but she filled two pages in reply to what I had shared in my letter.  Her letter is one of my greatest treasures. 

A personal note:

Some of you who follow this blog know that I graduated from Baylor University School of Law and practiced in Texas for several years until my husband's career took us to Georgia and North Carolina, where I took the bar and was licensed in both of those states.  However, my career path changed to publishing 3 books, written for general readers but researched in depth.  I started sharing this blog while writing "Prairie Bachelor, The Story of a Kansas Homesteader & the Populist Movement".  My goal has always been to inform readers in a way that is interesting, and I try to do the same with this blog.  I think Harper Lee did the same thing in "To Kill a Mockingbird".  She did not try to lecture her readers, but she told a story that gave her readers food for thought.

I believe we live in troubled times today.  I try to do what Harper Lee did.  I try to give you food for thought, and a perspective you may not have considered.  A great deal of research goes into each blog I write.  I don't intend to tell you what to think, but I hope I may give you something to think about.      

Solutions Instead of Criticisms

A World War One Poster

  Recently I came across a letter to President John F. Kennedy, preserved in the National archives.  A young man wrote:  "Dear President Kennedy, I would like to know why, in this age of stress on physical fitness, there are still paunchy teachers around.  These teachers are supposed to be good examples to us poor, disgusted kids.  We kids do the exercises the teachers tell us, while the teachers stand around talking to other teachers.  How are we supposed to believe exercises are worth it if the teachers don't seem to be interested.  I move that a new law be passed that requires teachers to keep themselves in the pink too."  The young man added, "P.S.  Even some of the Scoutmasters have midriff bulge."  President Kennedy did not pass the law the young man proposed.

Today, obesity in America is a major health issue, associated with numerus diseases, increasing risk to cancer, stroke, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease and others.  Of particular concern is the increase of obesity in children.  In addition, obesity has led to fewer citizens being able to join the military. 

A common presumption is that obesity is the result of a lack of willpower, failure to exercise, and
failing to eat properly.  However, many things may be involved.  Among them are such things as medications, stress, access to affordable food, safe places to be active, and simply being unable to walk safely in one's own neighborhood.  I would add that during covid poor eating habits may have developed that remain. 

As I read the young man's letter to the president, I could not resist wondering about where he is today, and if he is healthy and physically fit.  It is sometimes easy to see those overweight and make critical judgements, but the better response is understanding the possible reasons for obesity and supporting the ways to reduce the causes.  

Right now, we are in a problem with providing health care, especially in rural communities.  Of course, those with problems related to obesity need to participate in the recommendations to help improve their health.  However, simply judging those who are overweight isn't a solution.  And, the current problems in keeping medical care for rural communities isn't helpful either.  It is especially a time for government assistance to be based on research, not personal opinions.     

A Consideration for All of Us

First, do some old-fashioned research!

 When I watched a student sit-in on the television, I could only wonder how informed those students were, and whether they were interfering with classes other students wanted to attend.  I would have preferred seeing them in the library, researching the complex history (or whatever it was that they chose to protest) rather than sitting in tents blocking other students trying to get to class, and protesting with people who already agree with them.  

Today education is far more complicated than when I went to college.  Often universities are the biggest employers in the town or city.  They are often the cultural source not only for the students, but also for the city and surrounding area.  Some provide clinics and health screenings.  Stores in the city often depend on the students as customers, as well as employees for the city's businesses.

At larger universities there may be important activities beyond classrooms, such as Laboratories doing intensive medical research that requires undisturbed work.  Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Programs in the Arts and other activities having nothing to do with the issue that protesting students are interrupting.  These opportunities beyond the traditional classroom may allow students to work alongside men and women outstanding in their fields, allowing the students to learn more than they otherwise would from lecture halls and assigned reading.  Protests that interfere with the rights of others deserve serious reflection and respect for what they are interrupting.

While it is important for students to be aware beyond the classroom, and the right to speak and demonstrate are valued principles of our Constitution, the balance of the rights of others are also important.  I believe that too often issues important to protestors serve a disappointing purpose and an unnecessary disruption.  Freedom of speech and public protests are valuable gifts protected by our    Constitution.  They deserve thoughtful preparation.

Marches and sit-ins have been positively effective to our history.  Often, inconveniencing others has been important in bringing attention to the issue.  What I would hope is that those of us who use our important American right of speech and protest recognize what valuable rights we have, and before we join the protest or use our right of freedom of speech, we pause long enough to reflect on and understand what we are protesting and why we feel it is important to protest.  

Whether you are a student or a senior citizen, before you pick up a protest sign or block the route of others, I hope all of us remember what and why we are protesting and that we use our privileges of protesting thoughtfully.  I prefer to see protestors prepared to discuss issues rather than screaming back and forth, and I definitely dislike angry voices that have not taken the time to understand the issue they proport to explain.  Our right to protest in invaluable.  It must never be taken from us, and it deserves the thoughtful use of that privilege.                 

Are Lies Running Rampant?

Pinocchio

     I decided that at a time when there is no imminent upcoming Election I could write a blog without it seeming to be about a particular person.  Unfortunately, there are a great many examples of political speakers that stray from the truth.

You may remember the evening a politician charged with bad behavior had rushed up to be in line to shake hands with important people.  Senator Mitt Romney was so offended by Representative Santos having crowded his way to the front in order to be able the reach out and shake hands with dignitaries passing by that Mitt called him out, saying "You do not belong here."  At that time, Santos was facing several investigations into campaign finance infractions. In the past, politicians would have been promptly removed by their own parties for far less wrongful things.  Why has that changed?

Sadly, it was Senator Romney, who had once been his party's nominee for President of the United States, who seemed to have felt out of step with his voters or his party, and he chose not to run again.

I chose this picture of Pinocchio because he was a naughty boy who told lies over and over.  The lesson of the story was that Pinocchio learned his lesson about lying and got to be real little boy.  The picture at the top of this blog seems more in keeping with today.  Pinocchio still has his big nose, obviously not having learned his lesson in order to become a real boy.  Yet people are rushing to shake his hand.     

    Today, integrity is often put aside.  Voters have grown to accept that politicians lie, even going so far as to accept that lying "is just a tool" or excusing liars by assuming that "all politicians lie."  In fact, if a politician is caught in a lie, their defense is often that "everyone does it."  Perhaps there have always been liars in politics, but the founding fathers would have been embarrassed by being caught in a lie.

    Today's politicians seem unable or unwilling to avert falsehoods, having done it for so long that it is just part of their speaking style.  Others know they are using falsehoods, but they choose to balance its effectiveness.  Will the lie gain more than adhering to the truth?

    Sadly, those who study truthfulness of those we elect have found that both sides lie.  Bill Adair, the founder of Polite Fact stated in his book, Beyond the Big Lie, that there was a concerning amount of dishonesty and exaggeration by both parties. Neither party can be entirely proud of their credibility record.  Research has found that when voters are shown that their candidate lies, they are displeased, but that does not necessarily reduce the voter's support or change their vote.

    All of this is hard for me to understand.  I realize that politicians need to be elected in order to serve the nation and telling voters what they do not want to hear may not get their vote, especially if their opposition is willing to lie to get the vote.  Have we voters forced candidates to lie, knowing that hearing the truth may not get them elected?

    Mitt Romney chose not to run again.  If we voters truly want candidates who protect and defend our precious constitution, we cannot elect those who do not hold the constitution a treasure admired by the rest of the world for generations.  We cannot believe that our little vote isn't important.  It is!  Candidates don't lie if they believe that voters dislike electing liars.  Apparently, our voting has taught them that lies work! 

      

      

A Freedom of the Press

Katherine Graham

 Freedom of the press has always been essential to making America work.  Information from more sources is essential to keep the news honest.  Unfortunately, today's freedom struggles to balance the accuracy of information with careless or intentional misinformation. 

This week's blog takes a look backward to a family story.  In 1933 Eugene Isaac Meyer bought the Washington Post.  He set seven principles for his newspaper:  Tell the truth, All the truth, Observe the decencies of the gentleman, Print what is fit reading for young as well as old, Remember that the newspaper's duty is to the readers and the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owner, Remember that in the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifice of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good, and The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

His daughter, Katharine, had an education and had worked at the newspaper before her marriage, but she had not intended to be particularly involved in the business after she married and had children.  Fate had different plans.  This blog is about those unexpected years specifically the difficult decisions she faced in making the decision to make public the Pentagon Papers, a three-thousand-page narrative history with a four-page appendix of documents...covering American involvement in Indochina from the Second World War to May of 1968, when peace talks on the Vietnam War began in Paris.  How it got into her hands is too long of a story to tell, but it came without any impropriety by her newspaper.

She proceeded professionally, consulting others in her staff and consulting lawyers, but ultimately, she published.  It was the importance of the freedom of the press and the duty to inform the public that lead her decision.  As I read from her biography, I could not help but think of the words written by her father, words which must have been important to her, especially since she included her father's words in full when she wrote her autobiography. 

Her decision to publish the Pentagon Papers may or may not have been as significant in itself as expected, but it elevated her newspaper, as well as Katharine herself, something that impacted the publishing of Watergate.  She wrote, "The role of the Post in all of this was simply to report the news.  We set out to pursue a story that unfolded before our eyes in ways that made us as incredulous as the rest of the public

It is interesting to look back at the principles of her father in 1933 and consider whether the decisions of his daughter's own times followed his priorities.  It is also interesting to consider our current Freedom of the Press and consider the news we receive today.  Can Eugene Isaac Meyer's principles still be applied to the news of today?

In her book, "Personal History" she also wrote, "Indeed, publishing the Pentagon Papers made future decisions easier, even possible.  Most of all it prepared us, and I suspect, unfortunately, Nixon as well--for Watergate."     

Does It Impact Me?

The Gerrymander 

 Some time ago I posted a blog on gerrymandering, primarily sharing the history.  This blog addresses the challenges and impacts of gerrymandering.  At that time, the abuse of gerrymandering was particularly to disenfranchise Black voters.  However, historically and currently there are other examples of Gerrymandering.  

First of all, establishing precincts with a sincere intent to allow all voters to feel their vote has made a difference is not always easy. If votes of the entire state were simply dumped into one big basket, minorities would feel that their votes would not matter,  the election being winner take all.  However, redistricting with a specific intention to allow minorities of any particular race, religion, or other group likely to vote differently from the majority would leave those ignored voters for the more popular candidate feeling cheated.  About any way you go about trying to treat voters fairly has difficulties.  So, the way to begin this blog is to accept that perhaps the ability to allow everyone to feel that their vote matters is impossible.  It is easier to recognize the wrongful gerrymandering than it is to create a perfect means for all voters who vote. 

History for generations provided examples of gerrymandering being used to disenfranchise minorities, and use of the term generally refers to unfair or dishonest manipulation of  voting districts.  However,  positive efforts to treat all voters fairly can also produce some odd looking shapes.  The shape is not what defines whether a district is fair or unfair to voters.      

Americans have taken pride in the right to vote for generations, and if voters are in the majority, they may never have thought about how disenfranchised minority voters must feel.  It is important for all Americans to want the elections to be as fair as possible, without destroying ballots and scheduling voting hours at inconvenient times or in distant locations, or forcing people to stand in long lines moving slowly, taking hours to vote. Those unfair and un-American stunts are obvious.  Rather, we should want to make all voters feel that their votes matter.  

Traditionally, voting maps are adjusted after census years, because that allows adjustments consistent with the current population.  In general, those adjustments last from census to census.  Unless some significant event occurs there will be no voting districts moved or added.  Therefore, when a state deviates from those traditions it draws attention.  Such has been the case recently in Texas.  

Such interference has happened before.  In fact, in 1812 in Massachusetts the name gerrymandering was applied to a Governor's attempt to sign a bill to redraw State Senate districts to his benefit.  So, here we are.  What's old is often new again, perhaps especially in political tricks.  What is also common is that once tried, others may follow.

I warned at the start of this blog that you might not find answers, but we can keep our eyes open to recognize misuse and abuse of the law and the norms.  We can appeal to those capable of acting appropriately.  And, we do not have to allow our state to act wrongfully just because others do.  

Our responsibility can remain to find ways in our state to make the votes of everyone important, and to respect that right even when we may disagree.  Intentionally attempting to disrupt the votes of citizens is an assault on all of us.

Are We Looking for a New Planet

 I confess that I place taking better care of our planet on a higher level than many people do...maybe more than most.  I think that it is a big deal that "after several months of record-breaking temperatures, the hottest ever summer, and the hottest day on record 2024 was recently confirmed as the hottest year in history, with the global average temperature 0.12C above 2023, the previous warmest calendar year on record." (Source Earth - Org.)  

The world annual Global Risk Report of the World Economic Forum named 3 key climate risks as top global challenges: Extreme weather events, Critical changes to Earth systems, and Biodiversity loss.  The importance to such changes is that when something happens to one thing, it impacts others.  For example, temperature change alters water temperatures, Coral reefs die, and the barrier to extreme weather from coastal storms causes storm surges.

The point is that you may not live where these changes are happening, but the changes caused elsewhere can cause a ripple effect that will ultimately reach you.  Thinking, "thank goodness that has nothing to do with me" may overlook the potential ripple effect.  For example, increased emissions of greenhouse gasses have impacted global temperatures, causing fires from Australia to the U.S.

Plant a garden.

Some of the impacts are things you might never associate with changes, such as the decline of population sizes of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.  Deforestation, cut down to raise cattle, cause environmental problems, such as landslides and soil erosion.  The temperature changes cause ice melting, causing sea level rise, as well as temperature changes in the ocean.  Human activities are said to have degraded about 40% of the planet's soil. 

The title I chose was only intended as a small joke, comparing the money we are spending on space travel.  Maybe someday future generation will travel in space and settle a different planet, but for now, I think it is important to take better care of our planet.  

There are reasons I am concerned.  I fear that the protection America has given to National Parks will not be respected by those intended to protect them for future generations.

I fear overpopulation will ask more than the planet can provide.  I fear we are careless about waste.  A decade ago people were talking about recycling, but I do not see as much attention given to recycling today.  These things are not so relevant for me, as I have gray hair now.  But it is relevant to those I love.

How can we make a difference?  We can reduce single use plastics.  We can conserve energy at home, recycle, and compost.  Sometimes, we can carpool.  We can politely encourage others to find ways to make the planet more sustainable.  We can encourage their congress persons to make decisions that respect the planet.  And, young people, who have the most to lose, can politely suggest to their elders that they would appreciate our help too in respecting our planet.          

  

Does AI have a Since of Conscious?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

     

Is AI taking Over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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