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. 

 

Don't Forget the Ladies

What really matters!

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

 

What is morality?

Do we face a setting sun?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            

    

I like you!

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

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

Anne Frank's Journal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

   

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  

Teddy Roosevelt's Unique Achievements

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

Roosevelt & Muir 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of John Adams

  

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

       

Sometimes a Maverick

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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