Old vs. Young

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

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

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

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

Retirement Fun!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America's Greatest Newsmen

 

Harry Reasoner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Should Children Read?

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

 

What are Tariffs--A Simple History

Paris Monument after WW II

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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