Teaching Our Children

It depends on what we teach them

What are we teaching our children when commercials often disrespect parents or parents disrespect children?  Does it matter when a commercial has a family on vacation and mom and daughter are in the hot tub and dad comes in to join them and his daughter tells him he is not welcome.  Even worse, dad sadly walks away.

Or in another commercial parents sell their children's graduation moment on stage to instead carry a product advertisement, ignoring the significance of their child's achievement for some advertising cash.  

Ok, I know they are jokes, but do these advertisements and other "jokes" like them softly debase the subjects of the joke?  

Humor and attracting attention seem bound to encourage the next example a step further.  In 1988, Cher shocked the world with her sheer Rob Mackie creation at the Oscars. Today see through fabrics, plunging necklines, and thigh-hi slits are just part of the show.  The influence is not restricted to movie stars.  Skimpy beach wear just about eliminates whatever secrets that are left.  

The right to wear blue jeans to school was a special privilege for game days in the beginning, and jeans are still popular, but today it must take far less fabric to make the skintight Levis.

It is not just fashion that has changed the examples we show our children.  Part of my education as I neared graduation from law school was a lecture on maintaining the dignity of the profession.  One rule I clearly recall was the prohibition of advertising.  We were told that sending a respectful Christmas card, thanking the client for entrusting the firm with their case was forbidden.  Lawyers were not to solicit business.  Their reputations were to be the source of their business, through business cards and directory listings.  However, in 1977 the Supreme Court ruled that banning truthful advertising violated constitutional rights.  Unfortunately, some law firms now flood the television with tacky, attention-grabbing ads. 

How Americans get their news has always been complicated, the overriding importance of freedom of the press having restricted federal laws requiring Official correction.  The responsibility of correcting errors has depended on the professionalism of journalists and their ethical coeds.  The rise of internet journalism challenges the ethical standards, and today research is indicating that only a small percentage of errors are actually formally corrected.  

Recently, the long, interrupted travel around the Moon brought crowds to watch the take-off.  A television newscaster, wanting to show viewers the crowd's excitement, chose a young boy.  When the microphone was extended to the boy, he yelled excitingly "We're going to the --expletive-- Moon."  In a crowd of excited people crying and hugging one another, this news man chose a boy eager to repeat his vulgar word.  This is how we teach our children.         

           

Summer Time and Books!

 The trees are budding as I look out the window, a sign that summer and kids at home are not far away.  Do kids still look forward to finding a quiet place with a good book to enjoy?  Sometimes I wonder if modern children's books try too hard to make a point, instead of just telling a good story.  Is it possible that kids are reading less because books by great storytellers are being ignored? Maurice Sendak takes kids into an adventure with "Where the Wild Things Are," with the gnashing of their terrible teeth and terrible roars and terrible eyes, and terrible claws, and The Wild Things make him King.  Yet even better than being King is his own room to come home to, with supper awaiting him.  That book was awarded the 1964 Caldecott winner of Most Distinguished Picture Book of the Year, and kids still love it.  Like many fables and fairy tales, scary things are great...as long as someone is there at the end of the story, and nobody tries to lecture them about what the story means. 

So many classic children's books still delight children, regardless of the date of their publication.  

Christopher Robin never has to be alone, because if Winnie-the-Pooh is busy, Rabit, or Piglet, or Eeyore, or Owl oo Tiger or Kanga or some other friend will be there to play.  Written in 1926, Pooh and his friends still make great companions for youngsters who need some friends to help them grow up.

Even a bit of loneliness is manageable for "The Little Prince," on his solitary planet.  Published first in America in 2018, it is still a special book.

While those books may appeal most to boys, youngsters are often indifferent to whether characters are boys or girls, if the characters seem like a nice friend to get to know.  Familiar classics for girls like Alice in Wonderland, The Secret Garden, Little Women, and Anne of Green Gables are wonderful classics.  Another one that should not be overlooked is Charlotte's Web, the story of Fern, a young farm girl who saves a piglet she named Wilber, who was about to be killed simply because he was a runt!  His next good luck was in finding a friend named Charlotte, a spider.  This book by E.B. White, with wonderful pictures by Garth Williams, was published 1952, and should not be overlooked.  

Another classic, more recent but a wonderful series to fill a summer, is the Harry Potter series.  First issued in England in 1997, Americans lined up eagerly in long lines when books were unavailable in America until 1998.  I had bought all of the books by the time Covid hit, but I had not read them.  I used the opportunity to read them, one right after the other, and the same might be done as a summer reading adventure.  Perhaps there might be a surprise on the family bookcase if some parents were Harry Potter fans!  

My parents encouraged my reading by taking me to the library, which was important, but there is something wonderful about having a book of you own.  I began collecting children's books, especially classics, in about 1988.  I believe you can never be too old to read great classics, and the best way to encourage children to become readers is for children to see parents reading.  Peter Pan and Huckleberry Finn are great examples of books that never grow old.  

Rarely do current books appear on favorite children's book lists over time, while older classics remain in those lists for generations.  The best books do not lecture.  They tell stories.  I believe that lecturing, rather than telling a good story (that just happens to share an important lesson) is part of the problem of why kids do not love to read.  

Believe it or not, young people are entering college unable to read.  Yes, they can manage their laptop far better than I can, and they are growing up in a time that newspapers are disappearing.  But learning to read for oneself is still essential to the skill of reasoning and perceiving nonsense in fools and tricksters.  A good book is more than just understanding the plot.  Reading puts you into the story, helping you understand people and situations in a way that broadens your awareness beyond your personal experiences.  A good book that brings characters to life makes them seem real and helps the reader understand what others experience.

 The best way to encourage children to read is to read to them when they are young and eager to learn to read too.   Summer is coming, and it may be the busiest time of the year, but it is also the best time to   read to your young children.  Libraries are open, even when schools aren't.  If your library does not have the classic books I mentioned, ask them why not?  Even better, they can still be found online to begin your own library, and used books are cheaper in a time when spare cash may be limited.  Turning off the TV and reading can make a difference for everyone...something that using the internet cannot match. 

P.S.  If you don't have children, you might consider finding those books you loved so much, or those books you always meant to read but never got around to and enjoying them for yourself.

 

        

Is Truth a Big Deal?

 I hope that most people would agree that truth is a Big Deal.  Over the years I have blogged about the significance of telling the truth, from little white fibs to avoid hurting someone's feelings to absolute whoppers, whether for relatively insignificant boasts to harmful lies.  This post is about something else.  The question in this blog deals with Lies verses Omissions.  Can it be just as harmful to omit the full truth as it is to outright lie.

I do a great deal of research for writing my blog posts, and because history is often the subject of my blogs, I often seek a broad range of sources in an effort not to be misled.  To answer the question of my title, Yes, Truth is a Big Deal to me, and lying by omission deliberately by leaving out important details so that the truth is skewed by misrepresentation is one of the most disgusting means.  

My husband and I have always been curious to learn more, and the fact that our careers took us to many places, we delighted in visiting many sources of learning, from museums to restaurants, music, lectures, and many other things, but especially important were National Parks.  

Therefore, I was especially disturbed to learn that Museums and Parks are altering the content of information in these public places to "to promote a more patriotic description of American History."  First of all, promoting "a more patriotic version" isn't history.  History is defined as "a chronological record of significant events, including an explanation of their causes."  History is truth, and microprinting by omitting part of the story isn't history.

Museums and parks across the Nation have been impacted by such directives, and in Kansas the directive has impacted the narrative of Brown v. Board of Education.  Such examples as The Grand Canyon "history" that omitted the settlers pushing tribes off the land they had occupied for generations, as well as the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument that omitted information about global warming's impact on the cacti were not being patriotic.  Both of those examples are half-truths, with a very different purpose than patriotism.    

And so, I return to the question whether truth matters.  Olin Vevi, Library of Congress, quoted Francisco Goya:  The sleep of reason produces monsters."  Retired Professor Crispin Sartwell began his paper, "Truth is Real" with these words:  "It is often said, rather casually, that truth is dissolving, that we live in the 'post-truth era."  But truth is one of our central concepts -- perhaps our most central concept --  and I don't think we can do without it."            

What did the Presidents Say?

 

As many of you know, I enjoy reflecting on brief quotes.  Often, they make me reflect more deeply than a long speech.  This week quotes have led me to some deeper thoughts. 

    "Older men declare War.  But it is youth that must fight and die."  Herbert Hoover.  Hoover never served in the military.

Depending on young men and women today may be difficult, not just because fewer young people choose to volunteer but rather because there is a declining number of young Americans physically and mentally fit to serve.  

    "I want us to be what the founding fathers of our nation meant us to become - the land of freedom, the land of peace, and the land of hope."  The 39th President, Jimmy Carter was a Naval Officer, 1946-1953, specializing in Submarines and nuclear technology, but generally known as a peanut farmer, admired for his service after leaving the Presidency, in Habitat for Humanity, philanthropy, and public service.                  

    "We must be strong enough to win any war, and we must be wise enough to prevent one."   Lyndon B. Johnson served in the Naval Reserve during W.W. II.  He was also President during a major escalation of the Vietnam War.  No man has the right to command another man's services unless he has given more of his own."  Calvin Coolidge did not serve in the military, although he was a staunch supporter of the armed forces and held the title of "Colonel." 

    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."  Ronald Reagan served in the U.S. Army, and although his poor eyesight did not allow him to serve in combat, he produced films and reached the rank of Captain.  

Of the 45 individuals who have served as President, 31 served in the military.  George W. Bush, the 43rd President, was the last to serve, serving in the Texas National Guard. His father, George H. W. Bush, served in the U.S. Navy during W.W. II, and was a decorated combat pilot, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.  He is only one example of great courage in service of the nation.

The challenge of volunteer soldiers today is not just a matter of patriotism, but also the physical and mental condition of volunteers.  The most prevalent disqualifications are overweight, (11 percent). drug and alcohol abuse, (8 percent), medical and physical health, (7 percent).  The result of these facts is a concern that eligible and interested volunteers will not be sufficient to fill the need in the future.

    "I have never advocated war except as means of peace, so seek peace, but prepare for war."  Ulysses S. Grant, from his book "Personal Memories."'            

  

     

    

Looking Backward to Understand the Present

Most of you know that I often consult the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and once again I seek their prospective.  In the process of gaining our freedom from England, the Founding Fathers determined that they did not want one man to control our nation.  As they formed the documents that would guide our nation, they debated and argued, but it was clear to them that Americans did not want power in a single person like a king. 

They had also learned in the years of gaining their freedom from England that they did not want constant warfare, nor large standing armies.  To assure that, the Constitution gave Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.  Thomas Jefferson saw war as an ineffective, costly solution, sometimes worsening the problem, rather than resolving it.  While the Founding Fathers did not refuse war entirely, they saw it as a sort of last option.  Between 1798 and 1942, Congress formally declared war only 11 times.  

Formal Declarations of War ceased, and Congress began authorizing military force against specific targets or in specific regions. Modern Presidents have reached for more independent authority; however, after Vietnam, efforts were made to tighten presidential action, with the War Powers Resolution, requiring that the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities, plus the requirement that troops be withdrawn within 60 to 90 days, unless Congress declares war, authorizes the force, or extends the deadline. 

Obviously, the world has changed over decades, and the ability to move more quickly is far beyond capabilities the Founding Fathers could have imagined.  Even so, it remains that Congress has the sole power to declare war.  Thomas Jeffersons's idea that every citizen should be a soldier, capable of protecting when needed, but as a citizen, not a professional soldier, is an idea of the past.  As for Washington's perspective, today's soldiers would probably agree that "When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen."  However, our citizen soldiers of today serve as career soldiers.  Today's U.S, Military is about 2.1 million, with approximately 760,000 to 800,000 reserve and National Guard. (These numbers are subject to change.)  Even with those numbers, we are not the largest military in the world today.   Both China and India are larger, and North Korea and Russia are not far behind.    

Our soldiers serve bravely for our country, but we as citizens owe them the responsibility to pay attention to the manner in which they are being used.,  

The Larry and Lyn Oz Collection

Scare Crow

Our home is going to feel a little empty soon, for just like always, kids will want to go away on their own to see the world.  But we are pleased that they are headed off to the same university that we attended.  Some of you may remember, they first visited to FHSU several years ago, and they stayed for quite a visit before returning home to grow up to be old enough to enroll.  The time has arrived!

For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, Larry and I began our Wizard of Oz Collection many years ago.  It took leaving Kansas to realize that when you get away from Kansas, and you introduce yourself someone is likely to say, "Do you know Dorothy? or Have you been in a tornado?"  Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz seem to be what people know best about Kansas. 

Realizing that we had been neglectful of the very thing people from around the world seem to know best about, we began our journey with The Wizard of Oz.  We decided that we must have been missing out on something important, and that is when we began collecting The Wizard of Oz.

Dorothy, Toto & Lion

It has been a lot of fun, and when we were invited to share our collection several years ago with the library at FHSU, our collection took it's first trip to Hays.  It was there that we began talking about just when Scare Crow, Tin Man, Lion, and Dorothy would be old enough to go away from home alone.  

We did not think that it would take that long, but finally they are old enough to go off on their own to the university, and their home will be in the newly named Tebo Library at FHSU.  

Their surroundings will make them feel quite at home, for all of the Oz collection is going with them.  Their new home will be in the Larry and Lyn Fenwick Reading Room.  The grand opening is still not entirely settled--which I am sure pleases them, since it always takes a little time to get everything in place for guests.  

Tin Man

The Reading Room hours are generally Monday through Friday, 9 am to noon, and 1 pm to 4 pm on days when the University is open.  Walk-ins are welcome, but you know how people are, especially ladies like Dorothy, who would appreciate that you make an appointment.  

Our children aren't selfish, and they will be hosting other people there doing research.  

The new Library is impressive, and the precise date of the complete opening is still not definite, but as you can imagine, Dorothy and the Boys are excited.   

Larry and I are busy now getting all of the other things in our collection ready to load and on their way to Hays.  Of course, everyone is excited about the trip, and we are grateful to a friend to help get the complete collection on its way.  

All of the dolls were designed and made by Lyn Fenwick.

The Importance of Civics

Those who fought for Freedom

When Sandra Day O'Conner left the Supreme Court Bench, primarily because of the poor health of her husband, she did not walk away from her sense of responsibility to the nation.  Instead, she launched the Sandra Day O'Conner Institute for American Democracy.  She loved her country and was concerned for it, and she focused her Institute's attention on the children.  

She saw the time devoted to civic education in public schools declining significantly in the 1960's, with the shift being other educational focus, such as STEM and No Child Left behind.  In addition, civic education itself was becoming controversial.  Teachers had begun to feel unprepared to teach civics.  O'Conner could see that young Americans were less knowledgeable about civics than past generations.  Her Institute was formed to reverse that trend.  

Yet the problem continued.  While educators recognized the problem, and eventually all 50 states included civics in their social studies standards, the quality was not universal.  Less than half of the states required a one semester civics high school course.  Many elementary and middle schools focus instead on reading and math.  The old issues remain:  Teachers feeling ill prepared to teach civics and the demands of other courses prioritized.

Kansas Legislators were not unaware of the civics problem.  However, they were also aware of research showing that some "Americans ages 18-29 say they have a 'favorable view' of communism, and a rising number of Gen Z and Millennials who believe the "Communist Manifesto guarantees freedom and equality better than the Declaration of Independence."  (f.n.  Quote from Kansas Reflector and other news reporters.)

Concerned as much about the positive view of Communism as knowledge of civics, the Kansas State Senate combined the two concerns.  Beginning with the 2022-2023 school year, Kansas requires students in accredited public, private, and parochial high schools to pass a civics test to graduate, consisting of 60 questions selected from the 100 questions Naturalization test for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, including information concerning communism.  

While the students must pass that test before high school graduation, they can take it any time between 7th grade and H.S. graduation, and they can take it as many times as necessary.  The percent necessary to pass is not stated, left to be determined by local school boards.  

It seems that something that began about civics turned into a new educational requirement to teach students about communism and other concerning ideologies, at a time when teachers are already struggling with teaching reading, writing, and math.  

How can teachers and students manage all of this?  Longer School days?  Shorter Summer breaks?   Limits on extracurricular activities?  I do not know, but I do believe that respect for American Democracy and the understanding of civics are important parts of the glue that holds the Nation together.  When history and civics in public schools were neglected or omitted entirely, we lost something important.  

When young Americans favor communism over the Declaration of Independence, we have a problem.  Memorizing answers to the required test seems like a band aid on a broken leg.  Memorizing answers without the full experience of learning about the history of the precious rights we have in America seem unlikely to awaken the pride and since of responsibility we need to have if civics means anything to Americans of all ages.  Sandra Day O'connor thought so.         

Two Things Happened

Recently I had two things happen only a few days apart.  One regular reader of my blog wrote in my comment section that I had "pussy footed around" by limiting my blog to information, without telling people how to respond to the information my research contained.  

Only a few weeks later, someone was so annoyed by the research I posted in a particular blog that he blocked it.  Fortunately, the manager of that posting reentered it.  

Those two things, happening so close together, seemed to me to represent the problem the nation faces.  In divided times, some want to tell people what to think and others refuse to allow information to be shared.  

I may be naive, but I believe neither of those things are effective.  The founding fathers established a system of checks and balances that put into the hands of ordinary people power to elect those who would serve in state and national positions.  We may be at the bottom of the political ladder, but we have the power to determine who gets to take the next step.   

Perhaps we have forgotten how important that is, and we have too often voted for someone because we agreed with a certain position he or she had taken, willing to ignore character and other issues.  Worse yet, maybe we do not take the time to assess everyone on the ballot.  

I have mentioned before George Washington's concern about political parties.  He feared that they had the potential to influence and control the power of the people, if people succumbed to the influence of political parties.

If we the people put unworthy candidates on the first rung--which we alone control with our vote--we the people will have missed our chance to stop or assist who we consider best for the nation.  We the people have more responsibility than we sometimes think.  Our votes do count, and we must be the watch dogs of our constitution not only at elections, but throughout what is happening between elections. 

So, back to what happened.  One man who follows my bog thought I had "Pussy Footed" when I didn't go further and tell readers how to think.  The other man must have thought I had no business sharing my research at all.  Facts are facts, and I do share those.  I think both were wrong.  I do share information, but I try to avoid telling readers how that information should be applied.  

 I write on my weekly blog about all kinds of things.  I do try carefully to do my research.  But I do not think telling readers what to think is my job. My job is sharing interesting stuff for readers to enjoy, and in some cases, something to think about.  I do not intentionally try to take one more step furth and tell you how to think.  I do hope my research does often give you food for thought. 

Thank you to all of you who have enjoyed my weekly blogs for over a decade.  I will continue to try to inform, amuse, explore, and do my best to make it worth your time!  And, I will watch for my regular reader's comments on the reader's opinions.        

Valentines and Marriages

 Recently, at a performance in our town, the performers asked couples in the audience to raise their hands and keep them raised as long as the number of years they had been married were called out.  It was meant as an introduction to a love song.  To our surprise, my husband and I were the last to have our hands in the air, the longest married couple in that group!  In defense of revealing our age, it was a very cold evening, and older couples may have remained at home!!  This week's theme is Valentine's Day and marriage traditions over the years. 

Married couples make up 47% of American households.  That is a decline from 66% fifty years ago.  Part of that decline is because couples are marrying later, one source reporting 30.8% for men, and 28.2% for women.  Although couples are marrying later, statistics report that overall, 41% of first marriages end in divorce.  Of course, many happy marriages continue.

Not only statistics change, but also the traditional marriage celebrations change.  For a time, couples were choosing what was called "micro weddings," but that trend is back to larger weddings shared with family and friends, but skipping sit-down formal receptions and dinners, instead enjoying cocktail or party themes, or even backyard weddings.  

Honeymoons have definitely changed, the elaborate trips of today not at all common earlier, at least not in our imaginations when my husband and I married, working our way through college.  Newlywed budgets still impact honeymoons, but if money is no issue, extended trips are common.  Surprising to me, "Buddymoons" are a trend, in which the newlyweds travel with close friends or family. 

Married or single, sweethearts will be thinking of Valentine's gifts.  Traditions in that regard have changed little over the years.  Cards, flowers, and chocolates are still popular.  Going out to dinner is popular, but because of the typical crowds, many skip dining out. 

Searching for a lovely Valentine Story to share, I discovered a very unexpected Valentine Story.  A French Legend from long ago claims that women who were rejected by their Valentines would create a likeness of their unkind sweethearts and burn the effigy in public!  Because of the riots that caused, the government prohibited Valentine's Day in the early 19th Century.  

Today, French Sweetheart's celebrate Valentine's Day much as we do, with flowers, dinners, and chocolates.  

May your Valentine's Day be sweet!     

One Chance to Make an Impression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

        

 

Sanctuary Cities

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Pardons

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      

 

George Orwell's Animals

Buddies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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