A Unique Discovery

 I was never one of the "cool" kids in school.   When Elvis became popular, I liked Pat Boone.  When my mother bought me some new fashion, (in one case, pedal pushers), I put them away until the other girls started wearing them.  I wasn't exactly shy, but I suppose I preferred to adhere to what was more traditional.  I gradually gained more confidence over the years, but even today I suppose I am fairly traditional in my tastes...like my love for history and traditional art.  

Tom Waits

That may explain why I missed out on Tom Waits.  My best friend from childhood has always been much 'cooler' than me.  So, it isn't surprising that she was the one to post a quote by Tom Waits on face book that I found interesting.  This is the quote:  We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge, quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.  We are monkeys with money and guns.  Who is this guy? I asked myself.   And, in contradiction to Waits' dislike of 'the weight of information,' I looked him up on the internet.  

I found that he has called himself a Folk Singer, a Blues Singer, and a Jazz Singer.  He is described as a musician, a composer, a songwriter, and an actor.  Wall Street Journal critic, Jim Fusilli, described him in 2008 as having a library of work "comparable to any song writers in pop today,"   Adding that he is "a keen sensitive and sympathetic chronicler of the adrift and downtrodden ...[who] creates 3-dimensial characters, who even in their confusion and despair, are capable of insight and starting points of view.  Their stories are accompanied by music that's unlike any other pop history."

That made me even more curious, so I set out to gain more information, apparently breaking another rule of Tom Waits, according to this quote: "Everything is explained now.  We live in an age when you say casually to somebody 'What's the story on that?' and they run to the computer and tell you within 5 seconds.  That's fine, but sometimes I'd just as soon continue wondering.  We have a deficit of wonder right now."  

Only a little embarrassed about defying Waits's dislike of searching for information, I found a website  to listen to his singing.   I was impressed by his musical talent on the keyboard, but his voice sounded like he had been eating rocks all of his life, so gravelly that the words of the song came out like rubble.   But here is the bottom line.  I disagree with much of what he sings and writes.  Sometimes it seems not to make any sense.  But sometimes what he has to say opens a new perspective to consider.  For instance, "The way you do anything is the way you do everything."  Or how about "Memories are like a train...you can see it getting smaller as it goes away..."

Sometimes his words are lyrics in a song.  Sometimes they are simply statements.  Some are long and some are short.  He is a guy with a wife and three kids who likes to keep his personal life separate.  He is a guy who has been around for a long time and doesn't really care if people like him or have never heard of him.  

As for me, I am glad I finally discovered him.  I enjoy reading what he writes more than listening to his songs, and I doubt that I will spend much more time searching for what he has to say, although I might enjoy stumbling on to some of his words.  However, I will share something from Tom Waits that made a lot of sense to me...although I would not have described it as he did.  It may make more sense to some of you with a little gray in your hair.  

Here it is.  "They have removed the struggle to find anything.  And therefore, there is no genuine sense of discovery.  Struggle is the first thing we know, getting along the birth canal, out in the world.  That's pretty basic.  Book store owners and record store owners used to be oracles, in that way; you'd go in this dusty old place and they might point you toward something that would change your life.  All that's gone."

I know what he means...at least what it means to me.  We valued the search more when we had to work for it.  We collected things that we wanted to keep forever because the discovery was precious.  We worked hard for certain things--with study or training and discipline, so that when we won the blue ribbon or the silver cup, we genuinely felt the thrill of victory that told us we deserved it because we had earned it.  And when we did not get the silver cup, we understood that we had done our best but someone else had been better.  Blue ribbons and silver cups for everyone have cheated us of the thrill of knowing we did our best, have stolen the thrill of finding a dusty old book in the back of a store that we had been searching for a very long time, and have left us with a diminishing since of value.    

I'm not so sure about the 'birth canal stuff,' but thank you Tom Waits for sharing your unique way of helping us view the world from a different perspective. 

Are you fed up with TV ads?

 Many years ago, as I was nearing Law School graduation from Baylor University, the President of the University came to our class to discuss the ethical responsibilities we would be assuming as lawyers.  Among the topics he mentioned was the strict limitations on advertising.  A simple ad in the phone book was allowed, but advertising as if you were a merchant was absolutely forbidden.  What I specifically remember was the prohibition against sending a professional greeting card to existing clients, thanking them for their business.  Even what might have been intended as a courtesy was not approved.

A reminder of what ads were allowed years ago.

Boy! have times ever changed!!  I am personally embarrassed by the advertisements of lawyers soliciting business on television, on both local and national channels, from small firms with a few attorneys to law firms with offices in many places.  'Were you injured or sickened by somebody?  Lucky you!  Hire us and we will make you rich.'  Maybe they aren't that obvious, but some of them are close.  It isn't that people with legitimate claims shouldn't bring lawsuits, but some of the ads sound more like carnival hucksters than professional attorneys.  Sadly, it isn't just the lawyers.  The drug companies, the insurance companies, the guys trying to buy your life insurance policies...and so many more are annoyingly common.

Can you believe this old ad?

Most evenings we watch the evening news, and recently we timed the commercials that interrupted the news.  We didn't use a stopwatch, but basically of the 30 minutes of "news," programming, less than 20 minutes was news, with advertisements and promotion of the local news station consuming about a third of the programing.  That evening, there were 17 different commercials plus the local station promotion.  That particular network chose to deliver uninterrupted news for the first 15 minutes, and then bombarded us with commercials and 3 short news briefs jammed between commercials during the remaining time.  The first fifteen minutes without interruption were appreciated, but the number of commercials during the closing minutes was beyond annoying.

When I become annoyed with the current state of commercials on television, I remind myself of the talking stomach advertising Pepto-Bismol and the brasier ad showing a closeup of a woman's chest with the company's bra displayed over her sweater.  Perhaps those of you who remember commercials in the 50s remember some of those ads.  Television ads have always included some that were annoying or ridiculous, but I don't recall the extent of interruptions being as numerous in the past.

Had you forgotten old liquor and cigarette Ads?

Here is the problem.  The places to advertise are disappearing.  Lawyers may still advertise in phone books, but most of us have cell phones and rarely look at a phone book.  Newspapers and magazines are struggling to stay alive because they have diminishing subscribers.  Television is now the best place to advertise.  Advertising pricing is based on the number of people watching, and the price of an ad for the Super Bowl is huge, but other programing is less expensive.  National news has more viewers than local news, but even that is declining. According to the web site, Science Daily, "Nearly a 1/3 of TV ads play to empty rooms."  If you have a business or a product to sell, television is about your best choice, and if short ads on less watched stations are cheaper, repeating the ads to catch the viewers who left the room or hit mute may be your best advertising option.

According to Science Daily, older viewers are more likely to change channels during commercials, while younger viewers just leave the room.  We keep the remote control handy and mute the commercials.  However, from the perspective of businesses, what are they to do, with the decline in newspapers and magazines?  Science Daily says the commercials that viewers are most likely to watch are recreational products, like beer and video games, and the least likely to be watched are drug ads, particularly for treating serious conditions.

Unless you record programs and delete the ads quickly as you watch or you buy ad-free programming, most of us are going to endure way too many ads!  Thank goodness Lady Bird kept our highway bilbords restricted!

Edward R. Murrow, an interesting look back in time

 

Edward R. Murrow

 

 

 

    A few years ago, a local library was selling books it no   longer felt it had room for in their collection.  I bought   Prime Time, The Life of Edward R. Murrow, by Alexander   Kendrick.  At the time, I was busy with the publication of   Prairie Bachelor, and I put the 548-page book aside to read   later, when I had more time.  Recently, I made time to read   it, and once I started, I could not put it down. 

As you may remember, Murrow was a newsman who first made his reputation on radio, particularly during W.W. II, but returned as a newsman for CBS when television was joining radio as a source of entertainment and news.  Some of you may recall his radio news reporting, but others, like me, may recall watching him on our small screen televisions.  He was a highly respected and admired newsman.  

As television gained viewership, and found profitability in selling shows to advertisers, Murrow became increasingly concerned about the direction television was taking, and with his fame as a reputable deliverer of the news, he felt the responsibility to speak out concerning the importance of providing viewers the news.   From the perspective of those deciding how broadcasting time was to be allocated, the revenue received from advertisers of the news was insignificant compared to the money advertisers were willing to pay for Westerns, game shows, and other entertainment.  Their response to Murrow's concern was to tell him that the programing he belittled was what paid for the in-depth news specials he hosted.

The public respect for Murrow did give him some protection to speak out against Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin in the years following W.W. II, as the Senator used television to destroy opponents and gain an audience, although many were afraid to speak out.  Murrow delivered his criticism without the bombastic slanders of McCarthy, but saying, "The line between investigating and persecution is a very fine one, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly." Ultimately, Murrow stated his concern clearly enough that it could not be ignored.  "His [McCarthy's] weapon was fear.  He was a politically unsophisticated man with a flair for publicity, and he was powerfully aided by the silence of timid men who feared to be the subject of his unfounded accusations.  He polluted the channels of communication, and every radio and television network, every newspaper and magazine publishers who did not speak out against him, contributed to his evil work and must share responsibility for what he did, not only to our fellow citizens but to our self-respect...The timidity of television in dealing with this man when he was spreading fear throughout the land is not something to which this art of communication can ever point with pride."

He was not the only television executive to speak out.  NBC President Silvestor Weaver said, "You can't really have in your hands the power that television has in this time of crisis, and be agreeable to salving the problem by letting it become a jukebox in the corner of the room to keep the kids quiet, and just pile on one crime or Western or game show after another."  

Murrow agreed, and he went public with his concerns when he received the Albert Einstein Award, saying, "If television and radio are to be used for the entertainment of all of the people all of the time, we have come perilously close to discovering the real opiate of the people."

Today, we do have many sources for receiving news.  Murrow had believed that Americans were suspicious of propaganda, and that suspicion would protect them from the harm of people like Wisconsin Senator McCarthy.  He believed that newsmen only needed: "To be persuasive, we must be believable.  To be believable we must be credible.  To be credible, we must be truthful.  It is as simple as that."  Murrow trusted the American people to eventually sort through the nonsense and fabrication and arrive at the truth,  

For those of us with gray in our hair, we may know W.W. II history only from textbooks, and although we might have been old enough to pay attention to Senator McCarthy's humiliation, we probably had our minds on something else at the time.  I am so glad that I finally read Prime Time, The Life of Edward R. Murrow.  I do remember him, although more from his visits with famous people in their homes than with his news reporting.   I do remember the trail of smoke that constantly rose from the cigarette in his hand.  I did not remember so many other things he did in his amazing life until reading this book.  If you are intrigued by this remarkable American, you can still find this book online for a few dollars.  Used hardcover books are more expensive, and mine is not for sale!

P.S.  As a measure of his credibility as a reporter, the man who was almost never seen without a cigarette in his hand did a special news report on the dangers of smoking as research revealed its serious risks, cementing his determination for telling the truth, even about something he was known to enjoy.  He died of cancer, but it was of the brain rather than of the throat.  One lung had previously been removed, but after his death it was found that the remaining lung was clear.  His brain had been riddled with cancer, but it could not be determined whether the brain cancers had traveled from the earlier removed lung.    

Humor from a 19th Century Vice-president

    John Nance Garner was the 32nd Vice-president of the United States.  When asked what he thought of serving in that esteemed office, he is said to have replied that it was "Not worth a bucket of spit."  (Some references suggest that he might have used a cruder word than spit.)

To explain his opinion more specifically shortly after leaving office, he said, "Worst damnfool mistake I ever made was letting myself be elected Vice President of the United States.  Should have stuck with my old chores as Speaker of the House.  I gave up the second most important job in the Government for one that didn't amount to a hill of beans.  I spent eight long years as Mr. Roosevelt's spare tire."

Vice-president Garner does not seem to mind meeting
these Azalea Beauty Queens!

Having discovered John Nance Garner's quotes, I decided to explore a bit of information about former vice-presidents.  The following is what I found:

15 Vice-presidents have become Presidents

8 seceded because of the death of the President

6 were elected after having been the Vice-president

One became President because the former President resigned 

Only one President served as Vice-President & President, 

although he was never elected to either post.

I hope you enjoyed this little bit of Vice-presidential history.  Maybe some of you can even take the challenge of filling in the missing information about just who the 15 Vice-presidents who became President were (or are).  I suspect most of you know who the man was who filled both of the Office of Vice-president and President without being elected to either office.

In earlier years, the role of Vice-president was fairly limited.  Nelson Rockefeller was quoted as saying, "I go to funerals.  I go to earthquakes."  Obviously, judging from Garner's picture, sometimes they got to meet pretty girls!  However, in more recent times, Vice-presidents are generally given more responsibilities.  Perhaps modern Vice-presidents might not agree with Vice-president Garner's description of the job.

Have We Forgotten History?

Recently, a friend sent me an article he thought I would enjoy.  The author of the article is Hugh Hewitt, and his premise is that by neglecting knowledge of history we are unable to make informed judgements about what is happening in present time.  Naturally, since I am a history buff, I was intrigued by his premise.  

Hewitt directed his attention toward young people's knowledge of history, citing recent test results, showing "alarming declines in eighth graders' understanding of history and civics."  His suggestion was to encourage kids to read historical fiction as a way to entice them to enjoy learning history.  I like the idea, if he means reading books with fictional characters but accurate historical references.  As an example, he suggested Herman Wouk's "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance," pointing out that while Wouk may have invented characters, he told the historical account of W.W. II with accuracy.

I also chose to tell history in my book, Prairie Bachelor, The Story of a Kansas Homesteader and the Populist Movement, using what I considered narrative nonfiction, telling history as a story with real people and real events.  I researched extensively and included foot notes and a bibliography, but I wrote in the style of a story rather than a textbook.  Both Wouk's books and mine were written for general readers, but we shared history as accurately as possible.  Several people who read Prairie Bachelor told me that they were not aware of the populist movement before reading my book. 

Hewitt focused on teaching history to young students, but I fear that both young and old are lacking in historic knowledge.   I enjoy reading history, but there is a lot of history that I do not know, and I certainly agree with Hewitt's statement that, "Without the sense of scale that even a decent grasp of history provides, it is simply not possible to appreciate the difference between what, today, might seem to be a deeply dangerous divided country [without being aware of ] the violent social upheaval of the 1960s, much less of the pre-civil War era."  

However, while his conclusion that awareness of history can show us that we have survived threats in the past, helping us keep current problems in perspective, we must not assume that just because "things worked out then" we need not be concerned about today's problems.   Germany did not have nuclear weapons in W.W. II, and how different the war might have been if Hitler would have had that weapon first. 

A reminder found in Philadelphia 

It is true that every generation will face challenges, and America has survived severe situations.  Yet, just because we survived difficult times in the past must not make us assume that today's threats will eventually be resolved wisely.  Nuclear weapons, global warming, and AI capabilities are obvious examples of things past generations did not confront. 

Hewitt's emphasis on the lessons history has to teach is valid.  I agree.  Ways to teach history to young people are extremely important, but we adults also need to reflect on the lessons to be learned from the past.  Perhaps, instead of a debate, prospective political candidates should participate in a quiz show, answering questions about American history.   It seems reasonable that we voters should take better notice of how well schooled in history and the American Constitution the people we send to State Capitals and to Washington, D.C. really are.  But, of course, before we can judge their answers, all of us may need to brush up a little on our own awareness of history.

Thanks to my friend who suggest that I read Hugh Hewitt's article.  

Advice from Alvin Toffler, with comments from me

 The illiterate of the 21st Century

will not be those who cannot read & write, but those who

cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Last week's blog focused on the impact of AI on authors and writers, but the issue involves everyone.  The quote above is from futurist Alvin Toffler, 1928-2016), whose wife Heidi also deserves crediting.  They wrote prolifically, but probably most well-known are Future Shock, 1970, The Third Wave, 1980, and Power Shift, 1990. His influence during his life has been acknowledged by individuals such as Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev. George H. W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Carl Sagan.   

In addition, his ideas have had significant influence in education.  It was Toffler's opinion that school should focus on "students' critical thinking skills, creativity, and adaptability to change."  (StudentsMirrowblog@gamil.com.)  In other words, students must learn how to learn so that they can solve problems in our rapidly evolving world.  

Alvin Toffler

Reflecting on last week's blog about writers, I worry that as AI begins to replace humans in some roles, are we going to be flexible and adaptive enough to stay ahead of AI?  Today's generation of children are clever enough to utilize AI, but are they keeping up with their own skills of creativity and critical thinking?  Just because they are better able to navigate their computers and phones, does that mean they have the wisdom and knowledge to fulfill the three requirements Toffler named--critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability to change?  

Our computers are essential, and most kids are more proficient with them than are their parents and grandparents.  But is that a measure of Toffler's big three?  His big three doesn't include the ability to interact with others.  In doing my research for this blog I found a blog from 2016, by BBC News Washington writer Courtney Subramani.  It delt with the question of whether Toffler's idea that the wave of information and data might spark social isolation.  One of her interview subjects said, No, "We are not isolated by it.  And when the information overloads us, most people are still wise enough to use the power key of the off button to gain some peace."  Since that response from 2016, I believe that we have learned otherwise, with the lack of will to hit the off button as often as we should.  

I believe we have seen a downturn in socialization, exacerbated by Covid, that has actually done what was predicted regarding social isolation.  I recently blogged about what I called 'careful speech' in which we avoid opening conversations in which conflicting ideas might emerge.  We text instead of calling friends, or we simply stay in touch on face book. My husband still has phone conversations with friends, but I admit that I rarely do.

Toffler was right to urge 'learning, unlearning, and relearning, but I believe there must also be the firm foundation of knowledge and history upon which to build for a stable future.  And, I also believe we should resume friendly conversations with those with whom we may not always agree.  Maybe if ordinary people resumed sharing ideas, our politicians might learn the value of exchanging ideas too.

Will AI and GPT Make Writers Obsolete?

Is GPT Scarier than any of Edgar Allen Poe's Stories? 

 Recently, I have blogged about my concern for the impact of AI.  Until the recent edition of "The Authors Guild Bulletin" I had overlooked the impact of AI on professional writers, but Professional writers in Hollywood are already aware of the impact on their livelihoods and have joined other strikers to seek protection from being replaced by AI.  

Recently, the Executive Director of the Authors Guild interviewed the founder of a company providing GPT for writers.  After reading this blog, you may want to google GPT to find a more detailed description; however, my simple explanation is that GPT is an artificial intelligence that can process our natural human language and generate a response.  What is significant about GPT for authors is whether the art of writing will eventually displace the need for authors.  The striking writers in Hollywood have already recognized the threat.

However, some authors see AI positively, using it as an aid rather than a threat.  For example, Al can assist with word selection or composing a description.  GPT can provide ideas in each of the five senses.  I sometimes use my dog-eared 'Roget's Thesaurus. to find the exact word I want, so GPT could help in that way, but it goes a lot further than just finding the best word.  It can also help a writer create characters and outline story structures.  The more I read, the more I could imagine a future in which  authors become nearly unnecessary, reduced to prompters.  

The man being interviewed used the calculator as an example of how something new may seem disruptive of tradition and norms, but once implemented becomes quickly accepted.  Children may still learn the multiplication tables, he explained, but with calculators on smart phones, few of us rely on our grade school memory to do calculations.  

Another example is the impact of cell phone cameras.  Professional photographers have not disappeared entirely, but most people are satisfied with their cell phone cameras, and taking snapshots and waiting for them to be developed to put into photo albums is uncommon.  

Near the end of the interview, the Guild interviewer asked whether he thought writers would become nearly extinct.  He answered that he believed there would always be a professional class of creators.  However, he predicts that as GPT is programed by having been feed the words of the world's greatest writers, the role of human authors will become more a matter of "training" GPT.  

As I write this blog, spell-check is warning me when I misspell words. That is a predecessor to loading massive collections of writings to educate or train the GPT to do what it does.  

With some writers already using GPT to help create characters and to help structure settings and describe scenes, the technology is racing ahead of the law, neglecting the issue of copyright and some kind of compensation to writers for the material with which they "train" the GPT.  Should it be forbidden for GPT to use copyrighted material?  Has that already happened?   Are writers who have begun using GPT helping to make themselves obsolete?  These questions are what the Hollywood writers have already recognized.

From the Interview, it appears that most of the GPT is currently used for fiction, especially science fiction and short stories.  However, the man being interviewed acknowledged that AI has proceeded without determining whether or not their actions exceed 'fair use.'  He admitted that from a pure ethical standpoint, authors should be compensated for using their work.  The interviewer agreed, asking how can the work of those writers, whose books and other material have already been used for training, be compensated?  Should authors have the right to refuse to allow their work to be used?  How long should copywrite protect authors?  As the old saying goes, 'Is it too late to shut the barn door once the horses are out?'  Perhaps those strikers in Hollywood are trying to round up the horses!

The man suggested that some kind of an automated collective licensing system should be developed to compensate authors, with some legislation licensing solution to get compensation back to the creators of the words already being downloaded.  Just how to make that happen hasn't been figured out.

Are our brilliant minds dashing forward, ignoring ethical issues and consequences?  Is it possible that this is not only a question of fair dealing but also a risk of using human intelligence so carelessly that we are making ourselves obsolete? ( P.S.  I had already written this blog before the strike, but I am glad to have it ready, with a few additions regarding the strike, to share this information that may help explain why the Hollywood writers are concerned. )

The Problem With Careful Speech--in my opinion

One of the most valuable freedoms we have is freedom of speech; however, that freedom is being tested as never before.  The internet can not only spread information faster than our past means of communication, it can package about anything to look authentic. A lone person can post false information that looks professional and real, causing intelligent people to be misled.   

Remember when...

That is not to say I long for days gone by... I love the internet.  It allows me to do research from my home, far from the research libraries I used for my early books.  But the good guys that are trying to keep the bad guys from messing with the internet are struggling to keep up.  Too much bad information is already out there, impersonating facts.  

There was a time when I loved nothing better than to go to a party and get into a debate with others about some topic.  Sometimes the topic was sports.  Sometimes it was movies, or popular music, and sometimes it was even politics.  We came armed with facts, statistics, opinions based on experience, and a willingness to change our minds if the right facts, statistics, and other logic persuaded us.  Often, we learned something we had not known, sometimes our minds were changed, sometimes not, but always, we left as friends.  I don't think that happens much today, and that is a shame.

We need to challenge ourselves with new information and new perspectives.  What we do not need to do is deposit garbage in our minds.  The balance of having access to information while avoiding misrepresentation or outright false information is becoming harder and harder.  What happens, for some of us, is that we avoid the pollination of new ideas.  We develop the habit of 'Careful Speach,' talking only with those we believe share our perspectives.  We watch the television programs that we generally find consistent with our opinions and we visit the websites we like. 

Without cross pollination of ideas we are weakened.    As the nation divides, we engage in "Careful Speech," avoiding topics that might offend or anger.  We miss the opportunity to broaden our perspectives, to see things from another point of view.  We cheat ourselves of the opportunity to better understand different perspectives.  Careful Speech may be safe, but it is also isolating and narrowing our empathy for others.  That is the problem.

Celebrating the 4th of July...too Late?

 The annual celebration of the 4th of July is over.  Many of us gathered with family and friends for backyard parties, some traveled to watch elaborate fire works, and other stayed home to enjoy fire works and patriotic music on television.  During our celebrations, how many of us toasted Richard Henry Lee?  How many of us even know who he was??

Richard Henry Lee was born in Virginia into a historically influential family in Virginia politics.  His father was governor of Virginia.  He was tutored until the age of 16, when he was sent to England to complete his formal education.  Both of his parents died while he was away, studying for two years, but he remained abroad for three more years to complete his education and tour Europe.  He returned to join his brothers in settling his parents' estate, and only five years later he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he met Patrick Henry and became further involved in advocating independence.

Richard Henry Lee by Charles William Peale, National Portrait Gallery

Most of us know about the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1774, followed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776, and we are aware of the courage of the men who attended those events, risking losing everything, including their lives, by confronting the British as they did.  However, we may not know that it was Richard Henry Lee who put forth the motion to the Continental Congress to declare Independence from Great Britain.  

His Resolution on June 7, 1776, contained three parts:  a declaration of independence, a call to form foreign alliances, and a plan for the confederation.

Four days later the Congress appointed three committees, which, respectively, drafted a declaration of independence, drew up a plan for forming foreign alliances, and began to prepare for forming a confederation.  

Many members of Congress thought Lee's proposal was premature, and the actual vote of approval did not occur until July 2, when only the declaration was adopted.  The plan for making treaties was not approved until September 1776, and the plan for confederation was delayed until November of 1777.

Lee himself had returned to Virginia by the time Congress voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence, but he signed belatedly when he returned to Congress.

The actual signing of the Declaration is disputed, but ultimately 56 delegates signed; however, eight delegates never signed the Declaration.  For those of you who enjoy history, the descriptions of the prologued signings are worth reading.  The research makes it clear that although we celebrate July 4th, it is not too late for you to drink a toast to Richard Henry Lee for 'getting the ball rolling,' as we say!

Six or Nine * A Modern Fable

Six or Nine  *  A Modern Fable

Two people are leaving work and are in a hurry to get home.  They hear a young woman with a megaphone calling, "Don't miss the parade tomorrow.! Support the Graduates!!"  Both people are in a rush to get to their cars before the other employees fill the parking lot and clog traffic, and when they reach their cars, both grab the flier slipped under their windshield wiper and lay it in the seat without looking at what it says, not wanting a waste a second getting into the line leaving the parking lot.  When they get home, they each take the flyer they picked up into the house, noticing for the first time the cleaver design of graduation caps and diplomas in a circle around the time of the parade.  What a cleaver reminder, they both think to themselves.  The next morning, one of them tells everyone at breakfast to get dressed for the parade at 9 o'clock so they can get downtown to stake out a good vantage point for watching the parade.  The other person tells her family that this year the parade is at six, so that everyone can walk to the auditorium for the graduation ceremony as soon as the parade ends.  She tells them to be ready to go by 5:30, so they can get a parking place closer to the auditorium so they will not have to walk so far after the parade.

This blog is about how we see things.  Sometimes it doesn't matter.  Are sun rises more beautiful than sun sets?  Are dark blue basketball uniforms or bright red uniforms better.  Are chocolate bars better with or without nuts?  Everyone has a right to an opinion on things like that.

However, some things are not a matter of opinion.  In the example of 6 or 9, it matters.  Is it an evening parade or a morning parade?  There is a right answer, even if the flier was confusing.  If something isn't clear, we must take the responsibility of searching for more information so that we get it right.  Just showing the piece of paper to someone else isn't always going to give you the right answer, since their opinion is not necessarily going to be any better than yours, unless, of course, they have made a genuine effort to learn the correct time of the parade.  Just because we would prefer the parade to be in the morning, or because we asked someone else who didn't bother to consult a reliable source for the correct information, doesn't mean they can tell us what time the parade starts.

I know this is a silly example, but I do fear that many of us are becoming careless about the sources we rely upon for accurate information.  Sometimes we just don't want to get up early on a Saturday morning to go to a parade, so we figure out a way to be assured that the parade must be at 6 o'clock in the evening so we can sleep late.  We may even suspect that it really isn't an evening parade, but if we are willing to fool ourselves, we can enjoy a late morning in bed, and then blame someone else for the careless flier.  

Whether it is a six or a nine can really make an important difference.  It matters.

Do Traditions Matter Today?

Christmas at Grandmother's House

Does it matter that today many traditions are disappearing?  Before answering that question, it must be recognized that traditions have sometimes excluded others.  That may have been unintentional, although at other times exclusion may have been intentional, for a variety of reasons. Like so many things, it seems today that the line between traditions for positive purposes and traditions for hurtful purposes are sometimes challenging to distinguish.  I am not talking about ossification, where traditions are a way to exclude or hold back others.  I am talking about the positive use of traditions to reinforce values.

Families have traditions, as do communities, organizations, and countries.  Traditions can pass down unwritten values, can introduce young people to role models, allow opportunities for reflection, and pass memories through generations.  Traditions can be a way to welcome new people by inviting their participation in traditional events and stories.  It can be a positive way to pass beliefs from one generation to the next and to the next after that.  

 Many traditions are not written down, and the only way they are learned is through participation.  For instance, folk dances are often learned by joining in.  Family recipies, holiday traditions, family generosity are often learned by having participated.  Simple gestures of kindness, integrity, manners, and a work ethic are forms of tradition.

So, you may ask what the difference is between tradition and culture.  They may sometimes overlap, but Tradition is more about passing knowledge and values through generations, while Culture is about constant evolution and change.  As we adapt to differences, the culture must change.  We still stand upright and walk on two legs, but we are now able to probe into deep space, and while Culture has changed, Tradition helps us decide how to use that ability.  If culture changes too rapidly, we tend to forget the values, mores, and courtesies of the past.  By preserving our Traditions, we maintain our balance, and it is not just our personal balance but also our national balance.

It occurs to me that Tradition and Culture are a bit like driving a car.  You have the wheel, and culture keeps moving you down the road while tradition keeps you from going too fast or getting in the wrong lane.

Put another way, Tradition reinforces values, personal responsibility, ethics, faith, and integrity.  It gives you meaningful pause and opportunity for reflection, as well as role models to emulate and the sense of belonging and history.  Culture changes constantly, as it should, for as we learn we must change.

What is important is that simply because we can do something does not mean we should.  Generations have always worried about change.  That is nothing new.  However, traditions are the guard rails, the things that keep us grounded, and when we ignore traditions, it seems to me that we risk losing ourselves.  Every generation of grandparents has worried about what their grandchildren are doing--how they dress, how they talk, how they think.  I know that, but recently Culture seems to be outrunning Tradition...or is it just that now I am a senior citizen resisting change?

   

Are Traditions Disappearing?

 Recently I was watching the French Open and was rather appalled to see orange courts!  One of the players was wearing an orange T-shirt nearly the same color as the court itself and the other player was wearing a variety of colors.  So why did that upset me?  I suppose it was a matter of tradition.  Not that long ago, both men and women generally chose white tennis attire, and some courts required it.  I liked that.  Somehow it seemed to me to represent a respect for your opponent on the court.  Neither age nor wealth nor social status mattered, particularly if the match was on a public court, rather than a country club or private court.  Neither player was showing off.  It was all about the game, and when the game ended, the players traditionally shook hands.

Frankly, I like traditions...more about traditions in next week's blog.  But, for this week the traditions I will share relate to tennis itself.  We tend to think about Wimbledon and England when professional tennis is mentioned, but my research indicates that the roots are in 16th-century France with a game called jeu de paume that was similar to tennis.  It was played indoors, and the players wore white.

When the game moved to England, wearing white continued, probably because tennis was a game for the rich, and white signified privilege and wealth.  When the game became co-ed, women at that time certainly were not wearing shorts or trousers, so they were influenced by the lawn dresses of that time, made from lighter fabrics like linen and cotton, and often adorned with lace inlays and embroidery, in white of course.

The exclusivity of tennis for the wealthy continued for a while but eventually most towns had public courts, like the small public court in the park in Macksville, where my husband grew up.  I doubt that he had tennis whites when he played there, but after we lived in cities, he did.  Playing tennis was a good way to meet people and make friends, especially if you have a good game, and my husband did.

I played a little, but I have one eye that is near-sighted and the other is far-sighted, and that isn't very helpful when a tennis ball is coming straight at you!

Today, most professional tournaments have rules for players' attire, and some even have rules for those in the stands.  In general, the rules for players are "professional tennis attire," which today permits a great deal of color and imagination.  The rules also may prohibit T-shirts, casual wear, or general workout wear, but some players appear to stretch those limitations.  

In 2022, Wimbledon modified the rules for women to allow players to wear dark colored under shorts beneath their skirts or shorts, for personal reasons not applicable to men.  However, the rules regarding white remain traditional for both men and women, requiring attire that is almost entirely white, and excluding off white or cream.  The rule applies as soon as the player enters the court surround.  

Hurrah for Wimbledon!  I like traditions, when they are not used for exclusion or hateful reasons.  Watch for next weeks' blog about the purpose of traditions. 

   

Books, Movies, and Artificial Intelligence--Just a difference of Technology?

     

A dress and hat the Lost Lady might have worn.

    Those of you who have followed this blog know that I love the writing of Willa Cather, and that we often enjoy attending the Cather Conferences in Red Cloud, Nebraska.  This year, the book chosen to be explored was A Lost Lady, published by Alfred A. Knopf.  Knopf sold the film rights to A Lost Lady to Warner Brothers, and Cather was so dismayed by the film version that she resolved never to permit a screen adaptation of her work in the future.  

     As with many of her books, names of towns and people are changed, but the identities of people and locations are often identifiable, and that is particularly true in the case of A Lost Lady.  This past week, several speakers explored Cather's use of actual people in this particular book.  Were there reasons for the family to have been offended?  Was the identity obvious, despite changed names and other variations?

    This week's blog ponders the question of privacy.  Did Willa Cather invade the privacy of the people she used as inspiration for her characters, and did it matter that she waited until after their deaths to 'borrow' their lives?

    One speaker at the Conference observed that all writers of fiction rely on creating their characters from individuals they have met throughout their lives.  Most writers are good observers, catching expressions and mannerisms and countless other details with which they construct imaginary people for their stories.  When does that 'borrowing' go too far?

    In the case of A Lost Lady, Cather altered appearances, professions, and names, but she used descriptions of their home, their travel habits, and their uniqueness in that community which made it easier to associate those details with the couple.  Today, countless Cather scholars and fans like me have learned the identities of the real people Cather used in her books.

    Lately, I have blogged about AI and the ability to impose the features of real people to make it appear that they did or said things that they never did or said.  Was what Willa Cather did a century ago an early example of that, just done without the technology?    

    Will it matter if movies are made using the images of long-dead movie stars from the past as characters?  Should their descendants receive payment for using the images.  Should anyone have the right to object on behalf of the dead movie star if AI is used to impose nudity or vulgar language or to express opinions the person would never have held?  

    It seems ironic that Cather was so offended by the changes to her book in the film that followed that she refused to allow her other books to be made into movies, since she had altered the lives of real people to create characters in her novels. 

    The possible uses of AI have concerned me, as the questions raised in some of my earlier blogs have shown.  Was Cather's use of adapting real people's lives in her fiction  a forerunner without the technology to what is happening now?  Can it be stopped, and should it be?  Or is AI just a technical advancement of something we long ago accepted?

Remembering the Veterans

Civil War Veteran Aaron Beck 

    We entrust those we elect to bear the responsibility of careful consideration before sending men and women into war.  Before the decision was made to turn Memorial Day into a three day holiday, I remember how people dressed in their Sunday best and filled the cemetery to honor those who had served the nation and remember those we loved who were burried there.  The band marched, and flowers covered generations of graves.

    Local communities continue to honor those buried in our local cemeteries, but the crowds are smaller.  Many of the people buried in these local cemeteries no longer have family living near.  With the opportunity to have a 3-day weekend, many people travel.  School is out for the summer, and the band no longer marches.  I miss how special Memorial Day once was, but for many years I was among those who lived too far away to attend the services and decorate the graves.  I understand that times change.

    This year I want to honor my Great Grandfather, who served the nation as a Union Soldier, and the many other soldiers buried in the Farmington Macksville Cemetery.  He served during 4 years of that tragic war and kept a daily diary that he carried in his knapsack.  On September 19, 1863 during the battle of Lookout Mountain, he wrote:  "It was an awful slaughtering...Col. Balding commanding the brigade fell.  Col. Strong is feared wounded.  ,,,About sundown they attacked us all along the line.  We was holding our position finely but the enemy got in our rear and McCooks corps was cut off from the rest and entirely surrounded.  There was but one thing for us to do {and} that was to cut our way through, so we made a dash for the hills in our rear.  ,,,It was a sight I never want to see again.  We ran right over the dead and wounded in many places, the enemy and our men lay side by side."

    May those we elect have the wisdom to understand the responsibility they have been given to act with respect and consideration for our constitution and for all Americans, never again failing in their duty so tragically that our nation becomes divided and those we elect fail in their duty to all of us.

 

Is AI a tool or a threat?

Is Artificial Intelligence a positive tool or a threat to humanity?

Medical Challenges of Covid,   Art by Lyn Fenwick

The pandemic was what awakened us to the potential of AI.  If you are curious, I recommend that you visit https://financesonline.com/ai-trends/ to learn more.  That article explains how AI can "spot anomalies early enough to give them time to dynamically respond to the threats."  Having recognized the threats, AI can move more quickly to create simulation modeling, workforce planning, and demand projection.  

Using AI to confront covid showed us the importance of quick responses and constant oversight, and having seen the value of AI, its development and use has advanced rapidly.  The question is, while we are smart enough to have made rapid advancements in AI technology, are we wise enough to establish ethical guardrails to avoid the abuses AI can accomplish?

Challenges on our Planet & in Deep Space

Google has announced a new computing device capable of doing in 3 minutes and 20 seconds what current supercomputers could not complete in under 10,000 years.  I cannot even wrap my mind around that capability.  

I struggle with blocking robocalls on my phone, and I am struggling with learning how to do the same things I did efficiently on my old computer on my new computer which has, so far, intimidated me.  I respect the fact that younger minds can deal more easily with the current computer world than I can, but are they wise enough to remain smarter than the computers they create?

We already know about the threat of spying on us through face book and the websites we visit, the ability to deceive us with altered images, the use of computers to draft essays assigned by teachers rather than doing the research and writing yourself, and the loss of personal skills once valued, like creating art, poetry, music, and cursive penmanship, relegating those skills to computers.   Are we willing to abandon too many of the things that define humanity, the ethical judgements, the wisdom of generations, the refinement of beauty in art and music, the very exercise of intelligence that allowed us to create these computers?  

Or, is this just a generational thing that parents and grandparents for centuries have viewed with skepticism and worry about the natural evolution of new thinking and the opportunities of technology?  I don't know.  But, I do know that the younger generation must be smarter than our generation has been because they are going to be responsible for far more dangerous decisions than past generations faced.  

Time to yourself?

 Let me start by admitting what most of you already know:  I haven't considered myself as young for a very long time.  Next, I should tell you, I am not on TikTok.  However, you probably also know that I am curious.  When I saw a young woman screaming into a camera something like 'she loved TikTok and couldn't live without it, and if that destroyed the United States she didn't care' I decided maybe it was time for me to learn a little about TikTok.

One of my sources was a post on Oprah.  "The use of artificial intelligence--like using facial recognition for its filter and filling one's feed with highly customized recommendations--the app is able to provide its users with exactly what they want and nothing they don't want."  Their users are primarily ages 24 and younger."

Lyn with Clark's dog Jack and her dog Curley, pals through high school.

You have probably heard that America is concerned that China, which is the source of TikTok, may be using it as a tool to get a glimpse into American thinking through the choices and participation of American viewers.  I certainly got a glimpse of one such American when I watched that young girl screaming that she didn't care if America was destroyed.  Apparently, China thinks Americans between age 24 and younger have an attention span of 15 seconds, because that is the common length of the videos on TikTok! However, references to shorter and longer videos can be found.  The lengths I have found online range from 3 seconds to 12 minutes, with other lengths cited in between

Should America be concerned?  First, let me say that I have never watched TikTok and do not plan to watch it.  The concerns range from censorship to the influence of public debates to young people using it for social activism to manipulating popularity (or lack of popularity) by prioritizing content.

What concerns me is that young Americans are exposed to reinforcing an attention span of 15 seconds by watching clips that length consistently.  There is a certain discipline in learning to focus attention on something or someone for a long period of time.  It concerns me that we may be weakening that ability by reducing the habits of enjoying things that take lengthy attention.

It also concerns me to learn that China has banned Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.  Why would they maintain a platform that is shown worldwide but forbid  their own citizens from watching American programs.

TikTok says its mission is to "capture and present the world's creativity, knowledge and moments,"  adding that it allows young people to express themselves.  Remember, however, the common allotted time is 15 seconds.  How much worthwhile creativity and knowledge can be fit into 15 seconds?

One of Lyn's well-worn piano practice music books.

Now I am about to reveal just how very old I am, by describing how I used my idle time when I was 24 and younger.  Actually, after leaving high school I was a full-time student, a 30-hour a week employee, and a wife, so if there had been such a thing as TikTok it is very unlikely I would have had time to waste on it.  So, here are the ways I used my free time at age 18 and younger.

1.  I read books.  Lots of books of all kinds.  I traveled the world and went back in time and was rich and poor, male and female, black and white and brown, exploring the world, meeting countless nationalities, meeting heroes and villains, and experiencing countless other things because I lived those things in books.

2.  I drew pictures.  They weren't necessarily good, but I got better as I tried.

3.  I played the piano.  To be honest, much of the time I practiced because my mother required it, but I came to love it, because I was good enough to play popular music.

4.  I wandered.  I walked miles and miles on the sandy roods around the farm, often making up stories as I walked, wandering shelter belts observing trees and weeds and bugs and tracks in the sand, learning to mimic birds, and observing the natural world.

5.  I sewed, a skill my mother taught me that I have used my entire life.

6.  I followed my father around the farm, learning things from him, such as the names of trees, how to check seeds using damp paper towels between two pieces of glass, how to use tools, and listening to tales of his childhood.

7.  I cooked, helping my mother and becoming responsible for cooking in the summer while my mother worked in the garden and canned.

8.  I played--with the cats and dogs, with my family, with visiting friends and family--horse shoes, bat gammon, croquet.

9.  I learned how to be comfortable with solitude, perhaps to fill it with some activity but also to just enjoy being alone.

Those are the things that make me worry about today's kids who rarely live in solitude--without the television, without their phones, without their computers, without something or someone to entertain them.  

In making this list, I put reading first, because reading expands your mind, but I believe solitude is also essential for kids to learn to reflect on themselves and the world around them.  I am grateful that I grew up on the farm where I could see the stars at night and wander fields and pastures.  Few kids today have that experience, but somehow, they need to find solitude somewhere so they can discover how to be alone with themselves.  If 15 second "creativity, knowledge, and moments" are all that people are satisfied to have, that really is something to worry about.

Reporters getting it Wrong

Last week's blog brought a comment I appreciated, so I decided to answer it in this week's blog so everyone could enjoy the conversation.  The person did not leave a name, but the comment regarded the credibility of reporters in the past, specifically pointing out that even Walter Cronkite did not always avoid inserting his opinion or bias.  I felt that the person's comment deserved a reply.  

Probably the classic situation of Walter Cronkite expressing a personal opinion occurred not on the Evening News but rather on a special report on Vietnam that he hosted after visiting the war zone.  He specifically said, "I think if we examine this carefully, we have to see that there's a stalemate in Vietnam.  We're not going to win and the best thing we can do is get out."  No question that he did express an opinion, although not on the Evening News in that case.

The rules for reporters differed in the past.  In 1949 the Fairness Doctrine was introduced, requiring those who held a broadcast license to present controversial issues of importance with both sides.  Some of you will remember the dueling talking heads on television.

However, in 2011 the FCC abandoned that doctrine.  Here's the problem:  The First Amendment says, "...Congress shall make no law respecting...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...  There are some exceptions, the most common example being that you do not have the 'freedom' to shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theater.  However, for the government to moderate the news easily, there is a risk of violating the intention of the First Amendment.  It has been decided that it is better to rely on ethical standards established by journalism associations and individual news organizations, as well as the ethics of journalists themselves, than for the government to impose rules. These basic objectives of responsible news sources include truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability.  Unfortunately, not all reporters abide by those objectives today.

Newspapers that were once the primary source of news in America are dying.  Today television and the internet are the primary sources for news. Too many of us choose news sources that report what we want to hear rather that what we need to know.  Last week's blog offered some ways to search for accuracy, and in case you missed reading that you might want to scroll back to it.

There are examples of even reputable reporters and evening news hosts getting it wrong.  Some of you may remember in 2004 when Dan Rather reported that George W. Bush had received preferential treatment getting into the Air National Guard to avoid the draft, relying on what turned out to be a questionable source.  CBS fired executives for that, and Dan Rather ultimately stepped down.  In 2015 Brian Williams got in trouble when he stated on another evening show that he had been in a helicopter in Vietnam that was hit by a missile.  In fact, it was the helicopter ahead of him that was hit, but even so, being that close was probably frightening.  Williams blamed his memory of the event 12 years ago for having caused his mistake, but nevertheless NBC put him on leave for 6 months and he was replaced by another evening news host, even though the misstatement had not been made during his news broadcast.

I personally liked both of those newscasters, but Bravo to the networks for adhering to strict standards of accuracy.

Sadly, today preposterous misrepresentations and outright lies are reported with no repercussions.  If the freedoms we Americans enjoy are to continue, we must do our part.  With freedom comes responsibility.  Of course, those people getting rich from ownership of news sources should respect the importance of accurate reporting, but if they don't--and too many don't--it is up to us.  Learn to fact check and sample more than a single source if you want to be sure of what you read and what you hear.  If you feel a news source is not honoring "truthfulness accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability, perhaps you should consider finding other news sources.  It really is up to all of us, for if we stop tuning in, news sources will take notice.

How Can You Tell What's True?

Collection of Powerful Newspaper Editors

 We live in a very challenging time.  My father lived nearly his entire life in the house in which he was born, except for perhaps 5 years or less when he worked for the Forestry Fish & Game.  He knew his neighbors and they knew him.  I have lived in 6 different states, and I can't count how many different houses.  Recently a workman mentioned a name, assuming I would know the person.  I didn't.  "I'm sorry," he apologized.  "He lives about 4 miles from you, so I just assumed you would know him."  I'm sure my Dad would have, but I didn't.  

My parents subscribed to at least three newspapers--Pratt Tribune, St. John News, and The Hutchinson News.  We watched Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News every night that he was on. Edgar R. Murrow highlighted important news for us from 1951-1958.  We were quite comfortable that we knew what was going on in our community and the world.  Of course, we didn't.   

We no longer need to depend on 30 minutes of news in the evening, nor of only one or two people delivering it.  We don't have to wait for our favorite news program.  We can get our news on television, the internet, and our phones.  But, we trusted Walter Cronkite and Edgar R. Murrow.  Can we trust all of the people delivering the news today?  Sadly, no we cannot, but what we can do is research what we are being told.

I spend a great deal of my time researching the blogs I write.  The internet is full of information, but sadly, it is also full of misinformation.  Even more sadly, many people are willing to go in search of what they want to believe, rather than what is accurate information.  However, all of us are at risk of sometimes being fooled, even when we are trying to get accurate information.

If you are a sport's fan, you know about 'instant replay.'  How many times have you been certain that the football was over the line or the other guy touched the basketball last, and been wrong when you watched the instant replay?  Instant replay is a great tool when it is used correctly, but my recent blogs have discussed how technology can also be abused.  In response to one of my blogs about students entering key words online to obtain a custom essay for the specific subject of an assignment, one of my blog readers shared how much time his daughter has to spend investigating the essays turned in by her students to determine whether it was written by a computer rather than the student.

This is the world in which we live.  If you have found a news source that you like and you consult   nothing else, you may be ill informed, particularly if that news source has a bias.  Most of us have certain biases, mostly harmless, but our source for accurate news should not be careless about facts.

So, how can we tell whether or not we are being misled?  Here are some suggestions:

    Start by watching or reading more than one source of information.

    Is there an obvious bias?  Or, are there conclusions that don't make sense?

    Is the source a journalist or just a commentator?  A commentator is free to share his or her opinion without explaining how the conclusion was reached.  A journalist is meant to tell facts accurately.

   Use your computer to fact check the information.  There are organizations and individuals who search out facts to determine the accuracy.  Don't rely on just one.  Some good cites may have a bias, perhaps left leaning or right leaning.  Or, sometimes people just get things wrong.  If you try several fact checkers, you can get a sense of possible bias on certain subjects, and that will help you decide whether to check another fact checker.  Here are some fact checkers I have used:  FactCheck.org;  Wikipedia.com;  Snopes.com; TruthOrFiction.com .   

Not all opinions stay on the opinion page, and even the most conscientious people can get things wrong.   Sometimes there isn't a single right answer, and bias is something nearly all of us struggle with.  But the ways we can be misled are becoming harder to recognize, and we need to do what we can to get things right.

School Dress Codes

 

Remember Flat-Tops and Bobby Socks? 

My brother, Class of 1954

 

Are you old enough to remember the shoulder pads of the 1980s, popularized by the television show Dynasty?  I am, and whenever I see current fashion trends that I find unattractive, I remind myself of those shoulder pads.  Yes, I did have a few of those in my closet.  However, even with that reminder, I can't understand the current popularity of "gym" shorts in the middle of winter.  Flannel pajama bottoms as street wear seem to have subsided, but at least they were warm.  Yet, today I have frequently seen bare legs beneath short jackets in near freezing weather.  Those shoulder pads I wore looked stupid, but they didn't give me pneumonia.  

When I was in high school we did have a dress code.  For girls, dresses were required except for Fridays, and maybe then only if it was a game day.  For boys it was jeans and shirts.  Perhaps in my school days the enforcement of dress codes fell on the parents; however, I have seen enough 'first day of school' pictures posted on face book by proud mothers to know that my parents would not have let me out of the  house (let alone dressed for school) in something that tight or short.  Styles change and so do what parents find acceptable, but I was not aware of the turmoil that appropriate dress has caused in some schools.  I guess other disputes in schools are filling more headlines than reporting dress code disagreements.

Today, the suggestion to "Dress appropriately" isn't very helpful for adults or children.  Whether it is a wedding, a dinner party, a baby shower, or a brunch, if the hostess doesn't drop a hint, it is difficult to know what to wear, so how are adults supposed to keep up with proper attire for their kids?  A survey found that since 2000 the number of public schools with a defined dress code increased 21%.  That survey found that only 2% of schools reported no dress code at all. 

Some of the requirements and prohibitions would seem unnecessary, like the need to wear shoes.  Others seem more related to particular problems in a community, like no gang insignia.  Yet others seem related to modesty, like no bare shoulders or deep cut blouses, shorts of a certain length, or excessively tight clothing.  The modesty requirements often draw criticism that girls are being more restricted than boys.  

A recent government report indicated that 93% of school districts have dress codes or policies, and some of those schools have ignored differences in student cultural or physical differences, such as ignoring that curls or kinky hair may not easily comply with restrictions on "excessive curls" or hair no deeper "than two inches when measured from the scalp."  (That reminded me of the back-combing styles of my high school era. I doubt that some hair-dos  would have met the 2" requirement!)

On the positive side, uniformity of dress can reduce clothing being a visual division of students, reducing the socioeconomic status of students.  It may even create a sense of belonging, being part of a team, and for kids with a limited wardrobe, uniforms or less emphasis on clothing may make them feel more as if they can fit in.  In communities where keeping strangers out of the building is important, dress codes can make intruders more apparent.

On the negative side, freedom of expression may be limited, minority students may resent being forced to accept styles of others, and if the dress code is so strict that personal taste and traditions are prohibited, some may feel alienated.  

Even if dress codes are not imposed in a community, reflecting on some of these issues may bring a fresh perspective to what is going on in today's schools.

Blogger Michelle Riddell suggested in her blog about High School Dress Codes that since part of teaching should be to prepare students to make responsible choices, perhaps collaborating with students on a dress code policy might be a way to get them to dress appropriately.

One of Riddell's comments made so much sense to me, pointing out our society's obsession with image and its direct link to the irony that "students get harangued for wearing the very clothes they are targeted to buy.  Yet, someone else designed, advertised, manufactured, and sold the styles we blame on youth culture--and then unilaterally [with school dress codes] decide to ban."

Educator Suzanne Capek Tingley suggests three simple ideas:  1.  Make sure kids know what's expected.  2.  Avoid embarrassing dress code violators.  3.  Understand your students' concerns.

Since this blog was inspired by my discomfort of seeing bare legged young people in cold weather, has my research on dress codes taught me anything?  Let me apply Tingley's "simple" guides:  1.  What is expected

? That educated young people should realize that bare legs in near freezing temperatures is foolish.  2.  Avoid embarrassing:  Their bare legs are not my responsibility.  3.  Understand their concerns:  Once I was young and foolish too.  

I'm not sure I passed Tingley's test!