History

"...to be a Senator or member of Congress."  How often have I seen this?  It rankles me a great deal.  It shows an incredible ignorance of American government.  The latest example of this comes from a book written by a retired college professor of history.  Shouldn't every American, maybe from the age of 11 or 12 up, know that Congress is made up of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate?  (Note I wrote "Shouldn't," not "Doesn't.")  Therefore, a US Senator is a "member of Congress."  So, if one of our college professors displays such a lack of knowledge of our own government, doesn't it lead to more questions about a lack of knowledge?  And what is this guy teaching his students?

In the same book is a reference to Aaron Burr as a Federalist, twice!  He was a Jeffersonian Republican, running Jefferson's Presidential campaign in 1800 against the Federalist candidate John Adams and nearly sneaking in the back door as President himself, as a Democrat Republican.
 
And the author writes, Jefferson and his Republican followers "sought the impeachment" of Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase.  Actually, Chase was "impeached."  But he avoided removal.  That the principle of impeachment isn't fully understood is also shown in "having Congress impeach one federal judge."  First, the House of Representatives is the body that "impeaches," that is, brings formal charges against.  Second, this federal judge was not only "impeached," but was removed by the Senate in the subsequent trial.

Perhaps I quibble.

Back in another lifetime, when I taught in the high school, a committee of teachers chose an abysmal textbook for the World History courses.  (I refused to participate, that is, pick the book and work for free; reviewing a number of textbooks takes a lot of time.  Perhaps with a school and school district that showed more appreciation for its employees......)  Two of the most egregious errors I remember (and I'm sure there were more of them that I just don't recall) were these.  Italy was shown as fighting on the wrong side in the First World War.  How did that happen?  I always joked, "No wonder the Italian army didn't do so hot.  It didn't know which side it was fighting on!"  There was also a photograph of a temple in Japan, a pretty famous one.  The rather lengthy caption explained its importance to Shintoism.  The problem was that this famous temple was in India and was Hindu!  Of course, if the teachers didn't recognize these mistakes, who cares?  The problem with such errors is that they lead to questioning of other "facts" in the books.  If these are wrong......

For that matter, some textbooks also make specious conclusions/arguments.  For instance, how many of them teach students that "Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal pulled the US out of the Depression."  It's not at all clear that he and it did.  There is a lot of evidence that the Depression was deepened and lengthened by FDR's New Deal.  (At a social gathering, for whatever reason, I made this statement and some guy said, "You must be kidding!  Everyone knows the New Deal ended the Depression"  I repeated my assertion and he added with apparent disbelief, "And you teach history!?!?!"  It's too bad the guy had a teacher who didn't know much beyond the textbook.)

Another one that draws strange looks is when I question that "Hitler came to power because of the Treaty of Versailles."  Well no, he didn't.  He used it as a prop, a foil to drum up opposition to Weimar and support for the National Socialists.  But I can make a pretty strong case that it was the Depression, not the peace treaty of the First World War; that is, no Depression no Hitler.  "And you teach history!?!?!?"  Ha Ha Ha......

Actually, I learned all this in my college history courses, maybe not the specific instances, but to question, to challenge the accepted views of history.

While I'm on the subject of history, let me recount one thing.  For the past few years I have assigned a term project that simulated the NCAA basketball March Madness tournament.  I picked, say, in Michigan history, 20 people of significance to the state.  Choosing/Limiting to 20 was not easy.  I had to make some of my own value judgments, but that's OK; it's my TV show.  And seeding them was tough, too.  Each semester there were some changes in the brackets.  Students seemed to like the Madness brackets project more than a term paper, etc.  I wonder if they actually realized, while completing the assignment, they were writing 20 or 25 or, in some cases, more pages.  The overall winner, the UCLA of Michigan Madness, might be guessed.  It has been Henry Ford, by a significant margin.  This past term I had several students, from different classes, choose "Rosie the Riveter," the symbol of women working in the Arsenal of Democracy in the Second World War.  I found the choice interesting, if not compelling. The rationale wasn't always convincing, perhaps more hyperbolic than definitive.  A few other personalities, one or two here and there, were also selections.  And, although grading them takes a long time, it's pretty easy to see who just copied stuff from what they found on the Internet, nothing of much depth or analysis.  Still, it's fun for me.

"The Science Is Settled"

How often have we heard that in the past couple of decades, even now in dealing with CoVid-19?  "The science is settled."  The statement has been summarily used to push agendas, when debate is discouraged or even feared.  It's been used to sway people who really don't know.  How easy to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents by throwing out "the science is settled!"  Who but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?"

I guess the best example over recent years is "global warming," er "climate change"--or whatever it's called now.  Now it's how we deal with the corona virus.  "The science is settled."

No, the science isn't settled.  Science is never settled.  That's the essence of science, that there are unknowns and that there is always something new, more to learn.  But the phrase, "the science is settled" has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate, dissent, and challenges.  It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, a sense of credibility to a viewpoint.  Even more, it sways people who don't know much about an issue, but well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them.

Again, no, the science isn't settled.  Science is never settled.  It's one of the important lessons I learned in my physics classes at Amherst.  (I admit to not realizing it at the time.  It took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!")  Consider these.

For centuries, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes ether).  This was not disputed, not by anyone credible.  And people accepted that  because "Aristotle [Empedocles or some other Greek scientist] said so."  (Other cultures had similar findings--Chinese, Indian/Buddhist, etc.)  The science had been settled.  No challenges allowed.

In 1633 (If I recall correctly.), the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial, with the possibility of losing his life and being excommunicated (the death penalty of the soul), for challenging the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth.   That he postulated the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and others almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul.  The science had been settled.  No challenges allowed.

More than two and a half centuries after Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists, "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort.  Newton stands before us--strong, certain, and alone."  Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize the "most genius" (Einstein's words) of Newton.  Alexander Pope penned this, "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night.  God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light."  There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion.  All this and yet 20th Century science has disproved many of Newton's theories, including Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others.  For 250 years or more, the science was settled.  No challenges allowed.

It was Carl Sagan, the astronomer/astrophysicist, who wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument.  My position is mistaken.'  And then they would actually change their minds."  So, the science isn't really settled.  But apparently only scientists--well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization and sources of funding--know that.

We should think about this the next time, whether it's climate change, how to deal with the corona virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled."  It's not.  It never is.

"We're All in This Together"

That, "We're all in this together," seems to be ubiquitous.  It's all over the boob tube and there are full pages in the newspaper claiming this, too.  The politicians, especially Michigan's Governor, are exploiting it.  I was out running the other day and saw a couple of yard signs reminding of that, that "We're All in this Together."  And, some enterprising souls have begun printing up and selling tee shirts that read, yes, "We're All in This Together,"  "Together, we can defeat CoVid 19," or something similar.

I wish that would stop!  We're not "in this together."  I suppose it sounds good, perhaps leading to more cooperation, teamwork, or even acquiescence to government orders.  Maybe it's a morale booster to some, if not a "misery loves company" thing, something close to it.  Perhaps it's the peer pressure, that if one doesn't sacrifice, one is being selfish, inconsiderate of others, especially of others' lives.

NO!  Stop!  We're not in this together.  Anyone paying attention should recognize this.  As usual, some are in it more than others.

It must have really steamed, say, some of the private yard care companies to be out of work for five or six weeks as they saw the grass at schools, city properties, and state parks being mowed by, well, school, local government, and state employees.  How many women have commented that the governor's "roots aren't showing," nails are done, etc. when her press conferences and updates are on television?  Of course, maybe she does her own.  Yeah, right.   The list goes on

Some people have started using that worst of all words, "greed," to describe those who want to open, to restart the states and their economies.  They cite the lack of concern for some people's lives just to get back to work.  "You're willing to let people die just so you can your money??????"  I think that is very short-sighted, arrogant, and wrong.

I'm not for anyone dying, of course, but this underscores that we aren't in this together.  How easy it is to talk about "staying home" when income is not a concern.  Those not hurting financially can pontificate from on high about those "greedy" protesters.  Hmmm.  Is it "greedy" to want to get back to work to feed one's family, to make one's mortgage payment, to avoid losing one's business and/or job?  If one doesn't have to worry about any of those things, of course they can be "in this together!"

I wonder why some of the toady reporters have not asked some of these governors, particularly here in Michigan which is as shut down as any other state, if taxes will be suspended.  I think that's a very legitimate question.  Income taxes, well, if incomes have fallen or become nonexistent, that's almost a nonissue.  But property and sales taxes are still facing those who have had their incomes disappear.  If we're all in this together......  I know, I know.  "But that's different."

Even more, I'm waiting to see how long this togetherness will last.  Many people have been asked to sacrifice in the face of this pandemic.  (I"m getting to dislike that word, a lot, and hesitate to use it.)  Incomes have fallen and people have struggled.  Jobs and businesses have been lost, some never to reappear.  The rationale for the shutdown, that is, the orders closing certain businesses and activities, but only certain ones, was to "save lives."  (Hey, those multi-million dollar electronic signs on the freeways around here even remind us, "Stay home.  Save lives!"  My favorite message remains, "Raining?  Use Wipers.")

So, how many lives were saved?  All of them?  Most of the survivors among us?  A significant number?  But surely our politicians and those who supported the shutdown orders so vociferously will admit lives were saved, likely a lot of them.  (Or have they been lying to us about the figures?)  If "We're all in this together," will all those people whose lives were saved by those who sacrificed with their jobs, their businesses, and lost income then remember togetherness?  Will they contribute/donate money to help businesses get back on their feet?  After all, if their lives were saved......

No, none of this will happen.  So, unless you give money to those who already sacrificed, spare me the self-righteous "We're all in this together."

Washington

I'm not ready to replace Abraham Lincoln with George Washington, but it's getting closer.  The more I read and think about Washington, the title of James Flexner's brilliant biography of Washington perfectly fits, "The Indispensable Man."  Washington was more far-sighted than people realize, from things such as treatment of Indians to future American greatness.  "He kept us out of war" was a campaign slogan used for Woodrow Wilson (who first did, then didn't--five months later), but so did Washington, at a time when war might well have brought the American experiment with self-rule to a quick and crashing halt.  He kept two giants of US History, Hamilton and Jefferson, in his Cabinet, allowing both to voice their views, although they were bitter political rivals.  He ran for a second term, something he didn't want to do.  But, like an American Cincinnatus, his duty to country (like that of Cincinnatus to Rome) was more important than his personal life and return to his farm at Mt. Vernon.  He recognized that he, perhaps he alone, could provide the stability the young nation needed.  But then, after that second four years, he stepped down, creating yet another significant precedent, the rotating of the office of the Presidency.  He was opposed to monarchy (although his close adviser Hamilton favored it).  It may be apocryphal, but it does reflect his view, "We just fought a war to get rid of one King George.  We don't need another."  I could go on, but you get the idea.

I also read this.  In his Second Inaugural Address, Washington used "I" a mere six times.  (I never bothered to count before.)  "Unlike Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama [and the book was written before Don Trump or he would most assuredly be included], whose narcissism seemed to know no bounds, Washington was a profoundly humble man."  It's too bad these latter-day Presidents didn't learn from history.

I was also reminded that "The General did not like shaking hands."  Although he loved dancing with the ladies, he disdained most physical contact, in political or social settings.  A man after (or before) my own sentiments.

Here's a story that demonstrates a few things.  At a reception, an aristocratic and powerful, but patriotic man (One of the Van Renssalaers?  I don't remember.) remarked that he could go and put his arm around Washington's shoulder, like an old buddy.  Others there thought VR would never do that, but to goad him into it, passed the hat to collect a tidy sum as a reward if he had the guts to follow through with it.  Well, he did--and regretted it.  He walked over to Washington and in a very friendly way, inquired how "George" was doing.  "George" gave him "such a cold, hard glare" that VR immediately released his grip and raced out of the reception without collecting his money.  And the guys didn't joke and guffaw about it, not at all.  They, too, were silenced by Washington's reaction.  More than 30 years later, with Washington dead for about 25 years, VR wrote in a letter he was still haunted by that "cold, hard stare."

We usually equate loud, rousing ovations with modern times--ball games, political conventions or rallies, etc.  Yet at a gathering of 12,000 guests to celebrate Washington's last birthday in office, he was greeted by "such deafening applause" that his wife, Martha, was brought to tears and he himself was so moved he couldn't speak.  A little more than a year later, at John Adams' inauguration, as Washington strode from the building, the crowd "roared with a sound like thunder."

Before people start tossing around the word "great" to identify Presidents, perhaps they should do more reading about Lincoln and Washington.

Snitches and More

There has been a lot of uproar about some of our politicians asking citizens to "snitch," that is, to report people who are violating "stay-at-home" orders, "social distancing," etc.  I find that troubling, in a sense.  But I don't think it's as cut and dried as it might seem.

Is it "snitching" to report criminals?  How many people don't speak up, excusing their refusal by saying, "I didn't want to get involved?"  Should students not "snitch" on school bullies who are physically or mentally threatening other students?  "Let the kids handle it themselves."  At what expense?

I was always bothered by the "If you see something, say something" campaign.  I was reminded of tactics used by the German Nazis, where neighbors turned in neighbors (particularly Jews), and the Soviet Union Communists, when children turned in (often innocently) their own parents.  Especially in our society today, this is dangerous.  For too many people, a mere accusation, no matter how spurious, is proof of guilt.

It's a tough call, to say something or to remain quiet.  In the end, I guess we have to have confidence that people are able to tell what really needs to be "snitched."  I, for one, don't have much trust in the government if told to turn in shutdown violators.  For that matter, I find it troubling that American government(s) would even think of asking citizens to turn in their neighbors in situations like this.  As noted, it's a tough call.

A couple of recent letters in the newspaper seemed outlandish.  One equated those protesting the shutdown with "traitors."  Those wanted a "re-opening" of the state are "unpatriotic."  I wonder why they wrote such things.  Is it merely that the protesters oppose government, which to the letter writers of course always knows and does what is best for us, always knowing what is best for us better than we do ourselves?  Do these letter writers really think the "Stay-at-Home" orders have saved lives?  The executive orders may well have saved lives from CoVid, but we don't really know that.  For that matter, do we know how many lives have been lost because of "Stay-at-Home," by closing facilities to treat ailments which, untreated, led to deaths, by discouraging people with ailments from seeking medical help?   I don't think we can know any of this.  Are then, too, people who talk or text on cell phones while driving "unpatriotic" or "traitors?"  After all, people die......

I've probably written about this before, but "income inequality" has reappeared in CoVid discussions.  I guess I believe there is real "income inequality" and that its gap might be growing. But it's a loaded term, one that is misused and even abused to further divide people for the sake of political advantage.

So, Jeff Bezos (and I'm not sure who he is) is on the road to becoming the world's first trillionaire.  (It must be unique as spell check underscores "trillionaire," but not "millionaire" and "billionaire." )  Who cares?  Sure I'd like as much money as some of these guys, but that's not the point, not to me.  I couldn't care less if some people are worth millions and billions of dollars (as long as they come about their money in legal and moral ways).  That is, if someone who makes, say $60,000 a year ca live comfortably (Disregard the injustice of things like qualifying for college financial aid.)--have a nice house, that big-screen television, a couple of cars, an annual vacation, etc.--why should that person care if another gets, say, a $600,000 salary?  Well, other than pure personal greed and envy.  But many politicians and other interest groups exploit both the term "income inequality" and the extreme wealth of those at the very top. 

That befuddles me and wonder why others don't see this.  Consider a number of factors. That the wealthiest of people have a whole lot more than I (or people like me) do doesn't detract from my comfort level.  Their money doesn't take anything from me.  I think back to growing up, what we had and what we didn't have.  Until their last years, my parents had far less than what I have now.

Eating out?  Where we now go to restaurants once or sometimes twice a week, often when I was a kid we went out to eat once or twice a year--Easter and Mother's Day.  Our play clothes were last year's school clothes.  (I didn't have my first pair of blue jeans until I went to college.)  Except for one new one, I rode used bikes, none of which had different gears.  The list goes on.  Oh, we didn't live in poverty, far from it.  But we had far, far less than what, say, people in my neighborhood and those like it have today.

And even thinking of those not as well off as I am today.  (I chuckle as I write "well off."  I think of some surveys I do online.  They often ask for my "income level."  Invariably, of eight levels, mine falls into the third lowest.  This AM, mine jumped a notch to the fourth lowest level!  But there were eleven, not eight levels.  Ha Ha Ha.)  What is "poverty?"  About 96% of all US families have televisions and 80% have HDTVs.  How many of those who don't is by choice?  I'm not sure, but if I was living alone, I'm not at all certain I'd have television, almost surely not a flat screen one.  (I don't even know if those are the only ones made now.  Ha Ha Ha.)  More than 80%, too, of adults in the US are said to have smart phones, not just cell phones, but really intelligent ones.  Half of the people in the world, it is claimed, have them.  So, exactly what is wrong with "income inequality?"

There's a lot more to the dishonesty of the "income inequality" abuse, such as that the bottom 20% of income earners in the use is not static; that is, many of them, most of them, don't stay in the bottom 20%.  They move upward.  But that's enough for this rainy day.

As is now usual, please overlook/forgive any typos and other errors.  I don't want to go back to proofread.

Whose Ox Is Being Gored?

I agree that Michigan's governor has gone overboard with her power grab.  I'm not arguing the necessity of her isolation orders, although I think I could.  I could also question the illogic behind them.  Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer's orders are, according to Michigan laws of 1945 and 1976, well, unlawful.  As much as that, I think they are also unconstitutional and, especially, undemocratic.

I think a lot of people agree with me.  (Obviously not everyone.)  But many of those same folks who agree wouldn't agree with this.  Despite the emergency manager laws, what former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican, also did fits the same bill--unconstitutional and undemocratic.   I know, I know......

(Like I'm not arguing for or against the necessity or effectiveness of Whitmer's actions, I'm not arguing for or against the necessity or effectiveness of Snyder's actions.   For the record, as this post demonstrates, I oppose both on principle.)

The situations are very different, but the end results are the same--unconstitutional and undemocratic actions by state executives.  That some find Whitmer's and Snyder's actions different in this sense, seems to me, to be hypocritical.  Either you believe in the right of people to govern themselves through elected representatives or you don't.

It reminds me of the public schools when they insist, "We're here for the kids," but always omit, "except when we aren't."

Sometimes, in practice, democracy is messy.  It doesn't always turn out the way we like or want.  That's part of, well, democracy.  People aren't perfect and make mistakes.  Sometimes they are big mistakes.  But, again, either you believe in democratic principles or you don't.  I really don't think you can pick and choose which principles and when to support.

If some of these cities and school districts went underwater, well, then rather than pick dictatorially someone to run them, let these entities sink or swim on their own.  If one believes in democracy, one believes that the people will eventually work out of their messes.  Or is democracy only for some people?

I believe a federal judge, in his opinion upholding Michigan's emergency manager statute, wrote this:  "The act does not take away a fundamental right to vote because such a right has never been recognized by the courts."  Huh??????  In a democracy, perhaps only the right to freedom of expression is more "fundamental" than the right to vote.  Universal voting is the cornerstone on which representative government is based.

Consider this.  Why, after the Civil War all the way up through the 1960s and 1970s, did so many white supremacists in the South work so hard to prevent blacks from voting?

Again, at the end of a long day, please overlook/forgive any typos......