Too Late? Regrets?

I was reminded this week that we often wait too long to do the right things. Finally, Orestes "Minnie" Minoso was selected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown by the Veterans' Committee. By most accounts, his inclusion was long overdue. It wasn't just his playing ability. After all, how many players can you name who held on to a fly ball with a fan spilling a beer on his head????? No, seriously, Minoso was a gifted all-round player. He could hit, run the bases like few others could ("The Cuban Comet"), and was a demon on defense. On top of that, he overcame or at least had to deal with the prejudice and discrimination of being a black player (from Cuba). The only issue I have with Minoso's induction is what took so long? He died six or seven years ago. Why couldn't the powers that be in Cooperstown give this man his just reward while he was alive and could enjoy/relish it? Better late than never? I don't know. The same was done at one of the colleges where I teach. Founded in 1921, it was called Flint Jr. College or Flint Community College or some variant of the two for more than forty years. Over the decades, Charles Stewart Mott (at his death, the largest single owner of General Motors stock, said to be worth $800 million at the time) donated tens of millions of dollars and land to the school. He even gave the college $5 million to erect a building to celebrate his parents'50th anniversary. Finally, in the late '60s, the college changed its name--to Genessee Community College. Mott died in 1973. Several months after his death, after!, the school became C.S. Mott Community College. Why the wait? What would have been wrong with naming it Mott CC while he was alive, to honor him, to show the appreciation he deserved? Better late tha never? I don't know. I can't be too critical of such instances, I guess. How many people died without me adequately expressing my gratitude for the importance they played in my life? There's no excuse, not really. For a while I tried, "Life just got in the way." I suppose that worked for a while, but now find it pretty lame. About 20 years ago, I began to reconnect with some of my college professors, three or four who were were still alive. We still correspond several times a year with e-mails. (Yes, I benefit, too, always getting excited to receive an e-mail from one of "the gods.") The same for my college coach. For 30 years or so, there was little contact between us. At his retirement celebration we also reconnected. He gave me his e-mail address, but he's not very good with e-mails so, again, mostly silence. Finally, at the urgings of some of my teammates, I reached out with phone call some time back. Now, I make a point to call every three months or so. I hope and assume they know why I've made the effort. I try not to be sappy and maudlin, falling all over myself to show my appreciation. Just keeping in contact, I hope, is enough. It's a long, too long, list of people now gone who I'm not sure I adequately thanked. Now it's too late. Shame on me. I suppose I can come up with reasons, but none are really legitimate. Better late than never doesn't work with them--they are gone. While I'm at it, let me touch upon a related issue. Why don't we name more things--parks, schools, etc.--after more people deserving of being honored? I suppose an argument can be made for some place names stemming from plants/trees (Oak Valley to name a local school), geographical features (Spring Mills, another local), and even directions (Southwestern, several in the state). But why not ditch those and replace them with the names of people who made significant contributions to our lives, our society, our country? (OK, in this age of wokeness and its opaque sense of history, this might be problematic.) I've always been stunned thea there are only two high schools in the state of Michigan named after Abraham Lincoln, two out of almost 2,000! As far as I know, only one each is named after George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, and the like. (Yes, I'm ignoring that historical opaqueness of the wokesters.) Again, there are dozens that are named after directions! Names don't have to be national, but surely state and even more local would be fitting. Doing such would accomplish several things. It would express appreciation for the significant contributions people have made. It shows we value important contributions and the people who made them. It also demonstrates to those living heroes that we are grateful for what they have done. And, if done properly, that is, we identify those whose names grace our buildings and other places, it can tie people with the history of a city, state , or other region. (One local school district did just that, naming its three junior highs Mason, Pierce, and Crary. But then it dropped the ball. In my history classes, I often ask students where they attended high school. If from this school district, I ask them if they know who Mason, Pierce, and Crary were or, for that matter, who Kettering and Mott were, after whom the district's high schools are named. They almost always have no idea.) Perhaps I ask too much.

Tuesday Thoughts

Isn't it amazing that Joe Biden can tell people/employers to ignore the 5th US Court of Appeals ruling which stayed his vax mandate?  He told businesses "to proceed" with forcing employees to get vaccinated. Why isn't this a headline in the newspapers or on the nightly news?  I thought, apparently incorrectly, that we had a Constitutional system of separation of powers, of checks and balances (as opposed to Czechs and Norwegians).  For the President to issue such a statement is dangerous.  Now, I ask, who is endangering Constitutional government? Here's a hint. It's not Viking Helmet Man. BTW, every time Don Trump lied there was some "meter," a media-type there to count, to point out the lie.  Oh, there were hundreds of them, thousands even. Where is a similar "lie meter" for Joe Biden?  Why aren't the media doing the same with this President?  As a NY Post columnist wrote, "He can't tell the truth two times in a row." Vulgar?  Is "Let's Go Brandon" vulgar?  Is it disrespectful to the President?  I have heard such claims and they reveal a lot--especially about the people who think so.  First, is "Let's Go Brandon" vulgar?  No more so, I'd think, than someone saying, "I was screwed" after getting a raw deal.  "Screwed" takes the place of the f-bomb, right?  Second, conceding that it is vulgar, and I don't think it is, where were all these upset people, so concerned about respecting the President, when all the f-bombs were directed at Trump?  Was there any entertainment awards show, for instance, that didn't include the obligatory "F Trump?"  And wasn't that met with wild applause from the attendees?  So, once again, we have a double standard.  What is it some pundits say?  "If liberals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all."  Third, "Let's Go Brandon" is a great slap at the media.  It was very clear at the raceway where the winning driver was interviewed that the crowd was not at all chanting, "Let's Go Brandon."  Yet, many in the media ran with that, at least for a while, ignoring the obvious. Of course, I know the response to all this. "But that's different."

Is the past, history, prologue to the future? Are those who don't remember the past, per Georges Santayana, condemned to repeat it? I don't know if I completely subscribe to such thoughts, but they do give me pause to think. I just finished Throes of Democracy by Walter McDougall, a roller coaster ride of the years 1821 to 1877 in the US. History--political, military, religious, social, intellectual, economic--they're all in there. McDougall, like the good student of his professors he must have been, sometimes challenges the conventional views and wisdom. Of particular interest to me as both McDougall and I finished the book, was Orestes Augustus Johnson. Certainly a lesser player on the American historical scene, I was barely aware of his name before now. [He has a couple of Detroit connections. One was that he died here, of gluttony!) That much of the final 20 pages of Throes of Democracy focuses on Browning or, rather, his insightful and often prescient thoughts, was brilliant on McDougall's part. Several of Browning's ideas are relevant to today. I smiled, more sardonically than humorously, as I considered his 170-year old thoughts relative to the woke cancel culture trying to now overwhelm us. Browning condemned the greed and corruption he saw in government and business as threats to democracy, particularly to the liberty on which democracy is founded. He also proscribes socialism as an extinguishing force on freedom. Most intriguing to me was his take on reform. Writing in the Ante-Bellum Period, he cited the urge for improvement, a quest for perfection in Americans. We might easily translate Browning's ideas to our own time. Like the mid-19th Century reformers, today's wokesters are bent on making society better. But many questions arise. What, for instance, are the woke standards of "better" or, ultimately, "best?" Are their thoughts, like those of the Transcendalists described by McDougall, that each individual determines "perfection," how things should be? Isn't that an invitation to chaos, not democracy and the freedom it brings? I am reminded of the French Revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre, who sent thousands of his countrymen/women to the guillotine to lose their heads. Of him it was said, "He loves mankind, but cares not a whit for a man." As McDougall notes of Browning's thought, such zealots often eventually echo something similar, "Love me as your brother or I will cut your throat." Today the woke activists push for a "sentimental huamanitarianism," one based as the name suggests, based on feelings not thoughts. Their activism frequently degenerates into violence and coercion. In their zeal, the wokesters have forgotten or choose to ignore an "empirical fact of humanity," the proclivity to sin. Again, they base their activist goals on feelings, what they feel should be right, not on reasoned thought. McDougall also introduces perhaps a better known historical figure, Thomas Huxley. The noted British scientist, like so many foreign visitors in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, commented on American democracy, culture, etc. Huxley also seems prescient in light of today. He, too, was bothered by the perniciousness of corruption, especially the link between government and business. But he thought greater peril lay elsewhere, in the centralization of government. Would Big Government end up as a sort of disguised despotism? Of course he was talking about politicians. But he also saw great danger in the growing number of bureaucrats. Today there are hundreds of federal government agencies alone. How many federal rules and regulations are there--hundreds of thousands of pages, millions? I don't know, but the federal tax code no matter how it is sliced has more words than the King James Version of the Bible and the entire series of Harry Potter novels! Those regulations are not legislation passed by Congress, but rules created by the IRS, etc. The states? California alone has about 400,000 regulations. Is that entrenched bureaucracy (Big Government run amok, not acccountable to voters/citizens) a greater threat to our liberties than corruption or even incompetence?

Defining Our Era?

Wokeism. Cancel culture. The dangers are all around us--and seem to be growing. Is this how history will remember us, as people who treasured freedom of speech, well as long as it doesn't offend anyone? No micro-aggressions allowed. Freedom of speech (and all of expression) is easy to embrace if we agree with the speech. It becomes far more troublesome when it involves ideas we hate. But that's when freedme of speech is most necessary. Voltaire purportedly said more than 200 years ago, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But today is different. People from all walks of life are getting penalized, even fired from jobs, for what they say and have said in the past, as long as decades ago in some instances. Some, for voicing views others find disagreeable, have had their home and business addresses posted on social media (Yet another reason to despise social media.), opening them up to the woke, cancel culture mobs. I read a recent poll where a significant majority of Americans highly regard the freedoms of the First Amendment. At the same time, a majority indicated they have refrained from expressing an opinion because of fear of the consequences from the mob. All this in the United States of America! No US citizen should fear to express him/herself. Not to mention years and years ago; who didn't say or do something stupid when a kid? This was carried to an extreme (which seems to be becoming more the norm as weak, cowardly, and ignorant leaders cave to the mobs) earlier this year. A journalism professor at a state university was suspended and then fired (There was a separation agreement with the help of a rights organization.) from his position because a student, just one, posted on social media that he, the professor, was a racist. Over the years, this professor has taught several thousand students, but only one, just this one of them, has made such a disparaging remark. To this student (I have no idea if a he or a she, black or white, or whatever.), the professor is "racist" because he used the "N" word in class. Making it worse, he used it more than once. In fact, he has uttered it many times in the course of teaching this class over the years. Aha! But wait a minute! What this professor did, many times, was quote directly, verbatim, from a US Federal Court of Appeals opinion, one written by Judge Damon Keith. In case you don't know, the late Judge Keith possessed one of the greatest legal minds this country has ever seen. He was a decades-old civil rights activist, going back to the '50s and '60s. Oh, Damon Keith was a black man. I know the word "icon" is tossed around far too casually these days, but Judge Keith was a legitmate icon. Yes, in his opinion, Judge Keith wrote the "N" word several times, citing the plaintiff and knowing it was central to the case--one concerning free speech! The instructor merely read from the Appeals Court's ruling, nothing more and nothing less. When this student's social media (Don't you just detest that term!) post was brought to the attention of the university's administration, the professor was suspended upon review. He was given no opportunity to explain, that he was quoting from Judge Keith's opinion, using the judge's own words. Several months later the professor was given the ziggy, still not allowed to defend himself. This is merely one example of cancel culture run amok, with just plain rotten consequences. So many things are wrong here, spelling out the dangers Americans and freedom of speech now face from the woke crowd. First, the professor should have been invited in to explain the episode. The issue should have been dead as soon as he did. But he wasn't. Second, this student should have been questioned by university officials. The line of questioning should have focused on the student him/herself. Did he/she not know what the professor was doing? If not, if still offended, the officials might have suggested the student find another school to attend. (Long ago, in a far different context, after one of my very sub-par papers, one of my professors suggested just that. "If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school." Gulp!) After all, if this is how limited this student's thinking skills are..... Third, a return to the college administration. Talk about ignorance to the point of stupidity! What college official, presumably with one or more college degrees, would take such action--to suspend and then dismiss this professor for this? Was there any any examination of the situation? My guess is there wasn't. The college administration didn't know about the legal giant Damon Keith, he from their own state! Could the officials be such dolts they didn't recognize this professor's attempts to get students to think? Are they really that ignorant? Their actions lead me to believe they are. Instead of the professor losing his job, the university officials responsible for that should have been canned! Their incompetence is an embarrassment to the school. Perhaps both this student and the college officials operate under the premise of "No thinking allowed." Apparently we have reached the point where people must be careful, extremely cautious, about what they say about their beliefs and views. Does the fate of thinking people now lie in the hands of people, including bosses, who are either unable to think rationally or too cowardly to stand up to ignorance and stupidity or both? Are the mobs coming after us next? After all, in their ignorance, they have torn down monuments to even Abraham Lincoln.

Standing Up for Principles

Donating blood yesterday, I sat on the guerney (?) and thought that an Amherst graduate made all that possible. Dr. Charles Drew was the one responsible for blood donations, blood drives, and blood mobiles. I wonder why Drew didn't win a Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology. If I recall correctly, Drew was an undergraduate with William Hastie, the first black man appointed to a federal district court and, later, a federal appellate court. I'm not sure they were in the same class, but crossed paths certainly. Drew played football and ran track and was the class valedictorian. After graduation, to earn money for medical school, he spent time as the football coach at Morgan State University, a historically black college. With nothing to do while my blood dripped into the bag, I continued to think. Drew was not just brilliant, but very courageous, a man of principle. During the Second World War, among other positions, he was the director of the first American Red Cross blood bank which supplied blood for American and British soldiers in the war. He protested the Red Cross policy of segregating blood from blacks. Not only was "black blood" not transfused to whites, it was even stored in different places! His protests went nowhere and he resigned his position. This reminded me of the recent "sick out" by pilots of Southwest Airlines, in protest of coming company mandates for employee CoVid vaccinations. I know many people were upset by the pilots' actions. Surely they inconvenienced a lot of people, some far more so than others. To a different and, I think, lesser degree the pilots were doing what Charles Drew did--standing up for themselves, for principles, for their rights/liberties. Some might argue that lives were lost when Drew resigned, just as some people were inconvenienced by the pilots' "sick out." I do not argue either. But I would say the onus for both the lost lives and any inconvenience, no matter the seriousness, lies far more with the American Red Cross and Southwest Airlines. Each could have done the right thing. The resignation and sick-out would not have been necessary. During the American Revolution, a minority of colonists stood for independence, an even smaller number for war. Yet, as Abraham Lincoln later noted in a different scenario, "And the war came." How many people, who didn't want war, were "inconvenienced," ruined by the War for Independence? The number was considerable. Some died. Some were financially bankrupted. Their lives were turned topsy-turvy. Are we then to vilify the likes of Washington, the Adams boys, Hamilton, Frankline, etc. for "inconveniencing" or worse so many people? Standing up for principles is not easy. It often requires great sacrifice and with that comes the knowledge that other people might also face serious consequences not of their doing. I've always found this pithy saying to be trite, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." Maybe this is fitting here.

Sometimes I Sits and Thinks and Sometimes...

...I just sits. I had a long talk on the phone yesterday with a former student. It was a nice chat and we agreed that we seem, more and more, to be living in The Twilight Zone. I was reminded of this this AM as I pored through the news. I received a pamphlet the other day that explained the January 6th "Insurrection Hoax." I've written about the folly of that, that Viking Helmet Man was leading the overthrow of the American democracy. Seriously? It played nicely into the hands of something I read this AM. Two federal office buildings were attacked by climate change protesters this week. These housed the Departments of Interior and Commerce. At Commerce, spray paint was used to deface the building. At Interior, police and guards were assaulted and injured, some being hospitalized, by the violent intruders who entered the building. Where are the reports, not to mention condemnations, of these violent protests? Even the official statement from the federal government seemed to be muted, even apologetic. Several dozen violent protesters were arrested. I looked completely through my newspapers Wed, Thur, and Fri; nary a word about this "insurrection." Apparently, it's only violent, an "insurrection," and "a threat to our democracy" when the other side does it. I saw a video that was hilarious. A woman pulled up to the drive-through window at a fast-food restaurant. The worker wouldn't give the woman her drink because she didn't have a mask. So, he handed her, through his window and hers, a mask. Why was it more dangerous to have handed her the drink than to hand her the mask? I see an NBA player is done for his season, if not career, over blood clots he is sure came from getting the vax. I don't know if the vax was the cause, although he seems to be certain. But that underscores the initial problem with the vax. It was fast-tracked, without real testing. Oh, I know people will claim the RNA technology has been in development for a decade or more. So says the CDC, which of course has never been wrong; just ask it or St. Anthony. But there were no long-term tests of the technology with the CoVid vax; that's because there was and still isn't any long-term. Are we likely in the next years to discover issues with blood clots, enlarged hearts, reproduction, even cancers? I don't know and that is the issue. Neither does the medical community. Although, as with all the critics of the CoVid strategies (masks, shutdown, distancing), there are some pretty noteworthy medical folks questioning the vax. But they are shunted to never-never land, never to be seen and never to be heard. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. All I want is to be told the truth, that the medical community doesn't really know, that's it's making guesses and that some of the guesses have been dreadfully wrong. Be honest. Give me all of the facts before I am bullied into making "an informed decision." But I forget, yet again. Being honest reflects good character and, I am repeatedly told, character doesn't matter. Related, a federal court ruled that Michigan State University could require employees to get the vax. Among other things, he wrote, "...bodily autonomy has not been deemed a fundamental right." If Americans don't have control over their own bodies (including I would submit, their minds) in the face of government mandates, then they can't be free. He wrote, "There is no fundamental right to decline a vaccination." Huh? What's next? The possible list of things for which "There is not fundamental right to decline" is practically endless. Our Constitutional system was devised around several very basic, but fundamental principles. Two of them are limited government and popular sovereignty, that the people not Big Government decide. Coercion by the state, either at the federal or state level, of individuals violates both of these principles. This judge was appointed by W. Bush. Yet another reason to rank him among the worst Presidents. "Worst Presidents?" It used to be only a handful were included in this list; but the list is growing and growing quickly. One nationally-respected immunologist stated of this opinion/ruling, "I was disappointed to see our judiciary's weakness on display." He cited the federal government's "draconian behavior on vaccination mandates [for] the recently infected and naturally immune is unscientific and, likely, unconstitutional." (Not if the federal courts say it isn't! Whimps/Wimps!) He added, "In national emergencies, reason, science, and ethics fail us and fear prevails." Amen. I still chuckle at "Let's Go, Brandon" every time I see it or hear it. I think it would be hilarious if, at the football stadiums this weekend, "F*ck You, Biden" was replaced with "Let's Go, Brandon." The chanters could make fun of and protest more than one target. Here's another one I just discovered this AM, "Empty-shelves, Joe." As the main grocery shopper for our household, I know that one and will chuckle tomorrow AM as I can't find what I want--honey, toilet bowl cleaner, dog food, peanut butter..... Last but not least, several thoughts emerged from one this week. I noted to my class that one Alexander Macomb was said to have owned a couple of dozen slaves in the early 19th Century. That, of course, was and is abhorrent and presumably banned by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist....."). In Michigan, Macomb County is named after him. I wonder how long before there is a movement afoot to change the name of Macomb County. A couple of weeks ago, another Robert E. Lee statue/memorial was taken down. I know many people think this is wrong, a product of wokeism or some such. But I still can't figure out why Americans would want to honor someone who committed treason against the US, whose treason was responsible (because of his military brilliance) for the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Union soldiers. And to wrap up, Monday was Columbus Day, the national holiday. I still have some trouble with the idea of so honoring Christopher Columbus. I will grant he was a great sailor and even a great salesman. But many will see my reticence as some sort of revisionist history. No, it's exactly the opposite. I know my histor, that is, the history of Columbus and he wasn't "St. Christopher." Besides, why does Columbus get his day, but Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Dwight Eisenhower and other worthy Presidets must share a day with the likes of James Buchanan, both Johnsons, W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, John Tyler, Warren Harding, et al?

Arrgghh!!!!!

More and more I find myself wanting to scream! Mostly it's at people. I hesitate to ask, "Can they really be that stupid?" Do these people representing us in Congress ever stop to think? Do they realize what $3.5 trillion is? I recall not too many decades ago Sen Everett Dirksen of Illinois once admitting, "A million dollars here and a million there and pretty soon we're talking real money." Yes, he said, "million," not trillion or even billion. And this is on top of how many hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more, spend on CoVid funding. Joe Biden has made the idiotic claim that this bill will "cost zero dollars." Maybe he uses the "different math" the school district where I used to work used. His explanation sounded like this to me. I can go to the grocery store and buy my goods, putting the cost on my credit card. But I have no intention of making any payments to the credit card company. Do I have that right? Senotor Joe Manchin has been hailed as a hero of sorts by standing up to the Democrat leadership, refusing to agree to a bill more than $1.5 trillion. Yeah, some compromise, huh? Yet I see he's changed his numbers. Now he might be agreeable to only $1.9 to $2.2 trillion. Yep, only. And for how long afer a few billion bucks are tossed his state's (West Virginia) way? I hope he holds the line, but I'm not convinced he will. Don't these Bozos in DC yet know that corporations don't pay taxes. No, they don't. They pass along the increased taxes in the form of higher prices. Like other costs of doing business, taxes determine consumer prices. So if companies pay higher taxes, in reality, it's you and I who are paying the taxes. Oh, but didn't Biden say he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $400K a year? Either he was just kidding or he has no clue about economics. Apparently it is true that the Attorney General has asked the FBI to crack down on "domestic terrorists." No No, not the ones you may be thinking of. These are worse. These domestic terrorists are parents who are starting to attend school board meetings to protest mask mandates and critical race theory creeping into their children's curriculum. Now, I haven't heard of any violence at any of these meetings. Nobody has been attacked, not even my Viking Helmet Man. No school buildings have been burned down. All I've noticed is a lot more parents attending meetings to express their anger at what adminstrators and their rubber stamp school boards are doing. Now, I would think having parents involved would be a good thing. But, having spend 51 years in education, I know having parents involved in school matters is only a good thing if they completely agree with administrators and school boards. Opposing views, regardless of how well-thought and factual, are not allowed. Oh no..... Hey, the current Secretary of Education has said that parents should not be "the primary stakeholders" in their children's education. This guy had already established himself as a loon in my book and now confirms it. Speaking of "domestic terrorism," I'm really glad the Justice Department cracked down on all those BLM and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters." Oh, they didn't? How many businesses and government office buildings were looted and set on fire? How many private citizens' homes were attacked and damaged? Where is the Attorney General on all this, which is still ongoing? The followers of Viking Helmet Man have been charged, with Justice Department investigations, criminal charges, etc. So, where are all the trials for the BLM and Anti-fa thugs who destroyed people's businesses, jobs, and income? I forget which DC loon said this, some woman last week. I don't remember if she is in Congress or the Administration. She noted the difference between the January 6 mob (although the overwhelming majority of the people where were not at all violent, didn't enter the Capitol, and did nothing illegal) and the violent/destructive BLM and Anti-Fa thugs. One (Viking Helmet Man's people) were trying to overthrow the government while the "peaceful protesters" were working to advance civil rights. And all this CoVid stuff!!!!! Our "15 days" of masks to "flatten the curve" has turned into about 20 months, with no sign of ending. Oh, there was a hiatus of sorts, but then the "experts," whose recommendations obviously didn't work, jumped back on the mask bandwagon. There are mandates out there, in cities and states and even some businesses. So, far I'd say a sizable majority are not complying, but for how long? I noted that many schools are mandating masks, in disregard of "the science" they hold so dear. Kids 18 and under are of extrememly low risk of contracting the virus. But to "save" them from this thing not at all likely to happen, schools and parents are damaging, in big ways, kids psychologically, socially, academically, physically, emotionally, and more. I read of one mother who drove her kids three hours in a car to attend a mask-mandated school. She was protecting her children, apparently not concerned what all that time in a car five days a week is doing to her kids. I know this will generate a lot of disagreement, but I'm still not sold on the vax. Initially, we were told by people who were wrong before about masks, distancing, shutdowns, etc. or even lied about them that the vax would offer "absolute immunity." Absolute, to me, means 100%. I wasn't foolish enough to believe the "absolute" part. Then the rate of effectiveness dipped to 95%, then 80%, and now 30% of the people who are hospitalized with CoVid have had the vax. I don't think Massachusetts is an outlier, but a recent study there showed that almost 3/4 of the Covid deaths occurred in people with underlying conditions/co-morbidities and that the median, yes, the median, age for Covid deaths in the state is 82! I have read analyses of the effectiveness of the vax that continue to show it's not what it was promoted to be. That is, the numbers presented to the public are skewed. Without going into specifics, we are presented with linear interpretations of the effectiveness of the vax. Yet the reality is not at all linear. Not all of us are the same. Those 45 and under are not at all likely to get sick, especially seriously so, or die. Healthy people who are fit, like me, are also extremely unlikely to get the virus. So, how much good is the vax really doing those who probably are not going to contract it anyway? Yet, those people skew the effectiveness upward. I'm not necessarily blaming the "experts" or the medical community they inform. CoVid was and is a new breed. There was and is a lot we don't yet know. But I wish they wouldn't issue opinions from on high, like there is no alternative except to die. That just isn't so. My beef with the medical community is they are people of science. The essence of science is to question, to challenge. They should know the science is never "settled." They seem to have forgotten that. I'm too busy and tired to proofread; forgive me.

Something to Think About

In November 1923, Adolf Hitler led an aborted attempt to overthrow the Bavarian/German government in Munich. The Beer Hall Putsch was almost comical; I liken it to The Three Stooges staging a revolt. Except, some people were wounded and died. I won't go into the details, but Hitler was captured after fleein--pretty much following the first shot. He was found hiding in the cellar of one of his follower's sister a day or two later. For staging the putsch, a revolt against the democratically elected Weimar government, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in Landsberg Prison. He was released after about nine months. Nine months for treason. And again, I won't go into details, but his term was one of those "country club" settings. Several weeks back, I read an article that likened the January 6th events at the Capitol to Hitler's putsch. The warning was, no doubt, that Hitler later succeeded in a more "peaceful" takeover, starting at the end of January 1933. (If nothing else, the failure of his 1923 debacle convinced him any such success would depend on legal efforts.) My initial reaction was to chuckle at this analogy. Could January 6th, led by Viking Helmet Man, be a warning, as the Beer Hall Putsch was? I thought that preposterous--at first. I know my views on Hitler's successful revolution in 1933 (and the next couple of years) are a bit unorthodox. No, I don't think the weaknesses of the Versailles Treaty were the causes and played little role other than as propaganda. More important, far more important were the devastating effects of the Great Depression. Simply put, no Depression no Hitler. Again, I won't go into details. But that caused me to rethink my initial chuckle at the analogy. Hmmm. With the handling of the economy, the enormous federal spending and subsequent inflation on the way, could a coming economic catastrophe spark some far more dire than the January 6th debacle? I don't know, but I'm not chuckling any more. This country seems to be getting more and more divided by the day. I thought of that at the grocery store this afternoon. Last weekend, maybe 55 of the people, customers and employees, wore masks. Today it was far closer to 50-50, probably 60-40 without. The maskless will not be able to convince the masked that masks are not particularly effective. The masked will not convince the maskless that masks work. Biden's speech the other night did nothing to help breech the divide. In fact, it drove a wedge further between groups. His unconstitional actions requiring the vax for employers with 100 or more workers (From what I've read, I think I have that right.) has already created wider divisions. And his language was inflammatory. Calling people "selfish" was an adolescence expected out of Trump. Telling the unvaxxed they will be made to "pay a price" and that he'll use his executive powers to get state's governors who don't comply with his orders "out of the way." Someone somewhere needs to tell this guy this is a democratic republic, not a dictatorship. (Of course, Obama and others have flouted the Constitution, too.) We are citizens, not subjects. He has no "executive powers" to force governors "out of the way" or to make people "pay a price." I guess he's counting on the cowardly compliance of corporate America. Look how quickly US companies/businesses have caved in to the wokesters. After all, when will these companies making inferior products come begging for taxpayer bailouts because they are "too big to fail?" If this division doesn't heal and heal pretty quickly, are we going to see history repeat itself?

History

I enjoy reading different perspectives from historians. I learned this as an undergrad at Amherst. Oddly, in grad school, I came across several instructors who refused to consider alternative viewpoints regarding historical events. In my own teaching I still hold and teach some views that fly in the face of what textbooks and even other instructors at my college(s) teach. I tell students that I might be wrong, but I do present the evidence in my favor and let them decide for themselves--if they even care. Yet, different perspectives does not mean distorting, lying, or even just making up things. I've been thinking about this for some time and the past few weeks have illuminated this. That's what seems to be happening today. People make up history, distort it, or just plain tell lies. How do they get away with this, often without challenges? I know the old adage, "The winners of the war write the history." Adolf Hitler, among others, knew it, too. Upon the September 1, 1939 invasion of Poland that began The Second World War, Hitler ordered German prisoners to be taken from their jail cells out to the Polish frontier, just inside German territory. These prisoners were dressed in Polish military uniforms and then shot. Photographs were taken of these faux Polish soldiers, in Germany, to prove Hitler/Germany didn't start the war--Poland did by invading Germany. He fully intended to win the war and write its history, with the photos proof that he didn't start it. If not quite as dramatic, today we face similar attempts to manipulate history with distortion, lies, and even ignorance. Faux history is utilized to justify/rationalize agendas and policies, to convince people to support them. I suppose these users (abusers) of history are ignorant of it, but I much more strongly suspect they are dishonest, deliberately trying to deceive through lies. Equally disturbing is that so many Americans are so ignorant that they are easily manipulated by the deception and that the deceivers are not called out by, say, the main stream media. Although there are many examples, two current ones come to mind. President Biden has repeated incredible, as in unbelievable, statements, especially regarding states' voter reform laws and the January 6th events. I don't know if he's that ignorant or is deliberate in spreading history that isn't so. Perhaps it's both. Biden likened those proposed state laws regarding election reform to "21st Century Jim Crow," those proposals being the greatest threat to American democracy "since the Civil War." With full discount for political hyperbole, he and those who echo such hogwash demonstrate either remarkable ignorance (I really want to start using the word "stupidity.") or deliberate dishonesty. That the fiasco of January 6th at the Capitol was a greater threat to the existence of the United States than the Confederacy is just plain idiotic. "The Confederates never breached the Capitol," he noted. But, he added, "the insurrectionists did on January 6th." These "insurrectionists" were led by Viking Helmet Man, not Robert E. Lee with his almost 100,000 strong Army of Northern Virginia. Does Biden even know what Jim Crow Laws were? I suspect not. If he did, he could never equate them with proposals to prevent ballot harvesting, to require voter identification, or to remove ineligible voters from election rolls. But if he (and others who echo this foolishness) does know, that means he (and they) is (are) deliberately lying, using the Big Lie to frighten/alarm people when there is little reason to be frightened/alarmed. A few columnists and even a member or two of the DC press corps have been challenging Biden about some of his outrageous comments. But not enugh people are. Can you imagine the front-page or "breaking news" outrage had President Trump made the same claims? Similarly, an article in the Wall Street Journal was sent to me by a college buddy. He knows how much I enjoy history and reading other historians' views of it, especially alternative explanations and interpretations. Just coincidentally, the article was based on an interview of Walter McDougall, a historian who was three years ahead of me at Amherst. I am pretty sure we didn't cross paths, but the interview suggests to me that we had many of the same history professors and their teaching of historical analysis. The article was titled, "The 'Hustlers' Who Started America." It looked at the Founders, their achievements and motives. I enjoyed the interview and will perhaps later explore its main thrust. McDougall sounds like a wonderful historian and I have put a couple of his books on my reading list. But what also caught my attention was his view of the wokesters, how they are manipulating history like Biden and his ilk. Perhaps I am wrong, but I took him to mean the 1619 Project and its New York Times advocates, Black Lives Matter and its supporters, and even college professors who should know better. Their motives are clear, even if their means are obfuscated. Regarding intellectual honesty/responsibility, something we were taught at Amherst, McDougall asked, more of a statement than a question, "How can anyone believe this country does not have any ideals or at least any ideals worth striving for?" He adds, critically, "The woke either don't know how to think historically or they don't want to think historically." I think this aligns with my views of Biden and his fellow Democrats. The "either/or" is damning. That there are so many people who seem to have been taken in by Biden, the Democrats, the lame stream media, and even college professors, who've joined the woke crowd, is frightening. The distortion and manipulation of history continues. And yet, in our schools, the study of history more and more has been relegated to a back seat.

This Memorial Day, I read a number of articles, heard a couple of podcasts, and listened to several songs that were sent to me. All focused on one thing, the sacrifices many have made to protect our freedom, our liberty. I was struck by two emotions, quite different. One was a great deal of pride in the US. It remains the only nation founded on a set of political principles, "that all men are created equal." That was a very radical concept in the late 18th Century, as was the idea that people could rule themselves. I know, I know..... We have had flaws, some major ones. And perhaps we don't move quickly enough in some areas. But the US and Americans continue to grow, to expand the meaning of "all people are created equal." Can anyone reasonably argue that the US doesn't lead the world in freedom and liberties? Note my qualifier, "reasonably." That so many Americans gave their lives for this radical idea, that we could govern ourselves, is to be celebrated and commemorated. I genuinely feel terrible about those Americans who died for the political ambitions and egos of politicians, not to protect our freedom. The other emotion was sadness, that those liberties and freedoms we should be holding most dear, for which many gave their lives, are eroding, gradually being taken from us. Look at the last 15 months of the CoVid fascism. Yes, I said it, "fascism." Political leaders took our freedoms all in the name of "following the science," when in reality many of them didn't and, in fact, the science was never settled, never clear. Oh, some people can and still believe it was. But it never was. Look how many times Fauci, the CDC, the WHO, and other "experts" changed their minds on what to do. I'm not blaming them for not knowing what to do. I am blaming them for issuing autocratic orders that harmed so many people. I'm also asking why so many of "them" were able to ignore their own orders when they found such orders inconvenient. Why were so many Michigan business owners, especially those in the restaurant and bar businesses, fined and even jailed for failing to follow the arbitrary orders, yet the governor ignored them when she found they got in her way? And yet many bobble heads refer to standing up for our rights, for fighting for our liberties, as "rebellious." Is this what so many Americans in the military died for, so we could so easily cede our freedom? I wonder if these same people refer to the riots, er "peaceful protests," in many of our major cities, the take-over of neighborhoods, and the epidemic of urban shootings and murders as "rebellious." It's not just the CoVid orders. The Democrats are throwing around several trillion dollar budget proposals like they were wedding confetti. And the Establishment Republicans don't seem willing to stand up and say, "NO!" Nope, they are preparing their own budget proposals, ones that include only a trillion dollars or so. You know, that new kind of money, "only dollars." Such will also steal our freedoms and liberties. We can tax corporations and the billionaires at a tax rate of 100% and still not bring in enough revenue to pay for such outlandish spending. So, who's next? We are, "great unwashed." With less money, that is, after the government legally steals it from us, our freedom will be further diminished. We won't be able to go where we might want. We won't be able to buy what we might want. We won't have enough money to be free to do many things. That, as much as the authoritarian CoVid orders, steals our liberty from us. So very distressing is that, at least in my view, the majority of Americans either favor what has been and is being done or are willing to let it happen with nary a peep. After all, who wants to be identified as having "a rebellious attitude?"

A New Political Party?

The words have been blaring at me for the past few weeks. "What happened to our country?" "Our increasingly unrecognizable civilization." "Where has my country gone?" And more. The past few years have made an incredible (and I don't toss around that term as loosely as most) transformation of the United States. It may be hyperbole, but much of US society might well be "unrecognizable" just a few short decades ago. We all know about the government response to CoVid, it's often arbitrary, contradictory, and even ridiculous orders. I don't know if the politicians and bureaucrats have "saved lives" or even brought the virus to a quicker end. More recent revelations, often ignored by the mainstream media, strongly indicate thinking people don't either. ("Believing" is not "knowing.") There's no need to recount in detail what we do know, that the government and bureaucratic orders have caused irreparable damage to the US--economically, socially, psychologically, and more. Only the willfully blind can deny that. Businesses, jobs, and income lost. Increases in suicides, spousal violence, and drug and alcohol abuse. The harm, educationally, socially, and psychologically, to our youths. All this in the guise of something that we don't know, "saving lives." For whatever reasons, too, Americans have shifted their attitudes, being increasingly acquiescent to government, well, dictates. A recent article describing oppostion to government mandates decried it as "rebellious attitude." Hmmm. "Rebellious" for trying to stand up for rights and liberty? Americans are far more tolerant of dishonesty and other formerly bad behaviors, especially if it comes from their guy/side. We have accepted inequality before the law. Our government has become decidedly unrepresenative. I, for one, have become convinced of the bankruptcy of the philosophies, principles, and policies by which we've been governed. There is a gigantic chasm between the reality of my life and the thoughts and actions of our elected representatives, those chosen to govern us. It may be arguable, but many Americans believe they have been deprived of a place in the present political system. (I acknowledge that much of American history shows that many groups have also been deprived. That was wrong. But it's also wrong to deprive others while tryng to "fix" that.) For people in this new group which feels deprived, the "representative" part of representative government doesn't exist for them. American democracy has developed an unrepresentative character. Are the only viable alternatives for this large mass of people to either retreat further into a state of apathy, accepting the modern verson of the Roman "bread and circuses" (government handouts, television and movies, sports, etc.), or assaulting the system, perhaps violently? This has been done by the rioters, er "peaceful protesters," in many of our cities. There have been assaults on government properties and even officials, well, if they are members of the wrong political party. But perhaps there is another option. To me, the Democrats and Establishment Republicans do not conform to the traditional two-party system employed by the US from the late 1700s and early 1800s. As noted, they have become bankrupt in their philosophies and principles. The Democrats submit to the craziest, looniest members of their party. To justify their undemocratic, authoritarian, etc. policies (and goals), they often redefine terms to suit themselves. The Republicans have lost their soul. For instance, where the Democrats urge the spending of trillions of federal dollars, the Establishment GOP counters with spending only a lesser amount of trillions of dollars. If we are not too far gone, the answer might lie in a new political party, one that represents more of the people than either the Democrats or the Republicans. I'm not talking about a splinter party (The Bull Moose Progressives, the American Independents) as we've seen in the past nor a third/minor party (The Libertarians, the Green Party). Sometimes they have been sigificant, but usually only in helping to determine the outcomes of Presidential elections, for instance in 1848, 1912, 1948, and 1992. (We might even argue that in regard to Lincoln's election in 1860.) It's apparent the Green Party candidacies of Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 affected the results. No, a real major party. We haven't had one since the current Republican Party was founded in 1854. In its own way, the early Republican Party satisfied, at least in part, old Whigs, the Freesoilers, and unhappy Democrats (over slavery). The Republicans offered new philosophies and principles. It was remarkably successful almost from the start. In 1856, its candidate John C. Fremont (The Pathfinder, what a cool nickname!) narrowly lost the Presidential election to Democrat James Buchanan. And of course, the Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected four years later. This will not be easy and, frankly, I don't see it happening for many reasons. Roadblocks include the vast infusion of money into the political system, a lapdog media, and, well, the apathy of American citizens. Additionally, can we find men and women who are willing and courageous enough to search for and promote alternatives to the obsolete and bankrupt policies of the current two major parties? Unless they embrace "wokeism," people with new ideas or ideas that return us to more traditional American princples are attacked, even dishonestly. They are assaulted by the two current parties and by the media, often dishonestly. Donald Trump did this with a number of possible hopes, destroying their futures with lies. We'll see and I can hope. More later.

It seems to me that, in our complacency, we are letting the loons run the show. Oh, the loons are a very distinct minority, what maybe one or two percent of the people? And most of them don't think, but merely follow what sounds good to their feeble minds. The latest idiocy is criticism of the word "mother." No, we aren't supposed to use "mother," nope. It's "birthing person." I don't watch television so I don't know for certain, but I read some networks have bought in to this. This is textbook for those seeking radical changes. Redefine words to mean what they really don't mean. Perhaps we need to start teaching Animal Farm, 1984, etc. in the schools again. They'd better get thinking (ha ha ah). "Father's" Day is only four or five weeks away. We even redefine people. "When is Willie Mays not Willie Mays? When he's Willie McCovey." At least according to the Speaker of the House. I wonder if she knows when a door is not a door or a car is not a car. Despite still high unemployment rates, many businesses can't find enough employees. I've seen signs all over the place, "Help Wanted." I think I've never seen so many. Fast food. Other restaurants. Machine shops. Grocery stores. Golf courses. Even Starbucks! (No, I don't do Starbucks.) Ask employers and they will say, "I can't find workers." And why is that? Hmmm. Let's see. If the federal government is giving money for people not to work, maybe that's something to consider. The unemployed don't even have to show they are actively seeking work; the money still comes and has been extended, I believe, until at least September. What we hear from the loons is that businesses should increase pay; workers will come back then. Could this be an artificial and nefarious way to raise the miniumum wage to $15 or more an hour? But it still doesn't employ market forces. It's a sneaky, dishonest way to use government to get what is likely not going to happen legitimately (well, at least through legislation). Use taxpayer money to force employers to raise income. That's very dishonest, but what's a little dishonesty among political friends? I've noticed prices going up on practically everything. Gasoline costs a dollar more per gallon than it did a year ago, both nationally and around here. Food prices at the grocery store have shot up; I know since I do the majority of shopping. Many sale prices are higher than the regular pre-Biden prices. And consumer costs will continue to increase. Corn commodities have gone up 50%. Lumber prices have increased four-fold. Used cars cost 30% than just a few months ago. I'm sure the influx of all that federal money is driving the inflation (demand-pull; more dollars chasing fewer goods). But it appears the loons in DC don't know much about economics. "Economics? Is that still around?" Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Credit to Mark Twain. The CDC released figures on outdoor gatherings during CoVid. The risk of transmission is "less than 10%." Yes, it is. But it's a lot "less." The actual figure on outdoor transmission is "less than one-tenth of one percent." I suppose it might be argued that .001 is less than 10. But that is very, very misleading, by a factor of 100. And we still follow what these loons tell us to do?

"The New Normal"

Like so many of the terms that have turned our world topsy-turvy, I dislike "the new normal." It joins "social justice," "social distancing," and you can imagine others. So, are the following episodes examples of "the new normal?" If so, count me out--way out! In Texas, BLM thugs were blocking streets/roads in a suburb of Dallas. When motorists called the police, squad cars arrived. The thugs weren't arrested. They weren't even told to leave the streets, to leave the motorists alone. Nope. The drivers were told if they didn't shape up, they would be arrested. "I was just following orders." Hmmm..... Where and when have we heard that before? In Canada, a pastor was arrested by a SWAT team for, get this, "inciting" his parishoners to come to Sunday services. Yep, a SWAT team and church services. "I was just following orders....." At UMass in Amherst (not "The Fairest College," down a road a few miles to the south), three students were suspended, given only remote classes, for attending a party, off-campus, without masks, and then having pictures of them show up on some site. The university officials then took action. Oh, then the students were denied the remote classes and told they had to re-apply for admission for fall classes, but it was too late to get university housing. Oh, they won't get their tuition or room and board refunded from this semester/year. As for the snitch who turned in the photos to the administration..... I suppose it could be their version of "I was just following orders....." The students' parents have sued, citing a few weeks ago a campus celebration of the UMass national hockey championship. The celebration, widely photographed, showed students without masks, not "social distancing," etc. Nothing was done to any of those students or staff members. Oh, and in violation of the Mass gov's orders, the university held a parade. Why aren't the administrators summarily fired for breaking the law??? And some guy took to the Sunday newspaper to advocate "shaming" those who opt not to get the vax. That the Free Press actually chose to run this nut's op-ed speaks for itself. Right off the bat the author shows himself to be a bit off. He cites "Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease doctor....." First, there are a lot of people who would dispute that, with ample evidence to back them up. Fauci, the writer claims, said "if 75% to 85%...got vaccinated we could reach herd immunity by June." Who would believe this? Early on, Fauci said wearing masks wasn't needed. What about the "15 days" to allow us to catch up with the virus? Now it's double masks. Masks until 2022. I would think the "top infectious disease doctor" would be changing his mind so often. Besides, how can we trust a guy who couldn't throw a baseball 20 feet?!?!?! The writer also claims that "a quarter of the country," those who don't want to get the vax, "is ruining it for all of us." Hmmm..... What about the far, far greater percentages of politicians, bureaucrats, and policy-changing "experts" who are "ruining it" for so many people? Start with the businesses and companies that have faild. Many people have lost their jobs or, at the least, income. Look how closing the schools has has such a negative effect in so many ways on students. Suicides. Spousal abuse. Drug use and deaths. This guy doesn't seem to care about "ruining" these people's lives. This part was hilarious. "Biden's wildly successful vaccine rollout....." What a fool and tool! Does this guy not remember Biden's and Harris's skepticism (Harris' own word) about the vaccine when Trump was President? He obviously doesn't know that Biden and his crew received their vax while Trump was still President and that 1,000,000 Americans were getting the vax each day before Biden was inaugurated. I wonder if this author wants to "shame" people who text and talk on their cell phones while driving? There are many other instances, too, that we could ask the same. But I know, I know..... "That's different." Yep, it always is.

"Follow the Science"

I know I've written about this before, but I was reminded of it several times recently. One stemmed from a conversation I had last week about "the science." I was noting the contradictory orders from politicians and other government officials. I also cited how many times the orders have changed. My neighbor was defensive, "They are just 'following the science.'" So, I blew off a little steam. "That's fine, but they need to be honest with us. They make it up as they go and then claim they are, as you said, 'following the science.'" No, they are not! I reiterated "They need to be honest with us." Too many of us have ignored alternative views of "the science." I repeated what I've written a number of times. "The science is never settled. That is the essence of science." In fact, it's a very good argument for a liberal arts education. Another was a photograph of the President. He was alone, apparently engaged in a virtual meeting with other world leaders. Yet here he was wearing not one, but two masks! I would assume he has had the vax, that anyone coming remotely close to him or the White House has also been vaxed. For that matter, there was nobody else in the photo. Let's see, the science says, we are told, to get the vax. The chances of either getting the virus or spreading it are virtually (pun intended!) zero. After all, if we sill must do all that masking, distancing, shutting down, and more, why bother getting the vax? I thought the science told us it would allow us to get back to normal. Again, it appears we are being lied to or, at the least, deceived. The politicians' own words and actions disprove what they've said all along. By changing their minds and policies, they are telling us "the science isn't settled," aren't they? Again I ask, why can't they be honest with us? This leads me to believe the lies and deception are deliberate, involving something other than science. How often have we heard that in the past couple of decades, particularly 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 the current term. Now it's how we deal with the corona virus. "The science is settled." No, the science 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. Several decades later came Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of British scientists. Albert Einstein, in the 20th Century, remarked, "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 poem, "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. And now I read that some of Albert Einstein's theories have been disproved. 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.'" He added, "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.

How to Fight Back?

Wokeness is all over. It's not just among the vocal left extremists. For quite a while the hypocritical Hollywood-types have joined. Of course, so have the colleges and universities, not to mention many of the K-12 public schools. Toss in professional sports, the latest being Major League Baseball. Corporate America, for whatever reasons, has signed up, too. On Saturday, 100 CEOs of leading US corporations met virtually "to discuss state voting laws." What the heck is that? Some, such as airlines, social media outlets, etc., have already exposed their wokenesss. Most, in their letters of explanation, have also exposed their ignorance. They displayed a lack of historical knowledge and of understanding the GA law. They also demonstrated limited abilities to think, to analyze and reason, instead resorting to knee jerk reactions based, mainly, on lies and distortions. Many Americans are unhappy with such wokeness. But how can they fight back? Will boycotts work? That seems dubious at best. Who's going to really give up their favorite NFL team(s)? Who will turn off the boob tube? People can't boycott everything; they need to buy things to live. So, how to fight back against this? People say they will "vote with their pocketbooks/wallets." I doubt that will happen. Oh, for a while they might give up their Diet Coke, not watch a ball game, etc. Will such behavior last? Color me skeptical. Is there anyway to take legal actions against the wokesters? I don't know. I am not a lawyer (and don't even play one on television). I haven't researched this at all. In fact, I've just started thinking about it. I wouldn't know where to begin. Perhaps someone a lot more intelligent than I am might eventually have some ideas. Maybe a class action lawsuit against Google or Twitter or You Tube or whoever else bans people due to their political views, i.e., opposition to wokeism is a possibility. Congress and the red states might increase the corporate tax rates, just on the largest companies. (Imagine the Republicans in the Senate calling Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi and telling them they wouldn't be opposed to a large increase in the corporate tax rate! I can see the Democrats salivating now.) Exempt small businesses. I know a tax on corporations is really a tax on consumers, the increases merely passed on in the form of higher prices. Maybe, though, higher prices will actually cause buyers to purchase less. With profits down, stockholders might then hold CEOs and other upper management (the wokesters) accountable for their ignorant stances. Maybe it's time for the CEOs of the large corporation to realize the time of the Republicans "having their back," regardless of their wokeness, is over. Of course, that would take a little courage and initiative from Establishment Republicans. I'm not holding my breath. Lawsuits for libel/slander? I don't know. But the wokesters willfully spreading distortions and lies have harmed a good number of people, costing them money, jobs, and more. Can, in the judicial system, the wokesters be made to try to prove their assertions of bigotry, racism, "white supremacy." etc.? And, if they can't, can they be made to pay, to make the accused/aggrieved persons whole? I heard an interesting, but disturbing thought the other day. (Gee, what else is new these days?) Some pundit suggested Major League Baseball moved its All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver because it feared players would boycott the game. That is, the All-Stars would refuse to play as some ill-thought protest against the Georgia election law. I have two thoughts on that, one I've expressed before. If the players are going to protest by not playing the All-Star Game in Atlanta, will they play regular season games there? If so, why? Could it be they might have to forfeit games that mean something? Might they also have to forfeit pay? Hey c'mon, principles can only take you so far. Now we might be talking about money. And why is Major League Baseball letting ignorant people influence what it does? How many of these players who might boycott an All-Star Game really know what's in the Georgia law? How many have actually read parts of it, let alone all of it? I think we know the answers to those questions. I'd guess they just believe the distortions and lies put out there by Democrats, including the President (Remember, even the Washington Post gave Biden four Pinocchios for his lies about the law). They don't consider the reasoned rebuttals to the lies. If this pundit's theory is correct, isn't that a wonderful way to run an organization, letting the most ignorant of people sway the decisions? And one last thing. Even when it's shown that people have willfully distorted and lied about the Georgia law (among other things), they don't recant. No, they don't regroup and say, "Oops! We were wrong." No, they continue to lie. What was it Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels said, "A lie told once is still a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth." These people have no shame. Caught in lie after lie, they never apologize, but double down on their lying. "Shame." Now there's a word I may have to write about in the near future before it becomes obsolete. Oh, while I'm still at it. Joe Biden called the Georgia voting law "Jim Crow 2.0." Of course that's a blatant distortion, a lie. But, I don't at all doubt Biden has little if any idea of what "Jim Crow" actually was. If he did, how can he compare the Georgia law with the discriminatory and penal laws of the post-Civil War South? If he did, how can he compare requiring a photo ID to vote to the lynching and other acts of terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Camelia, and other such hateful groups? No, I'm convinced we have a President who is a very ignorant man. And a major problem with that is many Americans are ignorant enough to believe him (and others who deliberately spread untruths).

Sports and Social Change

I would like to clarify my views on the role sports has played in social change. I don't know if this will surprise or even upset some folks, but it's fact. Jackie Robinson and the integration of the Major Leagues was an early and major step in the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, in my classes I spend a good deal of time on this. Without going into the entire lecture, I'll cite a few things. In the 1960s, Martin Luther King told the great black Dodgers pitcher Don Newcombe, "Don, you and Jackie [Robinson] and Roy [Campanella] will never know how easy you made it to do my job." A dozen years or so earlier, the actress Tallulah Bankhead (who won a number of "best actress" awards), said, "The Negro [baseball] stars have certainly done something for baseball and baseball has done something for Negroes, too. If nothing else, it's unbigoted some bigots." Add Jim Bouton's comments in his book Ball Four. "They [blacks] were better players and Willie [Mays] was the best. There were a lot of kids who learned to love him before anybody told us we couldn't." Yes, sports can and have played major roles in furthering corrections to wrongs in US society. For that matter, the NFL players kneeling or at least not standing for the National Anthem doesn't bother me. (I should note that I really don't follow the NFL much.) Oh, I don't like it. I think it is short-sighted and, in fact, ignorant. But if this is how some players want to express their views, that's fine with me. But I also believe that if a team's owner says no to kneeling, players who are paid by the owner must follow his wishes--or they could quit playing. I understand NBA and NCAA teams bear woke slogans on their jerseys. (Again, I don't watch or follow these leagues/teams.) I just wonder where all this wokeness has been when, say, innocent black kids have been gunned down in Atlanta, Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit, etc. by thugs. Why didn't and apparently don't these basketball players think the lives of these black children "matter?" MLB moving the All-Star Game is, again, I suppose the league's right. But I think it is very wrong. It is not furthering corrections to wrongs in US society, not at all. For one thing, from the statement put out by the commissioner (or his office), the stance of the league is based upon falsities and even deliberate lies. I'd almost think that once the MLB was exposed to the truth, that is the lies upon which their decision was based, the league would reverse its decision. Almost..... Wokeness means ignoring reality, facts, and truth. Such things don't matter. Another aspect of the MLB decision in this is its hypocrisy, which also seems a mainstay of wokeness. The commissioner is a member of the Augusta golf club (whatever it's called, the site of the Masters). So far, he has not voluntarily canceled (ha ha ha) his membership. And baseball showed its real colors in making a deal with the commies in China (some streaming deal?). So, it's OK to protest lies and misinformation about the Georgia election law, but it's not OK to make money with a country that practices slavery, genocide, etc.? Hmmm..... Where are the "values" the MLB commissioner talked about? As the O'Jays sang, "Money, Money, Money, Money--Muh-nay!"

Has Thinking Become Obsolete?

This Georgia election law has me scratching my head. No, it's not really the law itself, but the reactions to it. It's hard to know where to start. It seems, from the President on down, many people are flat out wrong about what the bill does. I can't help but think that the politicians and media-types are deliberately lying about it. Even the Washington Post gave the President its worst rating for lying about what's in the law to the President, four Pinnochios! WaPo--the Democrat Party lap dog!!!!! Yet, the Presdent and his press secretary have repeated those inaccuracies, which seems to me to be deliberately lying. For instance, the law does not prohibt giving water or snacks to voters waiting in line. It does ban campaign workers from doing so. Don't all states have laws preventing election workers from handing out campaign literature to voters within a certain number of feet of the polling places? There is a valid reason for that. Wouldn't allowing campaign volunteers to provide water and snacks at least open the door for the possibility of impropriety, especially given how we've seen the steps the parties have gone to in seeking to win elections? By setting certain times for submitting votes/ballots the law merely quantifies those times. Previously, Georgia law stated within normal working hours. Now the time is set, either 9 to 5 or 7 to 7 (I forget which). Who can possibly be against requiring photo ID to vote? Most people have drivers' licences and states, like Georgia, can provide free state ID cards. Again, given the very questionable activities surrounding our recent elections, what's wrong with a voter proving he/she says who she/he is? We require photo ID for many, many things. Nobody seems to complain about showing photo ID to fly, to pick up concert tickets at the will-call window, to purchase medical marijuana, or buy liquor? "Why do I have to show ID? I'm 21 and want to buy this beer. Why don't you believe I am who I say I am?" Hmmm..... Equally disturbing to me is the "wokeness" being exhibited by corporation and, as usual, the sports and entertainment industries. Has anyone read the statement Major League Baseball put out in explaining its hare-brained decision ("Hare-brained?" I'll explain in a bit.) to move the All-Star Game from Atlanta? It's apparent to me nobody in the MLB executive offices actually read the Georgia law. The MLB statement if filled wih broad woke platitudes, most of which are inaccurate. Let's pick on Major League Baseball first. Hmmm..... Who is actually being hurt by moving the All-Star Game? I'd think it is the people of Georgia. So, MLB's bone of contention is with the people, including blacks, of Georgia, not the state legislators and governor. Who is going to lose money here? It's not MLB or the players (who I've read were "blind-sided" by the change of venue). So, Georgia committed a sin and must do its pennance. Why not really show how woke you are, MLB, and move the team out of Atlanta or, at the least if that isn't legally possible, not play games there? If the players are in such complete support (and I don't believe they are) why don't they refuse to play any games vs the Braves in Atlanta? Of course, that would likely entail having to forfeit money and, no matter how woke, the cause isn't worth giving up money, is it? What are a few hundred thousand bucks to people making millions of dollars participating in a game? What will the MLB do if the Braves make the playoffs, even the World Series? "We're sorry, but because we are woke, the Braves will have to either forfeit their playoff games or agree to play them in California or New York. Those states are sufficiently woke." Oh, let's pile on! Order MLB game tickets online and indicate you will pick them up at the will-call window. But read the "rules." You will be required to show photo ID, yep, with your picture on it!, to be given your ticket at will-call. And surely, some 18-year old who wants to buy a beer at the ball park won't have to show photo ID to prove he is the 21-year old he says he is. How about Disney, Pay Pal, and Delta to just name a few corporations who require photo ID for their services? If they oppose photo ID for voting, shouldn't they also oppose it for getting their services? Of course, voting isn't nearly as serious/important as getting into a ball game or theme park or on an airplane, is it? Granted, these are private corporations and they can set their own polcies. I agree with that. And the state of Georgia is a government entity. There is a difference between the two and I acknowledge that. But one would think, at least I would, that these corporate leaders would show a little consistency, a little action to back what they say they believe, instead of "Do as I say, not as I do." Oh, let's pick on television, too. The Masters Golf Tournament is coming up--next weekend maybe. I'd imagine a major network will be covering it. The Masters in played in Augusta, Georgia. Hmmm..... Will that network back out of televising the tournament, forgoing all the advertising revenue? For that matter, will the advertisers pull out their money? After all, shouldn't the network and the advertisers put their money where their mouths are? Do people no longer think before they speak or act? Are thoughts, well-reasoned ones, now passe? How do some of these people rise in the corporate world, pure dumb luck?

Two Thoughts

Where to start? Let's open with the filibuster. Unless I have this completely wrong, the Democrats' insistence to eliminate it in the US Senate is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Long a part of Senate rules(since 1789), in the course of the recent past it has been supported by, surprise, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In fact, I read that in 2020, it was used more than 300 times to try to block legislation--all 300 times by, surprise, the Democrats. Now that they are in the majority (or close to it with the 50-50 split and the Harris tie-breaker), they want to handcuff the minority (Republicans). When the Democrats were in the minority, they sure didn't favor handcuffing themselves! It is almost as if the Democrats are saying, "We're for the filibuster, except when we're against it." Huh? Why, in the media coverage of this issue, aren't these things pointed out? I think I can guess why. I'm not sure if this is true, but I don't doubt it. Gayle Manchin has been nominated by Biden for a federal position that pays $165,000 a year. Who is Gayle Manchin? I don't know her qualifications for whateve the job is, but have little reason to doubt she's qualified. She might be; she might not be. But she is also the wife of US Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from WV. He has been a holdout on supporting the Democrats' efforts to get rid of the filibuster. So far it seems he has resisted all the Democrat leadership arm-twisting. Now? Hmmm. I don't think nominating his wife to a lucrative government position, regardless of her qualifications, passes the smell test, at least not under these circumstances. Again I ask, where is the media coverage on this? For Biden and others to invoke "Jim Crow" is out-and-out inflammatory. If the use of the filibuster is a reflection of the anti-civil rights Jim Crow years (and in many ways it was, right up to the 1950s and 1960s), where does that leave the Democrats and their repeated use of it in 2020? So, the Democrats now want to allow transgenders to compete in girls' sports. Hmmmm. If a biological male, who now self-identifies (I hate that term.) as a female, he can run in races, etc. against biological girls who self-identify as girls. That has happened in Connecticut high school sports, maybe in other states, too. I don't know. Not only did a couple transgenders (males who now call themselves females) win Connecticut state championships in several track events, they obliterated the state girls' records in those events. I'm not sure what one of Biden's executive orders explicity mandates, but even if it doesn't specifically state that transgenders can compete in girls'/women's events, it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to guess where that might go. Remember when the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913, Americans were promised this would be "the fairest and cheapest of all taxes." Incomes under $4000 were not taxed at all and those up to $20,000 paid 1%. Graduation led to a 3% tax on incomes over $50,000. Hmmm..... Look where we are now--and where we've been. The Noble Experiment," Prohibition, ended up with federal chief Wayne Wheeler ordering poisons like arsenic and strychnine to be put in rubbing alcohol, car anti-freeze, and embalming fluid when people started drinking them to get their alcohol. When informed the poisons could kill Americans (and in fact more than 5,000 did so die), it was aloofly defended with "They shouldn't be drinking anyway." When FDR pushed the Social Security Act through Congress, Americans were assured that their SS numbers would not be used for identifcation other than SS. We know where that promise ended up. What do these and many other instances have to do with Biden's transgender executive order? We can't and shouldn't trust these people. Even when the intent is well-meaning, sooner or later the good intentions are forgotten. I think I read that 400+ US high school boys in recent years posted track times in the 100 (or was it 200 or both?) meters that were faster than that of the NCAA women's champion. In 2017, the best time by the 2016 women's Olympic 100 meter champion was bettered by 5,000 men/boys world-wide. (I was assured the number of zeroes, three of them, was correct.) I know of no pernicious attempts to fraudulently take advantage of this, but is it unreasonable to assume that's just a matter of time? Think about college athletic scholarships for "females." Think about the money in women's professional sports, be they basketball, golf, soccer, or tennis. Again, I remember reading about the Australian national women's soccer team being drubbed, 7-1 (in soccer!) by an elite team of 15-year old (I think it was; regardless, they were still in high school.) boys--and the game was called at halftime. Every time I hear this I am reminded of the movie Billy Madison. An adult Adam Sandler just annihilated some grade school kids (six-year olds?) in a game of beano/dodge ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hShxpYG_ql0 (Cut and paste if necessary.) Like my proposal for bathrooms for transgenders, why don't we have sports divisions each for men/boys, women/girls, and transgenders? It's seems just a matter of time before the lure of money will lead to unintended consequences if we don't.

True or False?

In this day and age, it's hard to know what to believe. We get fed opinions posing as reality, lies posing as facts. If something suppoorts what I believe, it's true; if it supports the other guy, it's false. The ends justify the means, I guess. It is very frustrating. I know I have peddled inaccuracies and now am almost paranoid that I'll repeat some untrue "news." That said, President Biden's choice to head HHS said this in a recent interview. "“We have two very different cultures, and we have two very different perspectives on the world,” [Xavier] Becerra told NPR. “That’s not to say one perspective is better than the other.” He was talking about the Chinese Communists' treatment of their people. Such treatmet involves not just persecution of minorities, but genocide! If true, I really hope this quote was taken out of context, although I can't imagine how it can be spun any differently. If not, what an idiotic thing for a leader of American government, a potential Cabinet officer, to think, let alone say. Genocide is merely dismissed as a "different culture...a very different perspective on the world?" So, a "culture" that abhors and resists genocide does not have "better...perspective" than one which practices it? And some people of this guy's own political party are more concerned that some Dr. Seuss books in the past included the word "Chinaman?" Regardless of the context, there seems to be a disconnect here. A while back I blogged about the practice of giving equal weight to all opinions or, in this case, "perspectives." Such a practice is ignorant and involves not only sloppy thinking, but cowardice. Back in another lifetime, when I taught in the high school, there was a push to add a course, one called "Accept and Respect." Its course description included "Students will learn that all cultures are worth of acceptance and respect" or something real close to that. How stupid! In opposing this, I asked "What about Nazis? Should we 'accept and respect" them? How about the Taliban or even the KKK?" Of course, what followed was the patronizing, "Now Ron....." So if you don't waht to include Nazis, the KKK, the Communist regimes, the taliban, why use the word "all?" Words have meanings. And knowing the academic shortcomings of many teachers, who can trust them with this? I will, as usual, write to my two US Senators about this confirmation. It will be a waste of time and effort. Both are bobble heads, blindly following the lead of their Democratic leaders. Do they ever think for themselves? If I get any response at all to my e-mails, most likely, as is usual, it will be a vanilla statement that has little to do with my concern. It's as if the replies to me are based on others' letters. How do such people get elected over and over again????? Back to Becerra. (BTW, didn't Biden butcher Becerra's name in announcing his nomination?) What could lead any American to think like this? Maybe he is echoing his President, who seemed to suggest a few weeks ago that the genocide of the Uighurs was merely the result of "a different cultural norm." Granted, during the campaign he was more critical, actually referring to "genocide." Why isn't this blasted across the headlines of our newspapers and television news? Isn't it important that Americas know this is how and what their administration thinks? Oh, I have forgotten. "All people and all cultures are deserving of acceptance and respect." Of course, it might not make any difference. Who cares how the Chinese Communist government treats its people when there is money to be made? Do I really need to name/list the US politicians and corporations who speak of "our friends the Chinese?" I could start right here in Michigan. No, spare me the thought that these pols and businesses were talking about the general Chinese population. The people are not the face of China and make no decisions. It's the Commies. But that's OK because we can make a lot of money dealing with "our friends the Chinese."

Random Thoughts on the Cancel Culture

Canceling? Let's see. Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head. Dr. Seuss. The Jeep Cherokee. Abraham Lincoln and George Washingto, among others. Who knows what or who is next? Is Planter's Mr. Peanut next? Will one of my neighbors be required to get rid of her vanity license plate which reads, "Mrs. Peanut?" I'm struck by several things in all of this. The people doing the canceling seem very ignorant. They don't know what they are doing. They have little or no capacity to think, at least not for themeselves. I am reminded of lemmings, although I call most of them bobble heads. Do they really know what they are doing? I think not. I wonder if any of the cancel crowd has ever heard of Krystalnacht? I'd wager not. I'm equally certain they are unaware of the "canceling" done by authoritarian/totalitarian governments. The first step toward controling people is controling their ideas or at least the ideas to which they are exposed. Books burned or banned; the same with newspapers and other media. Authors banish, imprisoned, or worse. I'd like to confront one of the cancel crowd and ask how he/she is different from Robespierre (who?), Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, etc. I think I know the response. "But that's different." It always is, isn't it? I realize no books have been banned by the government; there is no government censorship. But having corporations bend their knees to a small, but vocal minority doesn't seem too far from it. Why is so much of corporate American falling in line with the cancel culture? It can't really be that those leading US businesses really believe this garbage, e.g., that there is something wrong with a Mr. Potato Head, can it? Are they that cowardly, fearful of the mob, especially considering the mob is very small percentage of the population? For that matter, look at the professional sports organizations, particularly the NFL and NBA. I'm sure there are some good people among the players. But isn't their superficial pandering to the mob apparent? If Mrs. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, the Jeep Cherokee, etc. are so offensive, why can we still find retailers, such as Amazon, that continue to sell tee shirts with the likenesses of Mao Zedong and Che Guevara on them? It's not OK to reflect "Mr." or "Mrs.," but it's all right to display the images of mass murderers? How long until we are done with this? One of my buddies, speaking of us, cynically suggested "until we die." I wonder. How long will it be before we no longer allow the stupid people to dictate the rules, how we live? I'm not confident that it will end any time soon. Look at how our schools hve been run, ridiculous program after ridiculous program for decades now. Will the majority finally have had enough and say "Stop!"? Again, I'm not encouraged. Look how easily they have been manipulated by the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of our government officials, so-called "experts," and the sycophantic media during the CoVid year. They are being bought off, "bread and circuses," again with "CoVid Relief" bills. "Follow the science," they are told, when most people don't understand the essence of "science."

History: Weighing Views and Objectivity

I just finished Six Encounters with Lincoln by Elizabeth Brown Pryor.  It was not the easiest book to read, but it had some insights and I both learned things from it and have had some thoughts.  There's not else to ask from a book, is there? The author seems to want to be critical of Lincoln--and often is--but always comes back to what a great President and man he was.   At times she wants him to be Superman, to fix all the evils of mid-19th Century America.  Besides dealing with the Civil War and keeping the Union together, with the complex problems of slavery and emancipation, with a country full of citizens even more divided than they are today, etc., she is disappointed he didn't provide remedies for Indians, lead the fight for political rights for women, etc.   I was struck by this, never, I guess, really considering it.  "Abraham Lincoln...was never truly President of the entire United States."  And, in fact, he wasn't.  Oh, he never accepted that the Southern states had really left the Union, but the reality is that they did.  (With this in mind, I am reminded of a panel discussion that included two of the best US historians, Joseph Ellis and Sean Willentz.  During the discussion, Willentz made a point.  Ellis went quiet, mulling that over, before admitting, "I didn't know that."  Wait!  Joe Ellis knows everything about early US history......  It was a good lesson for me.) But one of the pitfalls of the book is that the author, in criticizing Lincoln and his policies, seems to give serious credence to all views.  That is, in weighing different sides and their arguments, she makes a mistake in giving equal weight to all of them.  She claims that Lincoln always "missed the point" of the South, as if the Southern position of defending and perpetuating slavery was a valid one.  That Lincoln didn't accept the institution of slavery, just because it was the Southern position, should not be a criticism of him.  He didn't "miss the point," but refused to give credence to it, esp after 1862.   In thinking about giving equal weight/legitimacy to all views, I also wondered about objectivity, particularly in the writing of history. Is a historian required to be "objective?" That is, in writing history, should the author not "take sides?" (I suppose we could also substitute "journalism" for history.) How does/can one be objective when writing history? What does it mean to be objective? And, is being objective a good thing? For instance, how can one be objective when writing about Hitler? What if, in writing an article or book, I describe Hitler as "the biggest monster of the 20th Century?" There are two loaded words in my description. Yes, we can debate whether he or Stalin or Mao was "the biggest." Both of the commies killed more people, but also had more time. But that's a discussion for another day; let's stick with Hitler. The other loaded word is "monster." Is the use of that word being objective? Should I avoid using it? Why? After all, what mother when holding her new-born says, "I hope you become a monster?" It certainly has very negative connotations. But what else do we call someone responsible for the deaths of millions of people and a world war--"St. Adolf?" Do "dictator" or "murderer," even "mass murderer" really tell an accurate story? Does "monster" color me not objective? So, what does being objective mean? I'm not sure. Perhaps it doesn't mean not taking sides, because doing that makes one an accomplice. Maybe it merely means to give each side a hearing. History, Henry Steele Commager once wrote, is "the judgment of the past--and the judgment is important."

"Underrated" Americans

Overrated Americans: John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson..... But we have some underrated ones, too. Several immediately come to mind. Like the overratings, the underratings are likely products of bias, of promotion (self- and otherwise), and ignorance. One of the most underrated of US Presidents is Dwight Eisenhower. He was not all about "me," like some of our most recent Presidents. In fact, one of his aides termed Eisenhower's administrations "The Hidden Hand Presidency." For quite a while, as President and after, he was seen as a nice guy, but no great shakes as President. The term that always comes to mind (at least mine) in describing him is "avuncular." Eisenhower reminded people of their favorite uncles, perhaps always joking, supplying with candy, etc. But as far as doing anything of significance? Nah, he didn't do much. What a shallow and narrow view of Dwight Eisenhower the President! One biographer noted that Ike "kept the peace." And the splended biography, Ike's Bluff by Evan Thomas, convincingly claims that he held off potential nuclear war. The Interstate Highway System and St. Lawrrence Seaway? Eisenhower projects. And he slowly, but surely defused the dangerous Joseph McCarthy, especially after "Tail Gunner Joe" went after Ike's beloved US Army. Our current leaders would do well to study how he quietly, but effectively did this. Eisenhower may not have agreed with court decisions regardng civil rights, but he felt compelled to enforce them in places such as Little Rock Central HS. It was his duty and he took and oath. He did far more for civil rights than, say, JFK. Another underrated American President is Calvin Coolidge. I have seen some historians who blamed him for the Depression! Huh? Cool Cal significantly reduced both the federal buget and taxes on Americans, still sky high after the First World War. He was very fiscally conservative, too frugal say some (but not I). He resisted attempts to expand the scope and reach of the federal government; he fought for limited government. He knew that government involvement in our lives, in the economy, etc. is not benign. Under his administration, as hard as it is to believe since they were here first, American Indians were granted US citizenship. Coolidge's speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is well worth reading. (If I recall, Coolidge is the only President to have been born on July 4th.) He claarly articulates how those twin "charters of freedom and justice," the Declaration and Constitution, guarantee and protect the rights of the individual while also providing the opportunity to pursue happiness as well as require that government power come from "the consent of the governed" (Locke). Amity Shlaes offers far more balanced biography of Coolidge than has generally appeared. Among two of the Founders, I think James Madison and James Wilson have been underrated. Although there have been a couple of recent biographies of Madison painting him in a far more important light, most people don't rank him with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and even Franklin. OK, I don't think his Presidency was great shakes, but his role in the development of the Constitution was very significant. Originally he was not sold on this new document, which threatened to create what the Americans had just fought a war to eliminate, that is a strong central government. He was astute enough to realize the Constitution was going to happen and he determined to jump aboard so he could steer the direction of it. And steer he did! Not only are his personal notes as close to minutes of the Constitutional Convention that we have (Secrecy was voted.), but he was one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers. (They are often misrepresented. They were written to explain the Constitution, in hopes of drumming up support from skeptical Americans. But many of them were published too late, after ratification votes. Still, The Federalist remains the best single source of the meaning of the Consitution.) Mostly, though, he took the lead in debates, sitting on committees, etc. that determined the foundation of the Constitution. James Madison's portrait on the $5000 bill is deserved. (Ha Ha Ha) Another Founder who is often not just underrated, but underlooked, is James Wilson. After Madison, he might well be the second most influential of the Framers of the Constitution. As much as anyone, he formed the intellectual theory, the underpinning of the document. Specifically, it was his ideas in the Preamble that led to the adoption of the principle of popular sovereignty, that all authority from government stems from the people. (I know, I know.....) "We the People" is a significant phrase, especially considering the times, the late 18th Century. Wilson also created the framework for the modern Presidency in Article II, including the Electrical College (sic). It was a unique office, far different from the previous eight presidents under the Articles of Confederation (and more if we include the presidents of the Continental Congresses). James Wilson, a forgotten Founder, shouldn't be forgotten. There are many more who have been underrated.....