Happy Birthday!

Yes, it's "Happy Birthday" time again. Today, it's George Washington's birthday, maybe. First, let me vent about the silly Presidents Day that took the place of Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays. Established in 1971 by Richard Nixon it's a "holiday set aside to honor all Presidents," he said adding, "even myself," it is ridiculous. Why in the world would we want to honor the likes of the two Johnsons, Harrison ("Tippecanoe" who was President for a month), "and Tyler, too," Buchanan, Harding, and others, including our last five Presidents? OK, OK, I guess people have their favorites and I know some folks disagree with me, but back to George Washington. Let me start by saying February 22nd isn't/wasn't really Washington's birthday/date. He was born on February 11th, 1731. But the British still worked under the old Julian Calendar (Julius Caesar, 45 BC) and didn't kick over to the updated Gregorian Calendar (Pope Gregory XIII, 1582). Remember the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII and his dispute with the Catholic Church and pope? That explains it. When Britain adopted the Gregorian Calendar, to catch up, it added one year and 11 days. That is February 11th, 1731 became February 22nd, 1732. (The year is easy to remember. It is the square root of 3--1.732!) Of course, now officially, thanks to Presidents Day, I guess Washington's birthday is a moving date, the third Monday of each year. Grrr..... Now, for fun, Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree and tell his father, when questioned, "I cannot tell a lie" and admit his guilt. That was made up by Washington's first biographer, Parson Weems, to illustrate George's honesty. And Washington didn't have wooden teeth. Oh, he had false teeth, several dentures' worth. Some of those teeth were his own extracted ones, sheep teeth, and even ivory choppers. Gee, I feel a bit like I just told a bunch of kids there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny! That Washington was one of three or four key factors in the United States winning its independence did not make him a great President. (Without Washington, the colonies lose the Revolutionary War, pure and simple. Just like without the assistance of nations such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands, the colonists would have lost.) The qualities he possessed surely led to a great President, but the fact that he was the winning general did not necessarily--he wasn't President yet. Also, that Washington led the Constitutional Convention, was the presiding officer, was also a very important thing. That someone of the stature and prestige in the eyes of most early Americans supported the Constitution carried a lot of weight. Remember, a lot of leaders, such as Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock (at least early on) held strong doubts about if not opposition to this new document called the Constitution. Washington's backing was significant. Again, he wasn't yet President. But when the Constitution was written, namely Article II dealing with the Executive, it was pretty much a forgone conclusion that Washington would be the first President. (I know, I know. "Washington wasn't the first President!" Yes, he was, under the Constitution. But if we include the old the Second Continental Congress--the defacto government of the now declared independent United States--and the Articles of Confederation, there were up to a dozen previous presidents--note I didn't capitalize the "p." Look up names like Peyton Randolph and John Hanson. And note, like Washington, Randolph and Hanson came from Virginia. That was no accident. Virginia was the most populous and wealthiest state.) Like Winston Churchill in the darkest days of the Second World War holding Britain together, Washington did similarly with the young US. There was no guarantee the experiment with self-rule would succeed. In fact, many, especially in Europe, believed that it would fail and these brash colonists would come crawling back to Britain, like a puppy dog with its tail between its legs. Washington's personality, characteristics like courage, honesty, and foresight, along with the prestige he held among Americans kept the US from what many thought would be quick collapse. The specifics are there to discover. In what I think is the best single-volume biography of Washington, His Excellency, Joseph Ellis wrote this. "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior, the Foundingest Father of them all." That pretty much sums it up. Happy Birthday, George Washington!

Happy Birthday!

Today is the 213th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. It is worth commemorating. Most surveys/rankings of US Presidents place Lincoln at the top, the best. I've seen a few, very few, that don't. But I would say that most thoughtful/knowledgeable people who know about the American past rate Lincoln as our greatest President. Although he did much more as President, the two things that obviously stand out are freeing the slaves and winning the Civil War. Through the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment (passed after his death) slavery was abolished. Despite the mistaken notion that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves, it did free slaves, many of them, perhaps as many as 100,000 or so. Of course, as some historians, textbooks, and history teachers claim, the Emancipation was a military measure designed to help win/end the Civil War. That it was mere bluster, only freeing slaves where they couldn't be practically freed, is wrong. There was a reason the newly emancipated blacks referred to Lincoln in Biblical terms, "Father Abraham." And that reason was he had freed many of them. In addition, the Emancipation got the ball rolling, no mean feat. Constitutionally and, I suppose, legally slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment. Eric Foner's brilliant book, The Fiery Trial, and the hit movie Lincoln detail the story behind Lincoln's efforts to enact the 13th Amendment. (By the way, the wording of the Amendment, "neither slavery or involuntary servitude...shall ever exist in the United States....." comes from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, enacted before the Constitution was written. The author of the 13th Amendment was Jacob Howard, a US Senator from Michigan.) It was finally ratified by the requisite number of states in December 1865. Slavery was abolished. Of course, neither the Emancipation nor the 13th Amendment would have mattered much had the South won the Civil War. And it came far closer to winning it than, I think, most people realize. But it was Lincoln who won it. I've studied the period pretty closely over the years and have found nobody, at least not to my understanding, else who could have done what Lincoln did, that is, win! Lincoln possessed a unique combination of admirable character traits: courage, honesty, humility, intelligence, knowledge, patience, and more. He understood human nature and politics, recognizing that people would not hear messages for which they weren't ready to hear. (Who had the greatest message in the history of the world? "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It was Jesus. And what did they do to him for trying to spread it? They killed him.) Lincoln was thoughtful, rarely acting impetuously or rashly. Recognizing, too, that others might have better ideas than his, listening was important to him. And he wasn't above changing his mind and using those better ideas. I've noted these two anecdotes before, but they are worth repeating on this day. They are not only revealing, but still excite me afer reading and relating them hundreds of times. Frederick Douglass was the leading black abolitionist. He and Lincoln, after a tenuous beginning, developed a friendship. After Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address, he returned to the White House to accept well-wishers. The receiving line was quite long. Douglass was in the crowd at the Capitol Building listening to the Address. He was so moved he decided he had to tell Lincoln what he thought of it. So he went to the White House and stood in the lengthy line. But when he finally arrived inside, he was unceremoniously ushered out, despite his claims of friendship with the President. After all, he was a black man. But Douglass was determined, eventually forcing his way into the reception room. His brusque entrance attracted more than a little notice, including that of Lincoln. Before Douglass could be ushered out, Lincoln saw him and cried out, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Just imagine that, in 1865 a white President of the US calling a black man "my friend!" But there's more. Calling Douglass to him, he said, loud enough for others to hear, "I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my address. How did you like it?" Whoa! Again consider this, in 1865, a white President asking a black man for his opinion! Douglass was embarrassed by the attention and the looks from the impatient crowd and begged off, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion....." Lincoln replied, "No, no. There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it." "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort!" (Note the Biblical reference again.) The President smiled. "I'm glad you liked it. I value your opinion." Again, imagine that exchange..... W. E. B. DuBois, some decades later, was one of the founders of the NAACP. In a 1922 essay, he responded to critics who thought he had criticized or disparaged "Father Abraham." As Lincoln had told Douglass 57 years before, DuBois might have said, "No, no." Among other things he wrote this. "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters, Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." Read that again, especially, "...and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." I still get chills every time I read it. Happy Birthday, Abraham. (He didn't like being called "Abe.")

Senator Philip A. Hart

No doubt most folks are unaware of Phil Hart whether they are Michigan natives or not. Philip A. Hart served Michigan in the US Senate for almost three full terms, dying in office in 1976. There have been, since 1789, almost 12,000 members of the US Senate and House. There are seven Congressional office buildings, each named after a member of Congress. One of the seven is The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building. There is a reason for this. I have written before about "character," more specifically to be clear, how good character matters. I recognize my view is likely a minority one, that most people don't agree with me. I stand by my belief. And when I think of good character, the best character, I am often reminded of the late Senator Phil Hart. Hart was a Democrat. I am sure I didn't (and wouldn't today) agree with all of his stances. Others didn't also. But that is the point. Others could disagree with Hart, yet at the time greatly respect him. He was that kind of guy. I believe it was columnist Colman McCarthy who wrote of Hart, "It was not an accident that he was the most trusted man in American politics." In the Second World War, Hart stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. He was wounded, a piece of shrapel severing the major artery in his right arm, severely enough that he was to be sent back to the States. Nope. He refused to leave his comrades behind, sneaked away in the middle of a night, and rejoined his unit. Six months later he fought in the key Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he returned to Michigan, holding a variety of political offices on the state level. He was elected to the US Senate in 1958, being sworn in on Janurary 3rd of the next year. He was an unabashed liberal, one of the most liberal members of the Senate at the time. He was a major factor in the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68 as well as the Voting Rights Act of '65 (serving as Senate floor manager of the bill). In Congress, he didn't belittle or even criticize his opponents or their beliefs. In fact, it was generally accepted that, in debating the merits of a bill, Hart would present his opponents' arguments more clearly than they did! He believed in open, transparent governance. Here's their view and here's mine. Now choose. Somewhat incongruously I think, Hart was a good friend of James Eastland, a segregationist Senator from Mississippi. Despite Eastland's racism and anti-Semitism, neither of which he hid, Hart maintained a social friendship. Yet, when Eastland, due to his seniority, was in line to become President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Hart rose to oppose that--he rose alone! Hart believed Eastland's racism snf anti-Semitism disqualified him from being so close to the White House in the line of succession to the Presidency (VP, Speaker, Pres Pro Tem). And he stated that--friend or not. Conscience and good character mattered. Toward the end of his third term, Hart announced he would not seek re-election although he would have been a sure-fire winner. This was in line with his belief that younger men and women (!) with greater energy and idealism should hold Senate seats. And this was before he was diagnosed with melanoma that would claim his life a few short weeks before his term ended. At his funeral at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC, well over 1,000 people attended. It wasn't just the number, but who they were. According to a reporter there, "The rich and the powerful were there, dressed in tailored suits and fine furs. So were the poor and the powerless, dressed in jeans and parkas" Hart was known as "The Conscience of the Senate." That other Senators undeservedly were given the same title besmirches the legacy of Phil Hart. At the time, he was the most trusted man in US politics, a man of conviction and integrity even if they potentially clashed with his own political interests. He was still a sitting US Senator when the office building was named after him, the first time a still-serving Senator was so honored. BTW, his wife Jane Briggs Hart was quite a woman, too. She was the daughter of Walter Briggs, one-time owner of the Detroit Tigers (Briggs Stadium before Tiger Stadium). She was a licensed pilot and became the first woman to hold a helicopter pilot license in Michigan. An avid sailor, she crewed on more than a dozen of the famed Port Huron to Mackinac Races. Later, she skippered the first all-female crew and sailed across the Atlantic from Europe to the Caribbean with her sister. At the age of 40, she passed the NASA physical exam, the same one the male astronauts took. She was one of the co-founders of NOW, the National Organization of Women and an opponent of the Vietnam War, even being arrested in one of her protests. Although some of her views and actions might have embarrassed her husband, Senator Hart always supported his wife's right to her beliefs. I hope the next time there is mention of "The Senator Philip A. Hart Senate Office Building" people remember why it bears that name.

Greatest Baseball Player

A month or so back I finished a book, Baseball 100 by Joe Posnanski. It ranks the greatest players ever. What a daunting task, choosing the greatest baseball players of all time ("all times" as Muhammad Ali used to say). How does one evaluate over the years, from dead ball to juiced ball eras, from the high pitcher's mound to the flatter, from bus or train rides to opponents' cities to transcontinental flights, and more? What about the segregated years, with Major League Baseball and the Negro League? Add the Latin and even Asian players later. What carries more weight--hitting and to a lesser extent baserunning (offense) or fielding (defense)? How to rate everyday players compared to pitchers? What about other changes in the game, from the designated hitter and perfectly groomed cookie-cutter fields to starting pitchers lasting only six or seven innings to be followed by a relief specialist throwing upper 90-mph heat? All that said, Ponanski has done a marvelous job of rating and writing. No doubt there will be disagreements. But that's a lot of the fun of such lists. There are no definitive answers/choices, but there really are definitive answers/choices--our favorites! Ponanski rails on Bowie Kuhn's absence at Henry Aaron's 715th. In mocking his excuse, he adds, "Kuhn is in the Hall of Fame. He might not be the least deserving member, but he's in the photograph." I'm still chuckling. Several things caught my eye and are things I have thought about over the years. Willie Mays is generally considered, in almost all rankings, if not the greatest all-time player, at least in the top two or three. Yet, his lifetime batting average was .301, barely above the gold standard for hitters. (I know, I know. Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Carl Yaztrzemski, and others didn't have lifetime BAs of .300. Of course I consider them legitimate Hall of Famers. And had he not been injured for much of his career, Mantle might be right up there with Mays!) I'm not knocking Mays at all; I, too, consider him one of the very top players, if not the best ever. But consider this. With his lifetime BA of .301, how great must his other abilities/skills have been? Hitting for power. Baserunning. Fielding/Defense, both catching and throwing. Everyone remembers Mays' catch in the '54 World Series of the ball off the bat of Vic Wertz. It was astounding! Yet, I remember reading somewhere (although I can't remember exactly where) one of his teammates agreeing it was great catch. But he added he saw him make many other better catches. Better?!?!?! Many others?!?!?! Wow! Toss in a black man playing in the Major Leagues in the still often racially hostile cities of the '50s and '60s. I wonder if position players and pitchers should have their own "greatest" categories. Weighing greatness between a pitcher and an everyday player is tough. There are so many different criteria. Sandy Koufax rates position #70 on the list. He only had five really great years. Granted, they were likely the five greatest consecutive years any pitcher ever had. He was virtually unhittable. But it was only five years. Hmmm..... Is that ranking legitimate? I think so. I can see where some might disagree, but I always return to something Mickey Mantle said after striking out for the third or fourth time against Koufax in a World Series game. Koufax threw a three-or four-hit shutout, whiffing about 15 Yankees. Returning in frustration to the dugout, Mantle threw his bat, swearing, "How're we supposed to hit that shit!" I don't think it was really a question. Oh, and from early in the game, the Yankees knew, with a bum arm, Koufax could throw nothing but fastballs! Who was the greatest hitter? What criteria? Power? Average? Both? Of all the hitters I've seen, in person, Ted Williams and Miguel Cabrera are the best. I just remember Williams' last few years, seeing him hit at Tiger Stadium in the late '50s. I remember, at age 39 or so, he parked one off the facing of the third deck in right right field. If I recall correctly, at the time, only two or three balls had been hit over that third deck. I think, his second to last year in his late '30s, he led the league hitting .388. He slumped the next year, a year old, hittig only .328. In those marvelous years Cabrera had with the Tigers, I marveled at how he hit. It was as if he was hitting 95 mph fastballs off a tee. No shifts on him; he was as likely to hit a 400-foot home run to right center as to left center. And then there was the time he caught up with a 99 mph Mariano Rivera fastball, depositing it about 440 feet to straight-away center--to win the game. What about character? It's no secret I think character, good character, matters. That's especially so in government, politics, business, and other areas. What about baseball? Should a player who used PEDs, before they were banned by MLB, be penalized by exclusion from the lost of greatest players? After all, the commissioner who looked the other way when PEDs were helping baseball to revive after the labor disputes of the '90s was inducted into the Hall of Fame. What about someone who gambled on games, perhaps not even his own? Shoeless Joe Jackson? Excluded? So how do we evaluate Gaylord Perry, with him admitting he threw the spitter? As one of my buddies facetiously noted, "I think the spitter was illegal." Does his cheating eliminate him from consideration as "great?" I don't know all of the players Posnanski has in his Greatest 100. I was surprised at the inclusion of several, although Posnanski makes very convincing arguments. I'm not sure I agree. But that's the fun of such lists. One can be wrong, but right at the same time.

Random Thoughts on a Frigid Afternoon

Sounds like the title of a poem or a book of them. Joe Biden criticized the Supremes for striking down his/OSHA's vax mandate for private employees with more than 100 workers. He claimed his/OSHA's regulations were "common sense" approaches to CoVid. OK, this isn't directly about the governments' (federal, state, local) responses to the virus, although I am pretty sure I could argue they haven't been "common sense" approaches. This is about "common sense," the use of the term. It sure seems to me that requiring a voter to present valid identification before casting a ballot is "common sense." Yet, Biden and the Democrats don't think so. How can that not be? It seems as if that is a selective use of the term "common sense." Another such term is "domestic terrorist/terrorism." I read one day last week that the Department of Justice has established a "domestic terrorism unit." OK, exactly what is that? I recall the Attorney General a while back referring to parents who angrily confront (without violence!) local school boards with legitimate concerns as "domestic terrorists." That was at the urging of some national school boards organization with, perhaps, some involvement of the Secretary of Education. How in the world can parents, who are concerned, but not violent, about their children's education, be it Critical Race Theory or even specific instances of their daughters' rape/sexual assault at the hands of boys claiming to be girls, etc. be labeled any sort of "terrorists?" (One school board which endorsed such a policy of boys claiming to be girls having the right to use girls' bathrooms, where the assaults took place, not only tried to cover up the rapes, but tried to silence the concerned father. The father was met with local law enforcement and, if I recall, was beaten while arrested.) Now, consider this determination, this label of "domestic terrorists" while I have seen nothing of the sort applied to Black Lives Matter and Anti-fa rioters, er, "peaceful protesters" who actually did commit many acts of violence. They looted and burned, private businesses as well as government buildings and property. They were responsible for beatings and even deaths. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember any "domestic terrorism" emanating from these riots, er, "peaceful protests." For that matter, in a similar vein, how does the FDA continue to allow the term "vaccine" to be used with the products developed by Moderna, Pfizer, and J & J? Why are the government, Big Pharma, and the medical community allowed to call whatever this is a "vaccine?" It clearly isn't a vaccine (nor is the annual flu shot). A vax virtually eliminates a disease. There are practically zero cases now of polio, smallpox, measles, etc. Those have been eliminated by real vaccines, which by definition provide active immunity to infectious/contagious diseases. What Moderna, Pfizer, and J & J have produced might well mitigate CoVid and its symptoms, but they have not eliminated it, not even close. So, what do the people who compared this, early on, to the polio, smallpox, measles, etc. vaccines now say? These real vaccines were used against my "fake vax" criticisms. "Hey, people willingly get the smallpox, polio, [etc.] vaccines. Now we can eliminate CoVid with this vaccine." But CoVid hasn't at all been eliminated. It's like saying, since Mucinex mitigates cold and flu symptoms, it is a vax. No, it's not! And the FDA is complicit in this scam. For instance, it doesn't allow "frozen dairy desserts" that don't use real cream to be called "ice cream." That's because the frozen dairy desserts aren't ice cream. Why does the FDA allow the continued use of "vaccine" with these CoVid shots? Perhaps some would say I quibble. What's the big deal with how terms such as "common sense," "domestic terrorism," and "vaccine" are used? I don't think so. I think words are important and they matter. When we start changing the meanings of them to suit our purposes, we tread in dangerous waters. These are steps toward creating our own version of George Orwell's "newspeak." He used this term to show how Big Brother tried to diminish the range of thought," to blindly and meekly accept was is being told by the powers that be.

Toppling Statues

The woke crowd gets a lot wrong, no doubt. Some of what it does is ignorant, just plain stupid, or even criminal. That the Wokesters get away with so much, legally, historically, and more is a travesty. When government, corporations, and other institutions cave in to demands, if not jumping on the bandwagon, they are pathetic and send a dangerous message. And they and cancel culture are still at work. For speaking their minds, expressing ideas and views contrary to wokeness, people have lost their jobs, been vilified and even physically assaulted. But the woke crowd has got something right, toppling statues. Well, that is, toppling some statues and memorials. To deface or knock down memorials to those like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson is not just criminal, but ignorant. But some statues deserve to go. I am thinking of those memorials devoted to Confederates in the South. (To be fair, there are many streets, parks, schools, and more in other parts of the country named after Confederates.) These Southerners, in the Civil War, took up arms against the United States. I believe that is called treason! Why are so many people insistent on honoring traitors? In fact, folks like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson are still viewed as heroes. Consider that, even in the aftermath of the war, many of these Confederates held positions as US Senators and Congressmen, state governors and local officials, as well as leaders in business and education. Lee, for instance, became the president of Washington University and later had his name added, Washington and Lee University. Frederick Douglass once wrote, of the Civil War, "There was a right side and a wrong side. It is no part of our duty to confound right with wrong or loyalty with treason." I don't think Douglass or I argue about courage/bravery, but rather sedition and rebellion against the US. Take, for instance, Germany. There are no statues of Erwin Rommel in Germany. Although he welcomed Hitler's rise to power, Rommel was never a member of the National Social Party, never a Nazi. (I will for the time being ignore "The Rommel Myth.") It's as if the Germans are ashamed of Rommel and his role in the Second World War. If so, why aren't Americans, especially in the South, also ashamed of the Confederacy and those who fought for it? Not only did they fight against the United States, they fought to preserve slavery! If that was acceptable then, well, that's one thing, odious as it is/was. That many still find it acceptable now, even vehemently resisting removal, is clearly wrong. Tearing down Confederate statues and memorials is not an attempt to "rewrite history" as their defenders claim. In fact, it's the obverse, trying to preserve history. Why should history preserve the myth of traitors? We can tell the story of the Civil War without glorifying treason.

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.