Category Archives: history

All They Did—-

Posted on by
Reply

It will take a while, maybe several years, before some high school students living in an unincorporated area of 140 people of central Missouri fully appreciate what they have done.

They have won the State High School 2A basketball championship. But it’s more than just a trophy for the town of Eugene.

The exhilaration that comes from championships is a temporary thing. It might linger for several hours or for a few days before life takes over.

But legacies are eternal. And they have created a legacy.

All these students did was to give their little community where the number of students in the Cole R-V School District outnumbers the population of the community by more than four to one, the first state championship in community history—in any category.

The best at something in the entire state of Missouri, population 6.2-million.

It was not exactly a “Hoosiers” moment because they did not beat the dominant big-city team for the title, but to Eugene, Missouri, it IS a “Hoosiers” moment because it is the first time the school has won a state title in anything.

For the rest of their lives they will bound together by this historic event, For the rest of their lives they will be remembered as members of the first team in school history that—-

The chance to be a state champion comes rarely. Even if there are more trophies in the future, theirs will be the historic one, the one that says for the first time, Eugene was the best of its kind in the whole state.

They shall grow old, but they will always be young when others look at their trophy decades from now. They’ll be the ones every team to come wants to be like.

All they did was to give a120-year old community —that has never thought itself big enough to incorporate as a real town —the chance to proclaim itself the best of its kind in Missouri.

And these children shall become legends.

 

Patrick and Volodymyr

Posted on by
Reply

A country facing tyrannical control.  Enemy forces are at the gate. Should an effort be made for a cease fire or even full peace?  How great a price will be paid either way?

The other day I picked up a book containing a speech that might have been given 250 years ago. The style of public speaking has changed a lot in that time. But the situation and he sentiments of he remarks are appropriate for our time.

…The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

We don’t really know how accurate the account of this great American speech is. There was no transcript taken at the time in the Virginia House of Burgesses. .Author Willam Wirt reconstructed it in his 1817 biography of Patrick Henry, leading some historians to question its authenticity.

Whether these words were fully spoken 250 years ago, on March 23, 1775 or whether they were partially made up or completely made up by Wirt 208 years ago, the situation and the sentiment have a certain resonance as the President of Ukraine deals with Russia’s war on his country and the demands by Ukraine’s (former?) ally that it turn over a major part of its economy to the United States and a significant part of its territory to Russia.

We doubt that our president ever read the speech or, if he did, that he ever understood its importance to our nation’s attitude about ourselves or others who share our democratic vision.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”

What should be OUR answer in today’s world? We already know his answer. Chains and slavery.

Of Mice and MAGA

Posted on by
Reply

The situation would be hilarious if it wasn’t so frightening.

We have a President who daily seems to get more petty, more vengeful, and less understanding of the country he unfortunately was elected to lead.

Example one:  One of the many lies that dominated his speech to Congress last week, lost in the avalanche of other irresponsible claims and accusations, came when he congratulated hit man, Elon, for uncovering a federally-financed program to change the gender of mice.

My friend Derry Brownfield would call stuff such as this, “ignorance gone to seed.” The mental Kudzu that is this administration’s crop is as invasive to democracy as the real weed is to the southern countryside.

The program that produced this totally-undeserved presidential scorn has to do with transgenic mice, which are used in biomedical research to study how human tissue reacts to disease and the cures or potential cures for those diseases. Do not expect Trump to ever correct himself.

In fact, it’s his newest factoid and he’ll beat the blood out of transgender mice.

Second: Trump has cut off $400 million in grants and other federal funds to Columbia University because some pro-Palestinian demonstrations took place on the campus. He also has threatened  cutoffs to other schools that allow “illegal” protests. Forget the First Amendment’s protection of speech and the right of assembly. If Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury Donald Trump decides events or words are “illegal” in his mind, then they’re illegal and he again will demonstrate his capacity for retribution aimed at those who think differently than he does—-assuming he thinks at all.

The third, and far more egregious thought this man had is the late-week decision to erase history from the Pentagon’s records.

That kind of thing usually was a matter for Soviet Premiers in the 20th Century and for conquering tribes thousands of years ago. Chipping off all of the carved words and records of deeds of former rulers was fairly common when their land was conquered. It has continued in a material sense in areas of the Middle East infected with the Taliban and other brutal bands.  Erase the history of a people. Erase their culture. Erase the people.

In his rabid drive to erase anything from the public mind that encourages equal opportunity,  Defense Secretary—Pete Hegseth—has ordered, as the Associated Press says, “tens of thousands of photos and online posts“ that emphasize Diversity, Eqality, and Inclusion removed from the department database.

When the AP published its story last week, and when officials confirmed this looney program, more than 26,000 images had been slated for removal with an outlook that the total removals might reach six figures.

The main priority might be the most childish of all—remove ALL content in that archive that was published during the Biden administration, regardless personhood.

Erasing history—and that’s what this is—has eliminated the stories of a lot of people who overcome the prejudices of their day long before DEI became an epithet.  But they’re being erased because they are not one of “us,” as defined by our President.

By far the most inane victim of this purge of the image files is the elimination of images of Enola Gay. THE Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb in world history in 1945. So far, however, the current administration has not towed the real airplane out of the Smithsonian installation at Dulles International Airport and broken it up. .

The airplane already has survived a decades-long controversy over whether it should be put on public display, not because of it’s “gayness” but because some felt displaying it would glorify the use of nuclear weapons against human beings.

The rabid rush to eliminate images of the first women, the first black person—the first minority of any kind—to achieve something notable in military service has put a spotlight on the bomber which is named for pilot Paul Tibbets’s mother. The spotlight also has been put on people who are committed to narrowness in thought, in speech, and in their corrupted definition of leadership.

One of the targeted photos is of Marine Corps PFC Harold Gonsalves, a Mexican-American who threw himself onto a Japanese grenade at Okinawa to save the lives of others. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. But he has a Hispanic name and that appears to be enough to erase him from that database of history.

Author Richard Cohen comments in his book, Making History: The Storytellers Who Shaped History,  observes, “History has ever been a harbor for dishonest writing—a home for forgers, the insane or even ‘history-killers’ who write so dully they neutralize their subjects…

”Most countries at one time or another have been guilty of proclaiming false versions of their past. The late 19th-century French historian Ernest Renan is known for his statement that “forgetfulness” is ‘essential in the creation of a nation’—a positive gloss on Goethe’s blunt aphorism, ‘Patriotism corrupts history.’ But this is why nationalism often views history as a threat. What governments declare to be true is one reality, the judgments of historians quite another. Few recorders set out deliberately to lie; when they do, they can have great impact, if only in certain parts of the world.”

We are seeing the truth of Cohen’s remarks in the lies being circulated in Washington that seek to modify, if not destroy, our past as well as corrupt our present.

-0-

Great? 

Posted on by
1

We have a place at the end of these entries for people to respond to them. I hope the Trumpers will do that today—

And explain how last week’s disgusting performance in the meeting with Ukraine’s President in any way makes America Great.

To whom?

Well, Russia thinks America is great.  Donald Trump thinks browbeating and bullying the president of a country fighting off takeover from a cruel, controlling, all-powerful despotic leader of a gigantically larger country makes our America great, at least in his own self-dominated mind.

HERE’S how American can be great—–but Trump’s own cruel, controlling, all-powerful self-image won’t let him do it:

Persuade his good friend Vlad to stop the invasion of Ukraine. Withdraw.  Offer Russia security protections against invasion from Ukraine.

He won’t do it. He can’t do it. He’s already speaking from Vlad’s pocket when he accuses Ukraine of starting the war.

Imagine if Roosevelt in 1939 had accused Poland of invading Germany; England of launching a blitzkrieg against Germany in 1940, Hawaii of bombing Tokyo in ’41.  Imagine if Truman accused South Korea of starting a war in 1950 by invading North Korea.  Or if George H. W. Bush had charged Kuwait with invading Iraq in 1990.

Just think how much greater we would be now if those presidents hadn’t made the mistakes Trump refuses to make today.

The greatness of America on the world stage is gone and it is becoming smaller in the international rear-view mirror.  It’s even growing smaller in our own rear-view mirror with every day of crude butchery of our own government, with every day that the faceless bureaucrats who try to make our government work for US are threatened with the loss of their jobs by people who have little appreciation for laboring on behalf of other people.

So tell me, Trumpers, in the dialogue box at the end of this entry, just how Trump is making our country great by doing the things to his own people that he is doing.  Look ahead, and tell me how our lives will be better a year from now.

Don’t send me an email.  My name is on every one of these entries. I expect those with differing opinions to have enough courage to stand behind their words with their names.

Make me think how great my country is today.  Make me proud of my president.  Make me sufficiently grateful.

Eyes on the Prize; Blind to Freedom 

Posted on by
1

Making a deal with the Devil puts the Devil in charge.  Chickens making agreements with foxes soon realize the fox in the hen house always is hungry.

Freedom is not a business proposition. Those who try to make it so are less concerned with freedom than with ownership and exploitation. Acceptance of a business proposition by a battle-scarred country will an an acceptance of less independence by the people of that country and acceptance of less independence can only bring about a loss of freedom.

Ukraine is not a hotel, a country club, a casino, a university that can be run into bankruptcy while the person behind it walks away unscathed.  It is not a commodity such as coins, tennis shoes, and Bibles never read.  Freedom cannot be bought, sold, or traded.  There are no international bankruptcy laws that protect the freedoms lost by a people who become victims of a loser business man with an extensive record of deals gone sour.

And when a United States President asserts that an innocent nation minding its own business caused its own invasion by a ruthless despot is unforgiveable.

The freedom of Ukraine must be protected. It is too precious to be considered something that can be  bought or traded for. Once freedom has been achieved, it is worth fighting for even against overwhelming odds. Ukraine does not deserve someone who would force a devastated country to sell a major part of its economy in return for a peace without security or reparations.

And it is even more repugnant than that.

Anyone who would proclaim that Ukraine started the war with Russia and is willing to deal away Ukraine’s freedom as a business investment is an international disgrace, especially when representing a country that has been the shining example of freedom to the rest of the world.

It is betrayal of what this country stands for.

Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. He envies Barack Obama for winning it. He thinks he can demand it for himself by forcing another nation to give up a large chunk of its independence to end an accused war criminal’s invasion.

To hear his incoherent and lying babbling about the victimization of Russia-–even his former media apologists at FOX News struggle to tolerate it—must raise questions about his mental state and the damage he is doing both internally and externally to   our country.

Yes, he won the election. But every day he demonstrates his disrespect for the history of the nation he leads and every day he sees himself less as a defender of freedom and more as a shady wheeler-dealer who cares only about power and possession.

Donald Trump is proving every day that he belongs in a padded room, not the oval office.

Contrary to the song, Freedom’s just another word for EVERYTHING left to lose. Too bad we have a President who doesn’t care who loses it whether it is the people of another country or people of his own.

The Meritocracy

Posted on by
Reply

We are waiting to see the day the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion do two things.

  1. Proclaims Black History Month will not be recognized.
  2. Eliminate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Black History Month began as “Negro History Week” in 1926 at the urging of one of our nation’s greatest Black historians, Carter G. Woodson, and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, with Woodson saying it was important to the cultural survival of Blacks within the broader White society.  The week was observed in the February week when the birth of Abraham Lincoln was celebrated.

He commented, “If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.”

The Black United Students group and Black educators at Kent State University proposed in 1969 that the week-long celebration become Black History Month.  The first observance was in 1970.

President Ford endorsed it as part of the national Bicentennial celebrations in 1976.

But with the arrival of the second Trump term, Black History Month appeared to be on somewhat shaky ground.  One of the first things Trump did when resuming office was to sign an executive order ending “all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.”

Within a matter of days, agencies were circulating memos, many of them announcing in terms similar to the line used by a Justice Department memo, “These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and resulted in shameful discrimination.”

To the surprise of some, Trump did sign a proclamation recognizing Black History Month at the start of February calling on American citizens and public officials to “celebrate the contributions of so many black American patriots who have indelibly shaped our Nation’s history.”

EEOC:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exists but President Trump has rendered it useless, as he has the National Labor Relations Board.

Acting quickly after resuming office, he fired then-Chairman Charlotte Burrows, a Biden appointee who became the first chairman ever fired by a President. He also canned Commissioner Joycelyn Samuels, one of his own appointees from 2020, leaving only two members of the five-member commission. Trump appointee Andrea Lucas was named the acting chair. She is identified as a strong opponent of DEI programs, which she says promote reverse discrimination. The also is known as a critic of legal protections for transgender people. Her term expires July 1.

Failure to reappoint her or to name a successor will leave only Kalpana Kotagel on the commission.  Kotagel is an African-American employment attorney appointee of President Biden. Her term expires in 2027, potentially leaving the commission with no members.

Kotagel is doomed.  She’s the kind of person Trump loves to hate. As a private attorney, she specialized in DEI cases, particularly involving the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and has represented clients in other civil rights employment actions. Four years ago she worked with the Transgender Defense and Educational Fund when Aetna Insurance Company granted access to breast augmentation surgery for male policyholders who underwent surgery to become women. She also is a member of the Advisory Board Office of Equity and Inclusion at the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump criticized the EEOC in his first term as ineffective and took no steps to make it so. The commission’s staff has been cut by more than 40% by Congress.

About the same time he was ravaging the EEOC, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a Biden appointee, and Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the NLRB also with just two members and three vacancies, thus unable to do any business.

In place of these and other programs created to insure qualified people have equal chances to become employed, Trump trumpets the meritocracy, saying people should be hired on the basis of merit, not race or other factors. But he has dismantled the agencies that were established to make sure that everybody was considered on their merits.

And he has celebrated the month by firing a lot of Black American patriots—including, just last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—who are shaping our present.  Someday our present will be someone else’s past.  We hope those of the future are harsh in their judgments of our present and the President who is making it.

The Golden Rule Today

Posted on by
Reply

It use to be darkly humorous to note than in contemporary society, “He who has the gold rules.”

But today, in this country where egalitarianism is taking a beating from the super-oligarch behind the simple-oligarch, there is no humor in that twisting of the verse from the New Testament Book of Matthew, “All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do even so to them.”

Or in contemporary English, “Do unto Oohers and you would have the do unto you.”

The sentiment seems completely unfamiliar to our President or to his top henchmen and his Meat Cleaver Vigilantes.

The Golden Rule is not just a Christian instruction.  Other faiths have their versions of it.

Sathya Si Baba, a Hindu guru who claimed to be the reincarnation of 19th century spiritual master Sai Baba of Shirdi, whose teachings were a blend of the Christianity and Muslim faiths, wrote: “You must examine every act to find out if it will cause pain to others; if it does, withdraw from it. Don’t do to others what you do not like done unto you. This is called the Golden Rule. Yes, it is the best test for distinguishing right from wrong.”  (SSS 7:227

The equivalent for Buddhists from Udana-Varga 5:18is, “In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and families by generosity, courtesy, and benevolence, by treting them as he treats himself and by being as good at his word.”

Judaism: “What is hurtful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.” (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)

Muhammed told his followers, “No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Sunnah)

In The Great Learning, Ta Haio, Confucius comes pretty close to our contemporary language: “Do not unto others that you would not they should do until you.”

Mahabharta 5:17 tells Hindus, “Do not do to others that which if done to thee would cause thee pain.”

Followers of the Indian faith called Jainism, one of the world’s oldest religions, say, “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard “all creatures as we regard our own self.”

The lesson from Grantha Sahib in the Sikh faith is, “As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. Then shall thou become a partner in heaven.”

The Tao Tu Ching, The Book of the Way and Virtue teaches students of the Tao, “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

Zoraster, who also is known as Zarathustra, was a teacher and preacher of an ancient religion that influenced the Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism—and the great Greek philosophers. His teaching recorded in Dadisten-i-dinik 94:5 reads, “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

There also are Golden Rules from the writings of great philosophers:

About a century before the birth of Christ, Epictetus wrote, “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.”

Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century German Philosopher, wrote, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”

The Greek philosopher Plato, in the 4th Century BCE wished, “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.”

About a century later, another Greek philosopher, Socrates, offered, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.”

And Rome’s Seneca in the First Century CE, said in his Epistle 47:11, “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.”

Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote his Meditations 2.1, said Nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, for we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away. 

We’ll give American poet Edwin Markham the final observation:  “We have committed the Golden Rule to memory; let us now commit it to life.”

Markham might be best known for his simple poem, “Outwited”:

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

In Washington today, the Golden Rule is a tarnished gong, a clanging cymbal and the only circle is the one that shuts people out.

Wouldn’t a Christian Nation draw the circle that takes others in?

The Gulf

Posted on by
Reply

It’s the Gulf of Mexico. Period.

And calling it the Gulf of America is as silly as some people got after the September 2001 terrorist attacks when France opposed our invasion of Iraq by deciding to call French fries, Freedom Fries.

The pettiness and immaturity of a 78-year old man with a superiority complex was played out a few days ago when he threw a tantrum and banished an Associated Press reporter from an Oval Office press conference dominated not by the old man but by his  hatchet man. The reporters was not banned because he asked an impertinent question of either of the stars of the event.

He was barred from the event because the Associated Press won’t call the Gulf of Mexico the presidentially-designated Gulf of America.

To begin with, Trump’s executive order on the Gulf shows his usual ignorance of and respect for maritime/economic law and the authority of individuals as well as countries to keep calling it the Gulf of Mexico.

But never trouble Donald Trump with facts or with respecting any system, nations, and cultures that long-ago legally or at least culturally designated names of places.

Renaming Denali, for example, is disrespectful of the Koyukon Athabascan people who have lived in that area for centuries and have called it Denali. Not until 1896 was it called Mt. McKinley, and not by any official action or decision by an international naming agency but by a gold miner who started calling it McKinley to support a presidential candidate. President Wilson signed a bill in 1917 making McKinley the official name.

But the state of Alaska asked in 1975 that the United States Board on Geographical Place Names make the official name to the traditional Denali. Ohio Congressman Ralph Regula blocked it because McKinley’s hometown of Canton was in his district and he didn’t seem to care what generations of natives had called the mountain long before he came along. Canton is a long ways from Alaska and surely Regula (who died a few years ago) could have found something closer to home with which to make a headline.

The Board of Geographical Place Names?

The King of Renaming Puffery apparently does not know, or does not care about, the existence of such a body that was created in 1897 and assumed its present status by federal law in 1947. The board, part of the Department of the Interior, tries to allocate place names based on local custom “as well as principles, policies, and procedures governing the use of domestic names, foreign names, Antarctic names, and undersea feature names,” as one source puts it. More than fifty other nations have similar national bodies.

Such organizations are necessary to avoid confusion about what is what and where that what is.

Then there is the United Nations Economic and Social Council  and its nine-member Group of Experts on Geographical Names that has been reviews things every five years, beginning in 1960. Having a commonly-used name of a place is important in domestic and international trade.

But we are learning that this President has no regard for federal agencies or international programs, especially when he decides to show his power by ignoring them with executive orders. And woe be unto anyone who does not worship his impulses.

Here’s the deal about the Gulf of Whatever—

The United States does not OWN the Gulf of Mexico.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants countries control of waters about twelve nautical miles from the country’s shores. That’s the closest this country has to owning a gulf, a sea, or an ocean.

There also is an “Exclusive Economic Zone” that covers 200 miles of offshore water. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the zone allows this country to “explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources” in that area. That zone overlaps similar zones for Mexico and Cuba. But they don’t count in inner Trumpworld.

So the Great Geopolitician is asserting authority over Mexico and Cuba with his MAGA-pleasing proclamation, something outside his and his country’s authority. The solution to his situation should be easy for him: Make Mexico our 52nd state and Cuba our 53rd.

Canada already is in line to become number 51. And that brings us to another issue for our President and our takeover of Canada.

What’s with this St. Lawrence Seaway thing?

It allows oceangoing ships to travel from the Atlantic Ocean as far inland as Duluth, Minnesota.  It’s named for the St. Lawrence River that links Lake Ontario to the Atlantic. We expect an executive order soon renaming the thoroughfare the Duluth Seaway.

And while we’re at it, why is it the Missouri River when there are so many other states involved?  We can’t call it the Missouri-Kansas-Nebraska-Iowa-North Dakota-South Dakota, Montana River.  Let’s simplify it and just call it The Trump River and make it a symbol of his success at bringing the county together.

And then—

The administration’s new Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum says the department is considering redrawing boundaries of our national parks and historic sites so there’s more room to drill, baby, drill—even though we understand the major petroleum companies are less enthusiastic about the increased supply that will lower the pump prices of gas and oil.  But as long as we’re tinkering with those parks and historic sites—-

Let’s add the scowling Presidential visage to Mount Rushmore although rock experts have told the National Park Service the remaining rock is unstable.

It might be the perfect place for a Trump sculpture after all

(Actually, increased drilling should be welcomed by consumers who will pay less for the fuel it takes to buy their more-expensive groceries.)

And while we’re talking about the Gulf of Mexico, why don’t we annex the Caribbean?

Now back to the AP reporter. Trump’s action constitutes a punishment for a news agency that reports the news in a way he does not like.  That’s been illegal since John Peter Zenger was accused of libel by the Royal Governor of New York because Zenger’s New York Journal published an editorial critical of Governor William Cosby.

Cosby issued a proclamation condemning Zenger’s newspaper for “divers scandalous, virulent, false, and seditious reflections,” a crude eloquence we won’t find on (Un)Truth Social. It doesn’t even have an exclamation point, a misspelling, and a capitalized word.

Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton—the father of Alexander—argued that truth is an absolute defense against libel. It took a jury only ten minutes to find Zenger not guilty, a judgment that established press freedom in this country.

Trump’s hissy fit because the AP recognizes the internationally-established name for the Gulf of Mexico, while not a libel, is an exercise of press freedom. The press is not obligated to print the party line or the individual declaration of anyone, including Presidents with a totalitarian attitude.

–or as the AP put it, “As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audience.”  The AP does agree to change the mountain to Mt. McKinley in its style book.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group, commented, “President Trump has the authority to change how the U. S. government refers to the Gulf. But he cannot punish a new organization for using another term.”

Well, he did.  And he’s moving to punish news organizations who dare question his bloviating about any issue that pops into his head.

Someday, perhaps, we’ll get into a discussion of “America,” another word about which Trump is, shall we say, extremely uneducated.

The Portrait

Posted on by
Reply

It is not hard to dislike Donald Trump, especially if one overlooks the idea that he is, was, and always will be an unconventional President, to grossly understate his description.  Or if one does not understate it.

The fact is that he pulled off one of the most remarkable turn-arounds, perhaps THE most remarkable turnaround in American political history—although it was not the landslide he brags it was (in terms of the popular vote; although the electoral college was equally landslidey to the whipping he took four years earlier from Joe  Biden) .

You obedient observer does not recall anyone asking Trump him, as one asks those departing from office, how he wishes to be remembered. Trump already has answered that question with his presidential portrait for his second term.

If he wants to be remembered for this glowering, angry, and threatening image for the next century or two or more (we hope), so be it.  From his standpoint, that’s who he is today.

It’s a far cry from the portrait for his first term, which is used by the Trump Presidential Library.

The two portraits contrast the different places that Trump’s life has taken him as he regains the White House. The first exudes confidence, health, vigor, and excitement about being in the oval office, a winner. It’s a friendly image. He was a robust 70 then.

The second image is of a bitter old   man, worn by four years of well-deserved legal proceedings, one of which made him a felon and the second of which has seen an escalation of damages to more than one-half billion dollars while he appeals the finding. It shows a man driven by revenge, a man comfortable with his reputation as a bully who does not forgive those who question his lies or a country that will not be intimidated by his threats.

It is reminiscent of his mug shot taken at the Fulton County, Georgia jail, the first criminal mug shot taken of any previous President.  Reprinting it on t-shirts made him a lot of money.

And yes, there IS a Trump Presidential Library. It’s a website run by the National Archives nd Records Administration, the very organization he did not want to give some of his records to.  It’s considered a placeholder until a brick and mortar library is put up.

He’s 78 now, battered and facing questions about his own psychological stability—the same issue that dogged his predecessor in the recent campaign.

HuffPost writer Kimberly Richards consulted with some body language experts about what the portrait says. One, Mike Bowden, says the portrait “conveys a sense of aggression…the impression of intense targeting or scrutiny, as if he’s locked onto a subject.” He thinks the portrait “echoes the defiance” we see in the mug shot and turns it into “a statement of power and control” and a “readiness to confront and dominate.”

The CEO of the Body Language Institute, Janine Driver, thinks the new image “conveys    authority and determination. The absence of a smile signals seriousness, perhaps an effort to project strength…Whether one admires or critiques him, it’s hard to deny the intentionality behind every element of this new portrayal.”

I hate to say it but—wait, I don’t hate to say it:

The new portrait looks more like a mob boss than a President.  It looks like a man totally wrapped up in himself, the general population be damned.

But best of all, it looks like Donald Trump and it is the image that will represent who and what he is for generations to come. It is an image he carried through his inauguration—

—and is continuing through the next four years.

If he wants to be remembered as this kind of person, we will respect one of his few demonstrations of a commitment to truth.

Hearing a Speech Never Given 

Posted on by
Reply

A few minutes before President Kennedy was to arrive at the Dallas Trade Mart on November 22, 1963, he was murdered.

Some of his planned remarks are useful for us to consider today. The text of the speech is available from numerous sources.

But what if he had lived to deliver it?

Well, we now have an idea of how it would have sounded.

A few days ago, I listened to  John Kennedy deliver that speech, in which he said, among other things::

“Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country’s security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America’s leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.

“There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable…

“We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will ‘talk sense to the American people.’ But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense. And the notion that this Nation is headed for defeat through deficit, or that strength is but a matter of slogans, is nothing but just plain nonsense.”

As he neared the end of his speech he would have cited how American leadership through strength had blunted the Soviet Union’s expansionism.  He would have said:

“. There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and the American free enterprise system.”

He would have warned, “In today’s world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles – on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny.”

He would have concluded, “Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom…

“We in this country, in this generation, are – by destiny rather than choice – the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of “peace on earth, good will toward men.” That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: ‘except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’

Artificial Intelligence can be monstrously good and monstrously evil, which is why it is so frightening to many of those who have seen past promises of peaceful and proper use of technology turned inside out by those who have exploited them.  So it can be with AI, which is alternatively exciting and frightening.

But AI also has given us John Kennedy’s voice giving the speech he never lived to give.  You can read how it was done and then hear the speech here;

JFK video: hear Kennedy’s ‘lost’ Dallas speech in his own voice

The technology is remarkable—-and it is just beginning its ascendency.  And while listening to how technology has woven words into speech, it is more important to focus on the words never spoken—

“We in this country, in this generation, are – by destiny rather than choice – the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint,”

AI has given us that speech. Will human intelligence let us appreciate it in these angry times?