Category Archives: history

The Meaning of a Wisconsin Election

Posted on by
Reply

When a people choose vindictive self-service over broader public concern, they make an eventually correctible mistake.

When Congress replaces responsibility for the many with loyalty to one, a nation is in trouble.

When courts replace justice with ideology, a nation might be lost.

We live in and often must endure our own humanness. But there are protections that we must trust within our political system that keep our mistake from becoming our destruction.

This is such a time.

The current administration has attacked the courts and the “unelected judges” who are overturning unconstitutional executive orders, preferring that the court system get out of the way. We can be grateful that our founders made the court a road block to injustice.

Elected? The dangers of an elected judiciary were on plain view in Wisconsin a few days ago where an effort was made to buy a seat on the state supreme court for someone designated as a Trump supporter who would tilt the court majority politically toward Trump.

It has become obvious to many within the last few days that they were mistaken when they accepted without question the promises given last year by Donald Trump.  Now, they must place their hope with a Congress in which some are beginning to question their loyalty to him and wonder if they have the courage to remember their responsibility.

In the end, though, it is the courts that have the ultimate responsibility for saving our nation.

The courts cannot completely nor immediately reverse the course set by the mistake. But the courts are our ultimate and final refuge—

—-which is why the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election was so critical, not just for Wisconsin, but for all of us; not just because of WHO was elected but because of WHAT was rejected.

History has shown liberal or conservative-tilting courts are not always as clearly divided as the labels we attach to their individual members seem to indicate they will be. There is a middle ground that often is the resting place for compromise on carefully designed decisions. And it is that middle ground on the finest points of a case that might produce no major progress but will save us from any major regression.

Missouri originated a system that avoids the fight we recently saw in Wisconsin that featured a concerted effort to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. It is regrettable that we still allow people to try to buy part of our state constitution by financing multi-million dollar petition campaigns (last year’s sports wagering campaign in which the casino industry spent more than $40 million to get 3,000 more people to vote for sports wagering than voted against it after a misleading campaign is an example) and they can bankroll candidates for the legislature in an effort to buy laws.

But because our highest court judges are not elected, they cannot be bought.

Chief Justice Laura Denvir Smith, who also was the Chair of the Appellate Judicial Commission, told the Missouri Senate Rules Committee in 2007:

Judges are not intended to be politicians, choosing sides based on political considerations, or what the judge’s neighbors, fundraisers or special interest groups might think was best.  Deciding cases based on the judge’s or another’s perception of what is popular or politically expedient is inconsistent with one’s duty as a judge and is just plain wrong.  

The judicial branch of our democracy instead must be neutral, seeing that the laws are applied fairly, and providing stability in the law so that there is consistency in the rules by which people live their lives.  Although some court decisions are not popular, popularity is not the benchmark of quality in the judicial branch: The nature of our business is such that half the people are unhappy because they lost and some of the ones who won are unhappy because they don’t think they won enough.  

In every case, from a marital dissolution that only affects the couple and their children to an issue of constitutional validity, the role of the judicial branch is to resolve disputes neutrally and fairly based on the facts that are presented in court.  If they are doing their job correctly, judges decide based on the law and the facts, not based on the possible political ramifications of different results.

Sometimes the public, the parties and even the judges deciding a case are unhappy with its outcome, because the law may not produce a result that accords with our personal preferences. But if you ask those same people, when they have a case in court, whether they want a judge to pre-decide it based on the judge’s views of what will look good in the newspaper the next day, or, instead, whether they want a judge who will come to court with an open mind, listen to their side of the case, and reach a fair decision – they will pick the open mind and the fair decision – every time.

No one wants to worry that the case will be decided against them because the other side, or the other side’s lawyer, gave a large contribution to the judge’s election campaign, or to those politicians who appointed or nominated the judge for office.  Missourians learned long ago, before they adopted the nonpartisan plan, that is exactly what can and does happen when politics becomes a key factor in determining who will be a judge.

Missouri was the first state to adopt a non-partisan judicial selection process somce adopted by a majority of the states, although some states have added their own tweaks.

Although we adopted our plan in 1940 in an effort to take as much politics as possible out of the judicial selection process, the issue goes back to our first Constitution that was written in 1820 and had to be accepted by Congress before Missouri was allowed to become the 24th state.

That Constitution had the governor nominating judges at all levels and if the senate gave its consent to his nomination, the judges cold serve until they were 65 as long as they engaged in “good behavior.” But if the legislature found a judge having badly, it could by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber, ask the governor to remove a judge.

In the next couple of decades, though, Missourians began to doubt the wisdom of that latter point because it made the courts subservient to legislative politics and legislators were too influenced by special interests. Missouri became one of the states that decided the answer was judicial elections, legalized here in 1850.

By the start of the Twentieth Century and the machine politics of the time—the Pendergast family’s control of Democrat politics in its home town of Kansas City and in much of Missouri and the Butler machine in St. Louis, for example—the public became concerned that the judiciary’s independence was in doubt.

Beginning in 1903, when four state senators were indicted for taking bribes to vote on legislation specifying ingredients for Missouri-made baking powder and the supreme court overturned the first conviction and sentence and the other three cases never went to trial, there was suspicion that the supreme court had its own “boodle” scandal.

The Pendergast grip on Democratic politics statewide in the 1930s led to a push for adoption of a nonpartisan court plan known as “merit selection.” It was part of a national movement aimed at assuring our courts would be a true third branch of government.

When the legislature refused to hold an election on the proposal, an initiative petition forced a vote—and Missouri voters bought the idea in November, 1940.  When the legislature put a repeal of the plan on the 1942 ballot, voters strongly rejected it.

When our present state constitution was adopted in 1945, the plan was not touched.

The plan was limited to judges of the Missouri Supreme Court and courts of appeals. It also applied to some lower courts, including the probate courts, in the city of St. Louis and Jackson County. Other counties were given the option of adopting the plan.  But only six of our circuit courts have been put under the non-partisan plan, recognized nationally as The Missouri Plan.

Here is how it works:

A nonpartisan judicial commission, the Appellate Judicial Commission, solicits applications, interviews candidates and picks three finalists. The commission has three citizens appointed by the governor, three lawyers appointed by the Missouri Bar, with the chair being the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The commission picks three finalists whose names are made public, and the governor makes the final choice.

When a vacancy occurs, the commission seeks applicants and encourages the public to nominate well-qualified candidates for consideration. The commission reviews the applications of lawyers who wish to join the court and selects which applicants it will interview, then conducts those interviews in public. The commission then deliberates in a closed meeting to select a panel of three nominees for the governor’s consideration.

The governor has sixty days to announce his choice. If the governor fails to make a pick, the commission re-convenes and fills the vacancy. That has never been necessary.

The new judges then serve at least a year but then have to stand for retention in a statewide vote. The vote does not involve opposing candidates. It only asks citizens if the judge should be kept in office. There is no campaigning although the Missouri Bar’s Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee (made up of lawyers and non-lawyers) gives voters information about each of the judges up for retention so informed votes can be cast.

Although all counties can adopt this procedure, only a few use it. Only six jurisdictions do evaluations and hold non-partisan circuit judge elections—St. Louis city and county, Clay, Jackson, and Platte Counties in the Kansas City metro area, and Greene County (the Springfield area).

The plan is recognized as one that keeps politics out of judicial selection as much as possible. Unlike the federal system in which a President can reward friendly lawyers with juicy judicial appointments, this plan creates a process that sends up three people whose qualifications are based n their understanding of the law and the proper administration of it. There is no Senate approval of nominees, which would run the risk of politics being a major part of the process.

It does not keep those who want to degrade the legal system for their own protection or benefit from complaining about “unelected activist judges.”  But, having learned how it operates, this system might make it clear that some of the current attacks on the judiciary have no grounds, at least not here and not in our appellate court system.

The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan is the greatest protection we have against those who want to replace justice with ideology.

 

I Have a New Necktie

Posted on by
Reply

–and I’m going to use it to make a point (other than the one at the end of the tie).

You probably have heard the old saying about a person who wears his (or her) heart on his or her sleeve.  How about wearing some of your family heritage around your neck?

It can become a reminder of who you are, or part of you.

While we were in Scotland last summer, we went into a couple of tartan shops.  Knowing that the older I get, the older my knees look, I knew that I could not wear the kind of clan tartan my Scottish ancestors wore.

I hinted broadly that a tartan shirt or a tartan necktie would look pretty good, though, as a Christmas present. But, alas, my Lady was too distracted by starting our eventual move to a new zip code to remember my hints.

(Actually, Nancy is recognized in Scotland as a Lady, which makes me a Laird, because she owns some land there.  She has read all of the Outlander books and we watch the TV series each week, which led me a few years ago to buy her a piece of land in the auld country.  I think it is an entire square foot of land in a Scottish land preserve.)

Anyway—

A few weeks ago I took the matter into my own hands and I ordered a tartan- patterned necktie.

This is the ancient tartan of MacDonald of Clan Ranald. A more modern tartan is available, but this great grandson of Ranald McKechnie, a Scotsman who arrived in Kansas in the 1870s via Canada, wanted to wear his older roots around his neck.

We are a very old batch of folks, all the way back to the 12th Century, and we were somewhat inhospitable. In fact, we were downright hostile.  We were known as being warlike. In fact—and this might mean something to Outlander followers—my ancestors helped defeat the Clan Fraser in the 1544 battle of Kinloch Lochy, also known as the “Battle of the Field of the Shirts” because the warriors fought on such a hot day that men on both sides discarded their shirts. When this vicious battle was over, only five Frasers and eight MacDonalds were still alive.

The home of my clan was Castle Tiorim. It remains, although it is unhabitable.

The MacDonalds were on the British side during the Jacobite rebellion that was dramatized in the books and on Outlander. Scottish Prince Charlie made a bid to get his father installed on the British throne but was routed at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, fought on a field near Inverness that we visited last June.

After hearing our tour guide describe the battle, I remarked that the circumstances reminded me of the American Battle of  Bunker Hill (which was fought on Breed’s Hill). He commented that the sons and grandsons of the MacDonalds at Culloden were part of the victorious British forces that day in Boston.

So much for any hopes of being a member of the Sons of the American Revolution.

The point of this journey through a family history that probably holds little interest for you is just this:

History, your history, can be an exciting thing to explore if you look beyond dates on tombstones and, instead, at the events of the dash—the mark between the dates  of birth and death—because our ancestors did not exist in a vacuum. Learning about the events they witnessed either in person or from a distance humanizes them, brings them closer, and often explains why they wound up where they did—and an understanding of how  you wound up where you are.

The history most of us took in elementary and secondary school, the kind taught chronologically while ignoring the social and economic issues that drove the nation to be what it was, earned the reputation of being boring.

It is like Kansas, or at least the popular view of it.  Kansas, however, is NOT boring.

I-70 is boring.  But a few miles off it is where you will discover life, past and present.

So it is with genealogy. Dates are boring most of the time. But what those ancestors did and what was around them in the years of the dash is where you will find understanding of them and maybe a bit of yourself.

 

 

The Immigrants 

Posted on by
1

I had planned on a more frivolous entry for today, but Monday I read Barbara Shelley’s commentary on The Missouri Independent website and I think it is far more important than anything I could offer.  She was an respected reporter with the Kansas City Star in my reporting days and remains a respected observer of our times. In this entry, she puts human faces onto the victims of President Trump’s vicious immigration policies that show no concern for who is hurt by them—people or our nation.

Once in America, immigration was a sign of our greatness, of our country’s promise, and our ancestors (yours and mine) came here to seek it. Now those people are villainized with lies from our President.

It is heart-breaking for one who memorized in his school days Thomas Wolfe’s Promise of America to read Barbara’s description of what President Trump has brutally cancelled in our national character. Perhaps you memorized it, too:

” So, then, to every man his chance—to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity—to every man the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him — this, seeker, is the promise of America.”

Here’s her commentary about the crushing of that promise:

Friends and family arrived bearing flowers. Smiling volunteers pointed the way to seats.

Everyone loves a naturalization ceremony. I attended one recently at a branch of the Kansas City Public Library and watched 71 new American citizens swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Even more immigrants had taken the oath earlier in the day.

“This room is full of the most brilliant minds that the world knows,” Wasim Khan, a cultural leader, told the group. “You guys are the teachers. You know what it takes to be here.”

After the ceremony, as League of Women Voters volunteers swooped in to invite the new citizens to register, I asked a few people how long they have been in America.

Eight years, 12 years, too many years to count.

Naturalized citizenship is a long, expensive process and everyone who achieves it does so through a combination of grit and good fortune.

I’ve attended several of these ceremonies over the years to cheer on people I’ve had the privilege to know.

One was a piano teacher who came here from Kyrgyzstan to study at American universities. Several others arrived as refugees. They overcame language barriers and all the hardships of poverty to arrive at their naturalization ceremonies as educated, hardworking contributors to their communities.

The recent ceremony was no different from others I’ve witnessed, but I couldn’t summon the usual measure of joy.

Rather, I kept wondering what a naturalization ceremony will look like once the xenophobic policies of the Trump administration have been fully brought to bear.

Last year, I signed up to participate on a team that would sponsor a refugee family, in cooperation with a resettlement agency. I told myself that it would be a satisfying act of resistance in case Donald J. Trump won the presidency.

Along with others, I welcomed a family of eight at Kansas City’s airport on a snowy evening 12 days before Trump’s inauguration. They were exhausted and one person was ill but they were here and we were ready to introduce them to America.

We had no idea how difficult that was going to be.

Within a week of taking office, Trump had slammed the door to new refugee admissions and cut off funding for the families who had recently arrived.

The resettlement community had anticipated the first move. It was gobsmacked by the second. With an executive order, Trump wiped out money that was supposed to pay for rent and utilities, medical screenings and other services for hundreds of people who had entered the United States legally in the last 90 days.

Agencies went into emergency fundraising mode, but Trump’s action was crippling. The agency I volunteer for lost nearly $1 million of federal money it had counted on. Part of that amount was already spent in rent deposits and other costs.

It’s nearly impossible to cover a gap like that through donations. Within weeks two agencies in Kansas City laid off close to half their staffs. A smaller nonprofit laid off its entire refugee services staff. A mid-Missouri agency shut down its resettlement program.

My role in the resistance now includes scanning job ads for something that might work for adults who speak only a little English and will have to ride to work on the bus. I’ve become familiar with the difficulties of booking an appointment at the local Social Security office — and good luck once Elon Musk gets through with that program.

The family that my team works with was routed from their ancestral home and spent years in limbo in a neighboring country. The adults are fully aware that the leader of the United States does not want them here.

Their status is legal, but they are afraid. They grieve family members left behind in a refugee camp, clinging to hopes of a reunion that may not happen in this lifetime.

In my head, I construct sentences that begin with “at least.”

At least they aren’t here on humanitarian parole status — a category of immigrants more endangered than refugees.

At least they have a place to stay, a small rental house in a hollowed-out part of Kansas City. A recent New York Times story reported on newly arrived refugees in St. Louis languishing in motels on highway interchanges because the resettlement agency there was unable to pay apartment leases.

At least members of my family have friends. Immigrants from their home country have sought them out and embraced them.

The situation could always be worse. But it is bad enough.

Refugee resettlement is a way of participating in the global good. Therefore, it is not a priority in Trump’s “America First” agenda.

The immigrants whom I witnessed as they became naturalized citizens last month represented 36 nations, including some of the most troubled, like Haiti, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

They had cleared a high bar to get to the ceremony. All of them passed a civics test that most Americans would find daunting. They were deemed to be of “good moral character,” a standard that we don’t necessarily demand from our nation’s leaders.

Congratulations to the new Americans. May we always find a path for them.

-0-

Or, may we rediscover the greatness that provided a path for them and have the courage to admit the disgrace we have allowed our President to bring to the Promise of America.

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?