Category Archives: Places

Hawley’s Christian Nation: Would You Want to Live in it?

Posted on by
2

Our Senior Senator recently (July 11) proclaimed at the National Conservatism Conference that we live in a Christian nation:

Some will say now that I am calling America a Christian nation. And so I am. And some will say I am advocating Christian nationalism. And so I do. Is there any other kind worth having? …It has been our moral center and supplied our most cherished ideals. Just think: Those stern Puritans…gave us limited government and liberty of conscience and popular sovereignty.

Because of our Christian heritage, we protect the liberty of all to worship according to conscience. Because of our Christian tradition, we welcome people of all races and ethnic backgrounds to join a nation constituted by common loves.

Hawley claimed that Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis, better known to us as St. Augustine, originated the idea of Christian Nationalism, “a nationalism driven not by conquest but by common love; a nation made not for the rich or for the strong, but for the ‘poor in spirit,’ the common man.”

He went on to proclaim this country was defined by Augustine’s vision—the dignity of the common man, as given to us in the Christian religion; a nation held together by the homely affections articulated in the Christian faith—love for God, love for family, love for neighbor, home, and country.”

Christian nationalism is not a threat to democracy, he claimed. In fact, it founded American democracy. “It is..the most just, the most free, the most humane and praiseworthy,” he said.

Hawley has called for the recovery of “the principles of our Christian political tradition…for the sake of our future.”

He charged “the modern left” with wanting to “destroy our common bonds and replace them with another faith, to dissolve the nation as we know it, and remake it in our image. This has been their project for 50 years and more.”

Let’s take a closer look at Hawley’s demagoguery—the appeal to, as one definition tells us, “the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than using rational argument.”

Note that he claimed our Christian heritage protects “the liberty of all to worship according to conscience” and leads us to “welcome people of all races and ethnic backgrounds to join our nation constituted by common loves.”

Is that the kind of Christian heritage that has motivated his close buddy, Donald Trump, to try to ban Muslims from this country and to threaten mass deportations of a scope never before seen?

Shame on “the modern left” for plotting to “dissolve the nation as we know it?”  Is he saying the “modern left” wants to make this a Muslim country?

Is Trump’s “beautiful wall” welcoming “people of all races and ethnic backgrounds” to come here?  Are his wildly untrue claims that all of the people crossing the Rio Grande are escaped mental patients, fentanyl smugglers, rapists and killers an example of “welcoming people of all races and ethnic backgrounds” to become Americans, a “nation constituted by common loves?”

Let’s take a somewhat long journey to see just how much Hawley or anybody else would like to live in the so-called Christian nation that he claims we were founded to be. He is, after all, correct in maintaining that we have drifted away from that era.

As well we should have.

History teaches us that the New Testament admonition that one should love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself was not a foundation of those pious founders.  Perhaps the most unloved people were—-

Baptists.

Professor Thomas Kidd from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary says Baptists “were the most likely ‘well meaning’ Christians to be thrown in jail on the eve of the American Revolution.”

Our Pilgrim and Puritan founders believed in freedom of THEIR religion—and woe be unto anybody who did not embrace their interpretation of the Anglican faith such as Baptists who insisted immersion baptism was the biblical way to do it. But the Anglicans held that baptism was for  infants and, says Kidd, waiting until a person was old enough to understand the ordinance of baptism amounted to child abuse.

Baptists also refused to attend Anglican services. They refused to pay taxes to support churches.  Their preachers refused to get licenses from the government. And they wouldn’t stay put. They circulated their heretical beliefs and practices by having preachers traveling throughout the colonies performing baptisms in creeks, rivers, and lakes.

In Massachusetts, the cradle for the birth of our “Christian nation,” a law was passed in 1645 calling Baptists “the incendiaries of commonwealths” and accused them of being “the troublers of churches in all places.”

In 1651, one Obadiah Holmes was sentenced to receive thirty lashes for proselytizing among the Baptists. He told  the whipping officer, “I am now come to be baptized in affliction by your hands, that so I may have further fellowship with my Lord, and am not ashamed of his suffering, for by his stripes am I healed.” Afterward he smiled at his critics and said he had been struck “as with roses.”  Kidd’s telling of the story does not include the reaction of the Christians who ordered him whipped.

One reason James Madison wanted freedom of religion in the Constitution was because he had seen this oppression of Baptists firsthand. He wrote a friend in 1774 to complain of the “diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution” that had landed “not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in [jail] for publishing their religious sentiments.”  He urged his friend to “pray for liberty of conscience to revive among us.”

Quakers were enemies of the state, too.  Several missionaries were kicked out of the colony in the years after the Holmes whipping and told not to return.  Three did go back.  The Massachusetts Christians hanged them.

And THIS is the Christian heritage that Hawley says we should revere as one that protects “the liberty of all to worship according to conscience?”

The most famous exclusions from Massachusetts are Roger Williams and his wife Mary and Anne Hutchinson.  The Williamses were charged with sedition and heresy. In addition to circulating his public differences with the Church of England, Williams also publicly condemned the King’s charters for the Massachusetts colony and argued the Plymouth settlers had no right to take land from the Native Americans.

As for Anne Hutchinson—probably this country’s first “Uppity Woman”—she not only questioned the traditional Puritan teachings and sermons, but also held study groups of other women to discuss those differences at a time when women were to be silent and obedient to their husbands. AND her meetings became so popular that she began holding them for men, one of whom was the governor of the colony. In 1637, a provincial court convicted her—without saying specifically of what—and banished her.

The Williamses and Anne Hutchinson were among the founders of the Colony of Rhode Island and of Providence Plantation. Williams ruled the colony would not have any state religion and all who lived there would be free to practice their beliefs.

One of those Williams had corresponded with was William Penn, a Quaker who had been expelled from the Church of England and was later imprisoned in England for advocating religious pluralism, He protested against mistreatment of Quakers in Massachusetts and when King Charles II decided o pay off a debt to Penn’s father, Sir William Penn, by granting a charter to an area in the new World he called “Pennsylvania, Sir William’s son decided to create a “tolerance settlement” where persecuted Christians could take refuge. Although there was no established church, the colony’s 1776 Constitution required all government representatives to swear, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” .

Baptist historian and pastor Isaac Backus, who lived through some of those times, recalled that when Baptists in Sturbridge, Massachusetts refused to pay taxes to support the Congregationalist Church, they were imprisoned for tax evasion. One of them was Backus’s mother in 1752.  Four years before that, says contemporary Baptist historian William Lloyd Allen, “a Congregational minister convinced authorities to clear Baptist homes of cookware, tools, spinning wheels and even livestock used to make livings, among other valuable goods.”

When Backus went to the Massachusetts delegation to the 1775 Continental Congress—at a time when the phrase “no taxation without representation” was being shouted—his complaint that state church taxes on Baptists, none other than John Adams responded that Baptists “might as well expect a change in the solar system as to expect they would give up their establishment.”

In 1617, the Governor of the Virginia Colony decreed, “Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month, and for the Third, a Year and a Day.”

More than thirty Baptist preachers were jailed in Virginia in the decade before Madison and Jefferson forged Virginia’s Bill for Establishing Religious Liberty in 1786 a few years before Madison’s religion clause was added to the Bill of Rights.

But state-supported religion hung around well after that. The 14th Amendment left any religious requirements for voting or holding office moot.  New Hampshire in 1875 and North Carolina in 1877 were the last states to actually remove such references from their state constitutions.

New York was “intolerantly Protestant,” as one source puts it. The Dutch Reformed Church was the established church in New Amsterdam until the English seized control in 1664. They continued the Dutch Reform policy. The 1683 New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges vowed to “guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have sourced mankind,” a seeming reference to English opposition to the Catholic faith.

Maryland’s 1632 charter professed, “It is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, and all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection of their religious liberty…” But the legislature had the power to “lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.”

Mayland had begun as the only predominantly Catholic colony. Adelaide Mena wrote for the National Catholic Register that the first English Catholics fleeing persecution in England arrived in Maryland on March 25, 1684 and held the first Mass in the British colonies. Maryland passed a Toleration Act in 1649, she says, marking “the beginning of a framework of religious freedom.”

Delaware had no official religion in its 1637 Charter issued to the South Company of Sweden.

Connecticut’s1630 charter established the Congregational Church was the “onely and principall end of this plantation.”

South Carolina’s 1778 Constitution not only declared, “The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.” It also required any group wanting to form a church to meet five criteria:  That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments;  That God is publicly to be worshipped. That the Christian religion is the true religion; That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice; That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.”

New Jersey, in its 1776 constitution, provided that ‘No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles.”

Note that several of the charters specifically referred to the Protestant religion.

Catholics were a different matter.

The Georgia charter of 1732 simply banned Catholics from the colony, proclaiming, “There shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said provinces and that all such persons, except papists, shall have a free exercise of their religion…”

The Georgia Historical Society says early Georgians, concerned that Spanish Florida bordered the colony, feared Catholic settlers would be Spanish sympathizers if Spain and Britain went to war.

Georgia Trustees also didn’t want Jews, but circumstances forced the issue. When summer heat and sicknesses that came with it left 60 of Savannah’s colonists in fear of their lives—with the town’s only doctor also sick—the arrival of a ship full of Jews that included Dr. Samuel Nunez, saved the day.  Nunez accepted no pay as he nursed all sixty ailing Georgians back to health. Colony founder James Oglethorpe saw that the colony’s charter allowing religious freedom for all non-Catholics meant the Jews, not being Catholics, could stay and more could settle. The nation’s third oldest Jewish congregation is in Georgia.

We have not even scratched the surface of our colonial history when we were a “Christian Nation,” as Hawley and his associates incorrectly maintain, hoping that public ignorance of our history—which these folks want to make national policy—will let them establish their theocracy.

We doubt that Hawley would want to live in the nation that he thinks we need to return to.  Of course, if he’s the Presbyterian Puritan Elder it would probably be okay with him.

Our “Christian” founders punished Baptists, Quakers, Jews, and Catholics.  They thought slavery was fine and saw fit to banish non-adherents to some other place—in their day, it was to Rhode Island.

And they also relied on the Doctrine of Discovery, which proclaimed the right of Christian nations to take possession of lands held by non-Christians. The doctrine was enacted in the 15th century, the last one after Columbus’s discoveries in the new world. Non-Christians were not considered legitimate possessors of the lands and the European discoverers were authorized to take them in order to Christianize the heathens and save their souls, thus clearing the way for Europeans to seize Native American lands, by force if necessary, a policy that produced what some call our Native American genocide.

Ironically, the doctrine used by our Christian forbears had been proclaimed by Popes whose later followers were not considered Christians by Hawley’s Christian founders.

Even today, there are those who still maintain that Catholics are not Christian—you can ask the person whose pickup truck I saw a few years ago that had “Catholics are not Christians” painted on the tailgate.  We will leave it to others to determine if there is any significance in the fact that it has been 64 years since the election of our first, and so far, only Catholic President, and the election of our first black President still has some on Hawley’s side of our politics still arguing he wasn’t (and I guess, therefore is still not) an American.

And good gracious, our southern border is a sieve that is allowing thousands of people from Catholic countries in central and South America to flood into our Christian nation where they are—as the Republican nominee for President has put it—“poisoning the blood of our country.”

We are reminded of a small orange card in the massive collections at the Smithsonian in Washington from an organization  that claimed about 1930 to be “a religious movement of American Brotherhood.”  It says it stands for “a dozen “tenents of  the Christian Religion.”

—The Upholding of the Constitution of the United States

—The Separation of Church and State

—Freedom of Speech and Press

—Closer Relationship of Pure Americanism.

—Much needed local reform.

—Closer Relationships between American Capital and American Labor

—Limitation on Foreign Immigration

—The Upholding of our States Rights

—Prevention of fires and Destruction of Property by Lawless Elements

—Preventing the Causes of Mob Violence and Lynchings

—Preventing Unwarranted Strikes  by Foreign Labor Agitators.

—Protection of Our Pure Womanhood

And the top tenant of the Christian Religion:

—White Supremacy.

The title on the card reads, “The Creed of the Ku Klux Klan.”

Christian Nationalism boiled down to a 3×5 orange card.

We must be careful whose definition of “Christian” we are told is best for us. We must be skeptical of those who twist history and religion to seek power over us.  We cannot protect our freedoms if we are comfortable being ignorant of our past—and there are those who ARE comfortable relying on that ignorance.  In fact, they are counting on it to achieve their goals.

The Bible teaches us that the greatest quality we can have is love of others as of ourselves. Those who proclaim that hate and fear of others while proclaiming to know the true definition of Christianity must be challenged.

Senator Hawley is only 400 years behind the times. Our country has been there and it wasn’t good enough to go back to. He can go ahead by himself. We’re going to stay behind, happy that our church is next to a Baptist Church and we got along fine.  We love our Catholic neighbor. And we fear Josh Hawley more than any of the Hispanic folks we meet on the street.

The 28th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity has scared the bejesus out of  a lot of people on both sides of the aisle because it grants Presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts but leaves the President liable for his unofficial acts. The ruling puts the first determination of what’s official and what is not into the hands of judges hearing cases accusing former President Trump of making illegal efforts to change the outcome of the 2020 election and of taking classified documents with him when he left office—among other alleged sins. Any decisions by the judges can be appealed to the Supreme Court, further delaying any final disposition of the cases.

There are some things we haven’t heard discussed much that might backfire on Trump.

Some think the ruling means that this entire issue will dog Trump’s campaign for weeks. The public discussion of what he did or didn’t do could continue, if not increase, the uncertainty about whether his party and his voters will elect a President who also is a jailbird or, under a reasonable person’s concept of proper behavior, should be one.

Presidential liability will be awfully hard to describe but right off, the amendment should provide that no President can pardon himself for any crimes, official or unofficial.

It should begin with this concept:

The President of the United States, constitutionally, must be born in this country or an area that is considered part of the United States (overseas military bases, for example).  The President, therefore is, first of all, a citizen of a country often described as “a country of laws, not of kings.”  To suggest that a citizen elevated by fellow citizens to the most important office in the land has been given powers by those citizens that go beyond the law governing all citizens except for himself or herself is absurd.

Period.

We are wondering if the nation’s top legal scholars are starting to coalesce into a working group that will draft an amendment clearly stating that a President can be held criminally liable, even for official acts. The concern that a president could legally order the assassination of a rival, while seeming extreme, is a real concern, given Trump’s boasting.

But what about a President allowing water boarding?  Dropping atomic bombs on cities?  Freeing slaves in rebelling states?  Ordering Japanese-Americans into concentration camps without due process? Closing banks in bad economic times?  Sending federal troops to cities?

Think back to historic presidential actions—-the evacuation of Native Americans from their homelands in the east and forcing them to walk to hostile land in future Oklahoma.

Buying the entire Louisiana Territory and financing it with money borrowed from a hostile country (England) without authorization from Congress.

Congressman Joe Morelle of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, announced the day before Independence Day that he will introduce a proposed 28th Amendment “to reverse the Supreme Court’s catastrophic decision and ensure no president is above the law. This amendment will do what they failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” He continued in a statement from his office, “The Supreme Court decision will cause a seismic shift in the powers of the presidency unless we take immediate action to ensure accountability, integrity, and justice prevail.”

He sent a letter to his colleagues saying, “This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” urging his colleagues “to stand with me on the front line to protect our democracy.”

“Immediate action,” unfortunately, is unlikely and perhaps unlikely in the hyper-partisan Congress. The House and the Senate both must approve the resolution with two-thirds votes.  If that occurs, three-fourths of the states, 38, will have to ratify the amendment before it is added to the Constitution.  The process could take years, far more years than Donald Trump will serve if he is re-elected. But the danger Congressman Morelle sees flowing from Trump is real and it is imminent and there is precedent.

0-0-0-0

What Trump did and said after the death five years ago of George Floyd prompted the Chicago Council of Lawyers to speak out. It’s a little long but it’s important reading in today’s climate.

The United States is a Nation Ruled by Laws, Not Kings

The Rule of Law, not the rule of kings, is a founding principle of our country. It remains a core principle that defines who we are as Americans. It allows each of us to walk down a public street without fear of being grabbed, without cause, by government police and thrown into an unmarked van. It allows us to have a peaceful potluck with friends without fear that a government official will use violence against us just for getting together. It allows us to speak our mind against government policies, without worrying that those with power will use our speech as a reason to harm us…  

The Rule of Law in the United States does not begin with the President. It does not begin with any political party. It begins with Our Constitution…The President isn’t at the top. The Constitution is…

The original Constitution is mainly about one thing: power. The Constitution’s structure for our government is borne from the core principle that a single individual should not hold all power.  It divides power between three branches of government, and it further divides power between the federal government and the States, whose laws are also subject and subordinate to the Constitution…

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled that none of the Bill of Rights, not even the First Amendment, is unlimited. But these Court decisions recognize that the limits on our individual rights must be constructed with care and exercised in a narrow and judicious manner. In 1969, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham) held, in protecting an American citizen’s right to protest and also allowing for certain limited restrictions, that any licensing requirement for “free expression in publicly owned places” is unconstitutional if it’s not narrowly defined and objectively applied.

The Constitution, again seeking to limit federal authority, provides that each state is empowered to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public within its state. The power of states is reflected in the fact that most criminal law is state law; most police forces are state police forces, not federal. While there is some federal criminal law, in comparison to state criminal laws, it is narrow and constrained.  There is no federal law giving a President the right to direct federal officers to occupy a city or a state or to dominate any part of a state, on his own accord, without an invitation from a state government that is seeking help.

Federal law gives federal authorities the right to conduct some actions within states, but these authorized acts are targeted and constrained. Federal agents are authorized to protect federal properties. Federal agents are authorized to enforce federal criminal laws, such as kidnapping, bank robbery, criminal conspiracy, human trafficking, mail fraud, and other specific laws. This all fits within our established system of laws.  These laws are all tailored to fit within the bounds of our Constitution.

Federal Officers are Doing Precisely What the Constitution Prohibits

Is the President following these laws? Is he abiding his oath to serve the Constitution? What are federal officers in Portland doing? As summarized on July 17 by Charlie Warzel, an opinion writer at large for The New York Times:

Thursday night [July 16] marked the 50th consecutive night of demonstrations in Portland, Ore. The protests began after the killing of George Floyd—tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest police violence and racial injustice. Since then, the protests have grown smaller, but clashes between law enforcement officers and protesters have escalated—on July 12, videos circulated of a federal officer shooting a protester in the head with a nonlethal munition, resulting in a skull fracture. Coverage of the unrest has caught the attention of President Trump, who vowed to ‘dominate’ the protesters with federal law enforcement officers.

 The New York Times reported the story of Christopher David, a former Navy Civil Engineering Corps Officer and a 1988 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy:

“I wasn’t even paying attention to the protests at all until the feds came in,” Mr. David said. “When that video came out of those two unmarked guys in camouflage abducting people and putting them in minivans, that’s when I became aware.”

He had taken a bus to the Portland courthouse and was about to leave around 10:45 p.m. when federal officers emerged and began advancing on the protesters. He said he felt the need to ask the officers, Why were they violating their oath to the Constitution?

Instead of getting an answer on Saturday, Mr. David, a 6-foot-2, 280-pound former Navy varsity wrestler, found himself being beaten with a baton by a federal officer dressed in camouflage fatigues as another doused him with pepper spray, according to video of the encounter.

 As Mr. David noted, one widely circulated video from Portland shows a group of men in camouflage military-like uniforms emerging from a van that one might see in anywhere USA, grabbing a protester walking alone on the sidewalk, not on or next to federal property, forcing him into the van without telling him who they were or why they grabbed him, and driving away.  Another video shows federal police using tear gas and flash bangs on a single line of about two dozen mothers linked arm-to-arm, wearing bike helmets, and chanting “moms are here, Feds stay clear.”

Every Oregon official that might have authority to request help from federal officers has pleaded for the federal agents to leave. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told NBC News that the presence of federal agents was making things worse: “…They’re not wanted here. We haven’t asked them here. In fact, we want them to leave.” Oregon Governor Kate Brown asked the President directly to withdraw these agents from her state. The Washington Post reported on July 17 that the Governor said: “I told him that the federal government should remove federal officers from our streets. I said it’s like adding gasoline to a fire.” The Post also reported that Governor Brown is convinced that “‘they are not interested in problem solving,’ and this has ‘nothing to do with public safety.’”

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has sued to prohibit these federal agents from making further arrests and continuing to violate the Constitutional rights of protesters and those detained. “I think every American needs to be concerned about what’s happening here in Portland. These federal agencies are operating with no transparency and against the will of just about every leader in our state,” said Rosenblum.

Federal officials claim that federal law gives their agents the authority to do what they are doing, regardless of whether proper state authorities request their presence. These claims are specious, at best. It is not even a close call…

The federal agents are not limiting their targets to the specific individuals violating federal law by damaging federal property.  They are not using their authority narrowly, when they use their weapons against mothers standing in a line chanting or when they strike and pepper spray a U.S. Navy veteran who is trying to talk with them. These federal officers are not judiciously using their authority when they grab a man walking alone on the street and take him by force into an unmarked van and drive him away to an undisclosed location – all without any probable cause or identifying themselves as federal officers.

Whatever the reason, the federal officers are making the streets of Portland more lawless, not less. These federal officers are openly and egregiously violating the rights of peaceful, law-abiding mothers, veterans, and other Americans, rather than protecting them. These federal officers are jeopardizing the safety of local law enforcement, not bolstering it…

Trump is now Primed to Attack the Rule of Law in Chicago

The President now appears to be targeting Chicago, just as he has targeted Portland – but this time, the President is not even offering the guise of protecting federal property as the reason.  The Chicago Tribune reported on July 20 that the “U.S. Department of Homeland Security is crafting plans to deploy about 150 federal agents to Chicago this week.” The paper reports that the Department has not disclosed its plan for the additional agents, and that even the Superintendent of the Chicago Police does not know why this administration is sending additional federal law enforcement.

The President has talked as recently as July 20 about sending in troops to fix the local violence problem in Chicago. It is undeniable that parts of Chicago do have a serious gun violence problem that needs to be fixed. Reasonable people have asked whether more government policing would help; other reasonable people have asked whether it might help to do policing in another way. Whatever the solution or solutions might be, the President has no legal authority —without a request from legally authorized Illinois officials—to move federal officers to Chicago for the purpose of confronting local crime issues.  Neither Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot nor Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker have requested additional federal officers for that purpose.

There have been ongoing peaceful protests on issues of anti-Black racial injustice in our town, but there has been little-to-no reported property damage from the recent demonstrations.  Further, and more to the point, we are not aware of a single report of any damage to federal properties from the recent protests…Yet, Trump has recently grouped Portland with Chicago and other American cities, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, and New York, as places of “anarchy.” For Chicago, and we expect for the other named cities too, this is less true than saying that a naked emperor is wearing the most beautiful clothes ever made from satin and silk. Chicago is dealing with modern American problems, to be sure, which now include COVID-19 – but Chicago is not a place where anarchy reigns…

Our system starts with the Rule of Law, not the rule of a king or an emperor or even a President.

President Trump and the leaders of the officers in his administration apparently have no shame. The Trump administration started to use federal agents dressed in military gear to attack peaceful, law-abiding citizens in Portland. Now, it is moving federal officers into Chicago to possibly do the same thing in our city; it is threatening to deploy more federal officers in other cities throughout America…Whatever federal agents are now doing in Portland, we do know one thing about their actions: they are not doing them in the name of the law.

Many people fear the United States Supreme Court has blown a hole in the Constitution and has given Donald Trump Carte Blanche to do anything that he wishes to do in carrying out his stated vengeance campaign.

It is beyond urgent that this hole in the Constitution be closed. It is time to create Donald Trump’s legacy—-which he will not want—-by enacting a 28th Amendment to protect all of us from someone who believes he is greater than the country he seeks to rule.

 

The Difference 

Posted on by
2

Tomorrow is Independence Day, the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. Only two people definitely signed it that day, The President of the Congress, John Hancock, and Secretary Charles Thompson.   Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams claimed they signed it then, too, but historians have disagreed for decades on whether they did and when the other signers added their signatures.

The course of human events had made it necessary to dissolve the political bands that had linked the colonies with Great Britain.

What of the people from whom we separated?  Are they different from us after almost 250 years?

We recently spent two weeks sharing streets, buildings, restaurants, and other places with them, people differing from us only in accent, the side of the road on which they drive, and dogs.

The people of the United Kingdom do love their dogs and they take them everywhere. It’s a rare restaurant that has a sign we are familiar with: “Service dogs only.”   We saw one sign that told us we could buy vegan ice cream for our dog inside.  One of our hotels had a kiosk with a dog menu.

We loved our exploration of their country.  We enjoyed meeting the many people we met. Our guides were incredible.  Every citizen was friendly and courteous and proud to show us things or explain things—-as we would be for those from England who visit our country. They, like us, are free people.  But our definitions of freedom are a little bit different—-which is why our country got its divorce in 1776.

But few citizens of this country likely would want to trade places with those good folks as far as government is concerned and as far as the citizen’s voice is heard in government.

Much of our system of government and laws is based on the centuries-old policies born in England starting with King John I’s acceptance of demands by several of his Barons at Runnymede in June, 1215 in the Magna Carta. The document placed the King and all the Sovereigns who have come after him within the rule of law, a concept we are arguing in this country more than 800 years later.

The document remains a symbol of freedom from government oppression. It’s philosophy was brought to our shores with the early English settlers and was a precedent for the Declaration of Independence.

But our founders took the concepts far beyond the Magna Carta, and we were surprised by how hard our differences in approach to rule hit home with us during our visits to two places within the last month.

This is the Tower of London:

And this is Edinburgh Castle in Scotland:

What is inside these two structures says much about our differing national concepts of government.

The Tower of London, among other things, is the home of The Crown Jewels.  Edinburgh Castle houses the much smaller Honours of Scotland, that country’s crown jewels that date from the days before Scotland became part of the United Kingdom. When a new monarch is coronated, these items are ceremonially donned to symbolize the monarchy’s rule over all of the UK.

We would like to show you pictures of this collection; it’s overwhelming. But photography is not allowed in the darkened rooms where spotlights illuminate the sparkling and glowing treasured regalia that is kept behind enclosures. Visitors can purchase a $10 guidebook, however.  Although it devotes fourteen of its eighty pages just to the various crowns in the collection, it cannot carry the impact of walking into dark rooms with illuminated display cases filled with large sparkling items of gold and jewels.

The guidebook to the collection at the Tower of London tells visitors:

Kings of England had a crown for everyday use, and the coronation crown that was worn rarey but was the ultimate symbol of their sacred and regal authority. The crowns were accompanied by other symbols of power: a sceptre indicating control over the realm and royal rights; a rod representing the responsibility to protect the people; a decorated sword for military strength; and an orb; a globe representing the world with a cross on top symbolizing Christ’s power over all creation

The Crown Jewels include more than 23,000 gemstones and more than 100 objects. The value of the collection is placed as much as six BILLION dollars, although officially they are considered priceless. One diamond, the Cullinan, has an estimated value of $430 million

The collection says everything about the difference between our system of government and the English system of government.

These jewel-encrusted items are symbols intended to make it clear that power is separate from and far above the people, and that it is blessed by an official national church. Only three people are permitted to handle these treasurers—the King, the Royal Jewler, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Contrast those museums with a museum in this country that shows us the symbols of OUR system. We have one room displaying, not jewels but a few pages of paper:

—Four pieces of paper in particular.

The National Archives Museum in Washington, D. C. has rules about cameras, too.  Take them in.  Use them. Photograph the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Don’t use flash or other supplemental lighting, selfie sticks, monopods or similar equipment. But otherwise, snap away.

If you want real detailed images of the documents, you can download free scans of them, buy facsimiles in the museum store or online, or download closeups of the documents and other features in the rotunda. You can have the symbols of our government in your own home or your office. You don’t have to go hundreds of miles, get tickets, and stand in lines to see them. They belong to YOU. You do not belong to them.

The words of the documents describe the gulf between this country and the home country we left in 1776:

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands….”

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…..”

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of public confidence in government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”  

In darkened tight rooms of ancient buildings in London and Edinburgh are housed symbols that display the power of government OVER the people who are not allowed to even take photographs of those symbols

In the bright, light-filled rotunda of a public building in our country are the documents that describe the power of the PEOPLE over government.

We, the people of the United States, elect a President and two houses of a Congress that represents us. The people of the United Kingdom have little voice in picking those who will rule them.

The Constitutional Monarchy that is the United Kingdom considers the King, an inherited position, the head of state although not the head of government. Political decisions have been left to the government and Parliament since the Magna Carta but the people’s involvement is relatively minimal.

The top officer in the political system is the Prime Minister, who is not elected by the people. By tradition, the PM is a member of Parliament answerable to the House of Commons. The King has “Royal Prerogative powers” that include the power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister. However, it is customary that the Sovereign (King or Queen) appoints someone from the majority party in the House of Commons.

And the way those representatives of the people are elected seems by comparison to our elections to minimize the power of the voter.

The 650 members of the House of Commons are elected from districts in a “first past the post” system of voting that pits all candidates together regardless of party with the candidate getting the plurality, not necessarily the majority, winning the position.  The “first past the post” concept is likened to a horse race finish in a multiple horse field. Members of the House of Commons are called MPs, Members of Parliament.

The members of the House of Lords are not elected.  They are appointed and serve for life. The custom of people serving by inheritance was ended in 1999 but Lordships are determined by in-house elections. There is no fixed number of members and not all who are members are allowed to attend proceedings.  Last year there were 261 Conservative Party Lords, 185 Crossbench Lords, and 174 Labour Party members.  A year earlier, the total was 798 but only 755 could take part in the proceedings. As many as 26 members are bishops or archbishops of the national church.  The people have no voice in selecting members of the House of Lords..

We describe all of this, as far as we are capable of understanding it, given our background in our own form of government, to point out how distinctly different things are for us, and to underline how those dark rooms filled with billions of dollars of jewelry symbolize power that does NOT flow from the people but clearly reminds the people how superior the government is over them, how separate government power is from the consent of the governed.

Those rooms remind us that government of, by, and for the people is a concept that was stated in Philadelphia by traitor radicals who knew the personal danger they faced. Many have died to protect that traitorous system. Many have died in the country’s uniforms as well as in civilian attire on battlefields and in city streets to protect and expand that concept for everyone.

We left those darkened rooms in England and Scotland with even greater appreciation for being a citizen of a country that trusts the people to define governmental power. In doing so we are not criticizing the system that the people of our Mother Country have; we are only pointing out the differences with which both we Americans and our British cousins are comfortable having.

On this Independence Day, we need to ponder the power—and especially in this year the responsibility—we have to determine the kind of government we will allow and the kind of people we will choose to operate it on OUR behalf, not on THEIR behalf.

Symbolically, we are facing a choice between going to a dark place or staying in a place of light, of retaining the power of government that serves the people or giving it up to those who seek power to serve themselves.

We the people are the crown jewels of this country.

And this country is the crown jewel of freedom for the rest of the world.

Never, ever, forget that.

-0-

 

A Glimpse of Sacred Ground 

Posted on by
Reply

Nancy and I were in our seats on our tour bus traveling through the pleasant pastures of the rural Somerset region of southwest England a few days ago,

having just left Glastonbury, believed by many to be the home of the country’s earliest church and the legendary burial place of the legendary King Arthur.  We were headed for the ancient Roman city of Bath, but hoping that perhaps the bus might stop just for a moment in a small community where ancient pre-Britons erected a stone circle contemporaneous with the better-known Stonehenge about 4,000 years ago.

Specialists in place names (the science of toponymics) suggest the name of the community conveys a sense of “mud, earth, clay, soil,” or perhaps is a reference to “earth houses” that actually are Bronze Age barrows, or burial hills.

Unfortunately, we were on a tight schedule and the bus could not stop so Nancy and I could jump out and have our pictures taken at the city limits sign reading:

PRIDDY

We have some camera shots through the bus windows as we passed by.

This is sheep country near the scenic Mendip Hills.  In 1348, the infamous Black Death that produced several plagues in England, forced the annual sheep show to be moved from what we would call the county seat of Wells, to Priddy.  It was continued until 2013 and eventually abandoned as unsustainable.

This also is holy ground, not just to those named Priddy but perhaps to all who call themselves Christian.

Archaeologists have found Roman lead ingots in the area dating to about 49 CE and others have found evidence of lead working as far back as 300 BCE.  Local legend has it that a tin trader from what we now call the Holy Land, with his young nephew, stayed at Priddy.  The trader was Joseph of Arimathea, uncle of Jesus who—legend says—traveled with him during his “lost years” in the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life.

The legend has been memorialized by the great English poet, William Blake, who asked in his poem, “Jerusalem:”

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England’s mountains green:

And was the holy Lamb of God,

On England’s pleasant pastures seen!

 

And did the Countenance Divine,

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here,

Among these dark Satanic Mills?

 

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:

Bring me my arrows of desire:

Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!

Bring me my Chariot of fire!

 

I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem,

In England’s green & pleasant Land.

You will recognize the poem, perhaps, as the source of the title of an Academy Award-winning movie from 1981. Set to music, it is considered England’s unofficial second national anthem, often sun as one of the final numbers during the last night of the annual Promenade Concerts, held at Royal Albert Hall.

(7) BBC Proms – Hubert Parry: Jerusalem (orch. Elgar) – YouTube

There is scholarly doubt about the Jesus part of the story and it is felt that the song is based on older recorded account that Joseph of Arimathea brought Christianity to ancient Britain after the death of Jesus.

Fourteenth Century records claim the Glastonbury Abbey, now in ruins, was founded by Joseph of Arimathea.  Legend has it that Joseph brought with him the Holy Grail, the vessel used to collect Christ’s blood.

We had explored the mesmerizing ruins of Glastonbury Abbey that morning.  We explored the remains of the Roman baths in Bath and had lunch before betting back on our bus and moving on to the next destination.

The more I look at this picture, the more I want to be that person on the bench.

We did not have time to learn if anyone named Priddy still lives in the area. But we know that the first Priddy in this country came from nearby Cornwall. Captain Robert Priddy was a privateer—the owner of a boat that he used on behalf of his country to fight Pirates on the Spanish Main (an area comprising the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea), for which he received a land grand in Virginia about 1650 from Queen Elizabeth I.

So much history.  So much legend. We were immersed by it that day.  Glastonbury and Bath seized us, as evidenced by the large number of photographs we have that put us back there with arresting images. And in the midst of the record of that dramatic day are a few  hurried glimpses    of a town with our name.

That’s life, isn’t it?   A series of glimpses and then we move on to the next day, the next adventure, the next tour through life.   But at least, we were there. At least we were among the fortunate ones who have had those glimpses.

And we took a lot of pictures, even if we didn’t get one that we wish we could have—the city green that includes a view of the 13th Century Church of St. Lawrence and its medieval altar frontal.  .[

We are grateful for what we did get.  And if that’s all this lifetime afford us, being within those sacred grounds with centuries of family links will have been enough.

 

 

Before We Were What We Are

Posted on by
Reply

For most of us, particularly those in mid-Missouri, the Lake of the Ozarks and all of its allure has always been here.  It’s hard to imagine when the Osage River wound through the valleys of the ancient mountains and when generations of people lived and died along its banks.  One long-ago summer night while going door-to-door selling encyclopedias in Columbia I knocked on the door of a man who had been a riverboat pilot on the Osage at a time when he could take his boat all the way to Warsaw.  It was the only door I knocked on that night because of the stories he told me. It’s a shame the young encyclopedia salesmen didn’t carry a recorder in those days.

(Actually, there wasn’t such a thing as a portable recorder, at least not one that could record a couple of hours of storytelling back then.)

Let’s go farther back, to 1931, and a time when Gutzon Borglum, the sculptor best known for Mount Rushmore, came to Jefferson City to testify in the lawsuit of the Snyder family against Union Electric.  The Snyder family owned Ha Ha Tonka, now a state park, and they charged UE had damaged the intrinsic beauty of their property to the tune of one-million dollars by building Bagnell Dam and backing up Osage River water into their area.

(Kansas City businessman Robert M. Snyder had fallen in love with the location early in the 20th Century and built the mansion. He never got to see if finished because be became one of Missouri’s first traffic fatalities, in 1906.)

Borglum came to Missouri to testify on behalf of the Snyder estate.  “My first impression of Ha Ha Tonka was that it was more like some of the ancient estates in England than anything I had seen in this country…I don’t know anything that has the dramatic possibilities and the permanent beauty that this place has,” he said when he arrived. He said the “very soul” of the place had been materially decreased by the lake.

“Gutzon Borglum, famous sculptor and connoisseur of beauty, sees a future for America’s Ozarks that is more promising than the wildest dreams of this alluring region’s inhabitants,” reported R. H. Slighton for the Jefferson City Daily Capital News on December 6.  “The people of the Ozarks, he believes, have inherited a blessing from the hand of the Creator that possesses a fabulous value.  The world as yet knows little of it, he believes, but once it is brought to their realization, and the need for what the Ozarks give increases the events that follow, he feels, will be amazing.”

Borglum “gazed out of his hotel window here one misty, wet day last week and peered into the future,” said the article.  And this is what he saw—or foresaw.

He spoke slowly, deliberately, carefully and precise.  We live in an amazing age. I can sit in my room and speak to New York, Chicago, Portland, any city in the country. I do it almost every day. What could be more amazing?  A few years ago I was driving across the country down into the Southwest. I asked along the way where the Ozarks were. ‘Oh, they’re off down that way,’ people would tell me. ‘Off there somewhere’ but no one seemed to know just where.  At. St.Louis they told me I would have to follow the highway and go around them.” 

He foresaw a time when the Ozarks would be what people were looking for.  And highways would take them there.

Where is it going? It is going away from the tenements and smoky cities.

When I started the Rushmore Memorial project in the Black Hills, I selected for my home a place about twenty-five miles from where my work would be. I did it unconsciously despite the fact that I knew I would be making from two to three tips almost every day. Now, what does that mean? With hard surfaced roads the trip is only a matter of a few minutes with an automobile. In the Ozarks, it will be the same. 

The time will come when people will be living within a fifty-mile radius of Jefferson City and drive in every day to their place of business. That time is not far off.

He thought the skyscraper was out of date. He thought people would tire of crowded cities and seek out quieter places such as the Ozarks.  He knew that “common earth, rocks, trees, and grass,” as Slighton put it, might be worth billions to the city dweller seeking relief from the dirt, smoke, and noise.  He used New York’s Central Park as an example.

Why won’t they sell it?  Because it is worth more to the people of New York City as a place just to walk through in the evening when their day’s work is done.  Borglum recalled a man the previous summer caught with a half-gallon bucket full of Central Park soil leaving the park. He told the judge he needed it for a flower in his penthouse apartment, an argument Borglum used to emphasize the human longing for an out-of-doors. Good roads, he argued, would provide an answer for that longing.

The Snyders lost their lawsuit.  Their great mansion in Camden County became a lodge where visitors could look out over the misty Ozark mountains on the other side of the dammed Osage River.  The house was gutted by a fire in 1942, its stone walls still standing reminiscent of Europe’s bombed-out churches after the Second World War.  It took three-quarters of a century before the state finally made Ha Ha Tonka a state park.

“Already the backwoods stage of the hill country is passing,” wrote Slighton in 1931.     

It’s what the whole world wants.

And what would “the whole world” do when it got to the Ozarks?  “Mr. Borglum believes the Ozarks are ideal for private estates and that before so very long they will be springing up with their private stock of game comparable to the old estates in England,” said Slighton.

We thought that mix of foreshadowing and philosophizing would be interesting to consider these nine decades later.

Forty years or so after Borglum granted that interview in the Jefferson City hotel room, one of the most passionate writers about the need to seek the out-of-doors, Edward Abbey, said in his book Desert Solitaire, “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread.” But then he noted the contradiction of people seeking that “necessity” when he continued: “A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”

The hard surface roads have, indeed, taken the city folks to the Ozarks in search of something basic that cannot be satisfied by the city life. But let us hope there always will be places in the Ozarks where roads don’t need to go.

(Photo Credits: Missouri State Parks, 417 Magazine (color aerial view), National Park Service–Borglum, in light suit, with son Lincoln, in tram inspecting George Washington, Edward Abbey at Arches National Monument)

The Power Under Our Feet

Posted on by
2

If you think fossil fuels are the only way to power our lives, you need to go to Iceland. If Iceland doesn’t tickle your fancy (and don’t underestimate Iceland on this score; it’s surprising.), go to Texas.

If you think windmills should be forbidden because they kill birds, that nuclear power should be abolished because it leaves behind tons of dangerous waste, that electric-powered vehicles are actually uneconomical because it costs a lot of gas, oil, and coal for power plants to generate full  battery charges, that the use of oil, gas, and coal shorten lives, that water cannot turn enough turbines to light our cities—-you need to go to Iceland.  Or Texas.

Iceland first. We learned about this on a trip there just before the pandemic set in. We were attracted by the opportunity to see the northern lights.

And we did on a really cold night (we went in November).  Our guide—we called him “Fred” because we would have dislocated our jaws trying to pronounce name—took this one.

A 2020 study, the latest study we have seen, shows at least 90% of all homes in Iceland are NOT heated by nuclear, wind, or fossil fuel-generated power.  That study shows, in fact, that 99.94% of electricity generated in Iceland was geothermal or hydro-generated. Underground hot water and the water that powers the great waterfalls, in fact, provided 99.94% of all electricity generated in Iceland that year. And more than 70% of the total energy used in that country came from geothermal sources. The country wants to be carbon neutral by 2040.

Iceland has a lot of waterfalls—a lot!

Many of them are spectacular and they flow year-around. Why? Because glaciers melt from the bottom up in Iceland, even as winter puts down several feet of snow on top of them every year. The result is a lot of hydropower generation.

As far back as the Vikings, people have taken warm baths and washed their clothes in warm water even on the coldest days because of geothermal water-–water heated by the volcanic activity that created Iceland thousands of years ago and continues to alter its size today.

The number one use of geothermal heat in 2020 was space heating, then heating swimming pools, melting snow, fish farming, industry, and greenhouses (This is the Fridheimar     greenhouse that covers about 2.7 acres that uses pure  glacier water heated in a thermal pool to grow eighteen percent of the tomatoes used by the country—370 tons of them a year—on 20-foot high, or more, tomato vines throughout which about 1200 peaceful bumbleees maintain pollination, each of them capable of pollinating 2,000 flowers a day. The incredible tomato soup and bread for lunch are to die for.)

The Capital of Reykjavick, where about sixty percent of the country’s people live, has clear streets and sidewalks on snowy days because those streets and sidewalks are heated.  Water ranging from 100-300 degrees centigrade heats homes and is then diverted under the streets and sidewalks at 30 degrees centigrade (about 86 of our Fahrenheit degrees).

This issue has been highlighted by recent news coverage of some volcanoes that have become active in recent months. Some of the coverage has focused on the closure of the Blue Lagoon, the country’s most popular tourist attraction.  We were there.  And we floated in the geothermal waters.  The only way we could have drowned was by turning over and having somebody sit on us.

The lagoon’s water is a mixture of freshwater discharged from the Svartsengi Power Station and seawater.

Iceland didn’t officially recognize the power beneath national feet until about fifty years ago.  That’s when energy price inequities forced the national government to address the issue.   Orkustofnun, the National Energy Authority, recommended increased use of hydro and geothermal power to stabilize energy costs.  The Arab Oil Embargo that created an energy and economic crisis throughout the world led the Icelandic government to speed up its adoption of geothermal alternatives.

You might think that’s great for Iceland but the only significant place for geothermal activity here is Yellowstone National Park.  You are wrong. Take a look at this map of geothermal resources prepared by the Southern Methodist University  Geothermal Laboratory.

Texas might not look so hot in this map but it is a hotbed of geothermal energy development. The state well-known for its oil industry, says writer Saul Eblin for The Hill, is poised to dominate what boosters hope will be America’s next great energy boom: a push to tap the heat of the subterrnean earth for electricity and industry.”  He says Texas “is fueling a boom in startups that seek to take the issue nationally.

In March, he says, solar generation in Texas “eclipsed coal both in terms of power generation and market share.  Texas also has more utility-scale wind and solar capacity than any other state” although California still leads in rooftop solar power generation.

Last year, the Texas legislature passed four bills with only one “no” vote that will create new opportunities for geothermal drilling. Eblin says eleven of the nation’s 27 geothermal startups last year were in Texas and the momentum is building.

A few days ago, he reports, Bedrock Energy had a display at a commercial real estate company in Austin showing a new geothermal-powered heatng and cooling system. A few days earlier, Quaise, a drilling company, filed for a permit from state regulators to start field-testing drills that use high-powered radio waves to drill through dense rock. A company in Houston called Dervo, is building a 400-megawatt facility in Utah and the military is looking at geothermal source of electricity. Sage Geosystems soon will start using a fracked well to store renewable energy, a big step toward its goal of producing a reliable source of geothermal energy.

There are those who laugh at the electrification of America, particularly the growing emphasis on electric vehcles, claiming that the production fo electricity still requires fossil fuels and windmills and solar farms are nice but they limit use of land increasingly needed for food production.

But the heated water beneath our feet leapfrogs those arguments.  The SMU map indicates Missouri can produce 50-60 Milliwatts per square meter from underground water. One watt equals one millon milliwatts. Our calculation says Missouri has 180,540,000 square meters.  If we understand the math, that means 9,027,000,000-10,832,400,000 watts of geothermal power generation is beneath our feet.

If we do our math correctly, our largest utility, Ameren, generates 10,000 megawatts a year in Missouri, or about 10,000,000 watts per year.

Whether geothermal generation is an alternative for Ameren, we don’t know. But the company came under new federal pressure recently with the adoption of EPA new rules requiring coal-fired power plants to have new carbon pollution controls. The Post-Dispatch has reported more than half of Ameren’s power is generated by coal. Only Texas generates more power with coal. And Ameren’s Labadie plant in Franklin county is the number two power plant producer in the country.

So it appears we have enough thermal energy under our feet to generate as much as Ameren produces from all of its power plants, whether fossil or nuclear fueled in a year.  And Missouri isn’t even close to the geothermal potential other states who not only can serve their customers well but can export energy to other parts of the country, including to Missouri.

We have mentioned in earlier posts, one advantage to studying journalism in college was that no math courses were required.  If we have misunderstood these calculations, we welcome corrections.

Even if we are wrong, the experience of Iceland and elsewhere as well as the growing experience in Texas shows there is non-fossil energy enough beneath our feet to keep our lights on and to fuel our commerce indefinitely. But energy is politicized here. The fossil fuel industry slings a lot of money around in Washington and on campaign trails.  The Greenies, however, are making progress, incremental though it might be.

We might not be able to operate our cars on water but they can operate on the electricity generated by water, steaming hot water.  A 500-mile affordable electric car is growing closer.  But if we want to see the reality of a society powered by non-fossil fuels, Iceland is a flight of only five hours from Chicago O’Hare Airport. Take a coat, even in summer. It’s pretty far north.

Iceland as a country is one big ground source heat pump, north to south, east to west.

Super hot water beneath OUR feet is something to think about even here in relatively cool Missouri.

(Photo Credit: Bob Priddy)

 

If Our History Were Written West to East 

Posted on by
Reply

Ignorance of history is helping fuel the controversial White Christian Nationalism movement. There are plenty of people in our political world who prefer to keep things that way.

To base our understanding of our nation’s history on Jamestown, Plymouth, Pilgrims and Puritans and interpretations of their reasons for coming here—and the reasons behind more than a century of explorations before they arrived—is a grave mistake. It shortchanges our future as a nation and as a nation’s people.

One of the best cases for understanding our history differently is in a letter written by our great poet Walt Whitman after he had been invited to compose a poem to celebrate the 333rd anniversary of the settlement of Santa Fe, New Mexico.  It is dated July 20, 1883. It is critical of those who think our history began on the rocky shores of Massachusetts and Virginia.  The invitation to deliver the poem arrived too late, he wrote, so he had to decline. “But I will say a few words off-hand.”

We Americans have yet to really learn our own antecedents, and sort them, to unify them. They will be found ampler than has been supposed and in widely different sources. Thus far, impressed by New England writers and schoolmasters, we tacitly abandon ourselves to the notion that our United States have been fashioned from the British Islands only, and essentially form a second England only—which is a great mistake. Many leading traits for our future national personality, and some of the best ones, will certainly prove to have originated from other than British stock. As it is, the British and German, valuable as they are in the concrete, already threaten excess. Or rather, I should say, they have certainly reach’d​ that excess. To-day, something outside of them, and to counterbalance them, is seriously needed.

Thus seething materialistic and business vortices of the United States, in their present devouring relations, controlling and belittling everything else, are, in my opinion, but a vast and indispensable stage in the new world’s development, and are certainly to be follow’d​ by something entirely different—at least by immense modifications. Character, literature, a society worthy the name, are yet to be establish’d​ , through a nationality of noblest spiritual, heroic and democratic attributes—not one of which at present definitely exists—entirely different from the past, though unerringly founded on it, and to justify it.

To that composite American identity of the future, Spanish character will supply some of the most needed parts. No stock shows a grander historic retrospect—grander in religiousness and loyalty, or for patriotism, courage, decorum, gravity and honor. (It is time to dismiss utterly the illusion-compound, half raw-head-and-bloody-bones and half Mysteries-of-Udolpho, inherited from the English writers of the past 200 years. It is time to realize—for it is certainly true—that there will not be found any more cruelty, tryanny, superstition, &c., in the résumé of past Spanish history than in the corresponding résumé of Anglo-Norman history. Nay, I think there will not be found so much.)

Then another point, relating to American ethnology, past and to come, I will here touch upon at a venture. As to our aboriginal or Indian population—the Aztec in the South, and many a tribe in the North and West—I know it seems to be agreed that they must gradually dwindle as time rolls on, and in a few generations more leave only a reminiscence, a blank. But I am not at all clear about that. As America, from its many far-back sources and current supplies, develops, adapts, entwines, faithfully identifies its own—are we to see it cheerfully accepting and using all the contributions of foreign lands from the whole outside globe—and then rejecting the only ones distinctively its own—the autochthonic ones?

As to the Spanish stock of our Southwest, it is certain to me that we do not begin to appreciate the splendor and sterling value of its race element. Who knows but that element, like the course of some subterranean river, dipping invisibly for a hundred or two years, is now to emerge in broadest flow and permanent action?

If I might assume to do so, I would like to send you the most cordial, heart-felt congratulations of your American fellow-countrymen here. You have more friends in the Northern and Atlantic regions than you suppose, and they are deeply interested in development of the great Southwestern interior, and in what your festival would arouse to public attention.

Very respectfully &c.,Walt Whitman

Here we are, 141 years after Whitman’s letter, being encouraged by the “seething, materialistic and business vortices of the United States, in their present devouring relations, controlling and belittling everything else.”   Whitman’s letter still calls on all of us to realize history written west to east is a valid subject and that the more comprehensive history will bring about “character, literature, a society worthy the name…through a nationality of noblest spiritual, heroic, and democratic attributes.”

It is a national shame that so many prefer “devouring relations, controlling and belittling everything else” to understanding the reverse geographical truths of our history that will allow us to achieve “the broadest flow” of the representative democracy we only partially understand, and in only partially understanding it continue to further disadvantage our country.

(Photo Credit: PBS “The American Experience”)

 

One Man’s Vision—8   

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve shared with you in the last four weeks one man’s vision for a greater Jefferson City (well, actually two men, as we wrote about Mayor C. W. Thomas—who inspired this series—in our first entry).  Our list is far from inclusive of all good ideas nor is having a vision my exclusive domain. You have been invited to share your visions and I hope you will do that now that we are wrapping up this series.

All of this ambitious talk about places to meet, places to visit, and places to live has overlooked a lot of our people who have few or none of the opportunities to participate.  If we are to be a great city, we cannot overlook them.

At the library, we sometimes hear about our “homeless problem” and there are those who tell us they won’t visit the library or bring their children there because of “them.”  Those patrons and other critics demand we “do something” about them.  “They” make people uncomfortable.

The library does not have a homeless problem. The CITY has a homeless problem and the public library is an uncomfortable participant in it—because we have to be.

We are a public institution and whether a person owns a mansion or sleeps in a box, that person is part of “the public.”  There is no place for them to go during the day after their overnight accommodations shut down.  We are their warm place on frigid days. We are their cool place on oppressively hot days.  We are their bathrooms.

I’m sorry that some people are offended because “they” don’t dress as well as most of us…or smell as good as most of us and they hang around our building.

We do not often have any problems with these folks although there have been times when we have called police and some have been banished from our premises.  We have signs throughout our building reminding our homeless visitors not to sleep there. Our staff can’t be a dozer police, though, because of their regular duties.

But most of them are okay. We do not judge them on various criteria any more than we judge any of you. You are the public, constituents using a public place in a personal way, too.

I have not had a chance to ask our critics what their solution is.  But ignoring the issue or saying it is someone else’s problem to solve is something for the Old Jefferson City—-at a time when a BOLD Jefferson City should be our goal.

Celebrations of things such as bicentennials of becoming the state capital can work in more ways than one. We should make sure our bicentennial observance doesn’t leave “them” out.  They are people, the public, fellow citizens.  And they deserve—by their presence among us—respect.

Great cities do not become great by only catering to people who smell good.

To do any of the things I have discussed in this series to move a good city toward greatness without facing the problems of those to whom greatness is just a word is irresponsible.  As citizens of this community we are responsible to and for one another. That’s what the word “community” implies.

I can’t tell you how to make these things discussed in these entries happen. Many of you have the expertise I lack.

Leonardo daVinci made drawings of flying machines. The Wright Brothers made the machine that flew.  Humphry Davy, Warren de la Rue, and Joseph Swan made electric lights but Thomas Edison created the incandescent bulb. Carl Benz created a gasoline-powered automobile but Henry Ford showed how to manufacture them.  John Fleming invented the vacuum tube but Guglielmo Marconi created radio.

Some have ideas. Others have the expertise to realize them.

So I’m going to leave you with three statements that have motivated me most of my life and I hope they encourage you to become active in this quest.

The English playwright George Bernard Shaw wrote a lengthy play called Back to Methuselah, retelling some of the earliest stories of the Bible. He creates a conversation in which the snake convinces Eve she should want to learn, that she should eat from the tree of knowledge instead of just living mindlessly in the Garden of Eden.  The snake appeals to her curiosity by saying, “You see things, and you say ‘Why?’   I dream dreams that never were, and I say, ‘Why not?’”

I am asking today, “Why not?”

The German philosopher Johan Wolfgang von Goethe continued that thought when he advised, “Dream no small dreams for they have no power to move the hearts of men.”

I am asking you to dream bigger dreams than we have dreamed, bigger even than a new convention center.

Goethe’s  tragic masterwork, Faust, includes this observation:

Lose this day loitering—’twill be the same story
To-morrow–and the next more dilatory;
Then indecision brings its own delays,
And days are lost lamenting o’er lost days.
Are you in earnest? seize this very minute–
What you can do, or dream you can, begin it,
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it,
Only engage, and then the mind grows heated—
Begin it, and the work will be completed!

I am asking our city to be bold.

A bicentennial’s greatest value lies not in dwelling on the past, but in building a foundation for the TRIcentennial. It still will not be good enough to be the Capital City.  What more can we be….if we lay the foundation for it now?

I want our bicentennial to be characterized by a sense of boldness that turns a “good enough” city into a great one, that discovers the genius, power, and magic in boldness.

A century ago, a mayor who had seen this city become a modern city that in his lifetime fought off two efforts to take the seat of government elsewhere—Sedalia’s 1896 statewide vote on capital removal and efforts after the 1911 fire to build a new capitol somewhere else—and who modernized our town died dreaming of a convention center.

His spirit of progress is worth recalling and becoming a motivator for becoming a greater city.

You’ve read one man’s vision for accomplishing that.  What is yours?

How can we do it?

One Man’s Vision—7 

Posted on by
Reply

We recognize that not everyone wants change.  The status quo is comfortable, predictable, and requires little effort or participation. Life is good as-is.

And it’s cheaper than trying to be better.  Better equals more taxes. More taxes advocated by those who want their city to BE more are a burden to those who think they cannot afford to live in a greater city.

It’s hard for some to see the benefits that come with a desire to be better.  But the business world shows us that people want better things, will buy them, and the commerce generated with those purchases lifts both ends of economic boats.

But still, there are those who will say “no.”

Decades ago, while working at The Arcola Record-Herald, a small-town Illinois newspaper that provided my first journalism paycheck, I came across “The Knocker’s Prayer,” published in 1918.  Some of the language is dated but the sentiment is contemporary for some people.

Lord, please don’t let this town grow.  I’ve been here for thirty years, and during that time I’ve fought every public improvement.  I’ve knocked everything and everybody, no firm or individual has established a business here without my doing all I can to put them out of business.  I’ve lied about them, and would have stolen from them I had the courage.

I have done all I could to keep the town from growing and never have spoken a good word for it. I’ve knocked hard and often. I have put ashes on the children’s slide and I’ve made the Marshall stop the boys from playing ball on my vacant lot.  Whenever I saw anyone prospering or enjoying themselves, I’ve started a reform to kill the business or spoil the fun.

I don’t wany the young folks to stay in this town and I will do all I can by law, rule and ordinance to drive them away. It pains me, O Lord, to see that in spite of my knocking, it is beginning to grow, Someday, I fear I will be called upon to put down sidewalks in front of my property and who knows but what I may have to help keep up the streets that run by my premises.  This, Lord, would be more than I could bear. It would cost me money, though all I have was made right here in this town. 

Then, too, more people might come if the town begins to grow, which would cause me to lose some of my pull.  I ask, therefore, to keep this town at a standstill, that I may continue be the chief calamity howler. Amen.

But great, or even good, futures are not made by those who choose to stand pat, who argue against daring to be better.

The American Revolution was led by a bunch of rabble-rousers who found British subservience intolerable.  The frontier was expanded by those who dared to cross the Alleghenies. The Civil War was fought because the status quo that allowed one people to own other people was no longer acceptable. The Santa Fe, Oregon, and California Trails were populated by the minority who left comfort behind for greater opportunities (and, we have to admit, destroyed the status quo of the Native Americans in their way) west of Missouri.  Everything of modern society comes from those who saw beyond what-is to what can-be.

The status quo and its costs are not static. The expenses of maintaining the status quo, usable streets for example for example, increases.

The future IS expensive but so is maintaining the present. For a little more, we can reach for a little greatness. And history shows leaders always drag the “knockers” along with them.  And the “knockers” enjoy the benefits of progress, too.

There are always going to be “knockers,” the people who say, “We can’t do this” or “Why do this?”

The pioneers, the leaders, the people who still embody the American spirit of making life better for themselves and those they know and will never know, are the ones who ask, “How can we do this?” and then find the answer to their own question.

The first gubernatorial inauguration I covered as a reporter was that of Warren Hearnes, who was sworn in, in 1969 for his historic second term, and said in his inaugural speech:

To do and be better is a goal few achieve. To do it, we are required to make sacrifices—not in the sense of shedding our blood or giving of our lives or the lives of those we love, but sacrifice in the sense of giving of a part of those material things which we enjoy in abundance. A great people will sacrifice part of that with which they have been blessed in order that their children will be better educated; their less fortunate more fortunate; their health better health; their state a better state.

We must never fear as a city to ask better of ourselves, for ourselves, and for those we drag along with us.

There’s another group that risks staying behind when others reach for something better.

In our concluding post in this series, we’ll talk about those we should not overlook in our search for greatness.

One Man’s Vision—6 

Posted on by
1

The day that the announcement of the downtown convention center was made might have been the day that Mayor Fitzwater got a letter from me congratulating him for abandoning the old prison.  MY suggestion, written in that letter, was that the city buy the Capitol Plaza Hotel, eliminating a competitor for convention business, and to overhaul the hotel as a convention center, working with the state on building a big exhibition hall and a big parking garage on the vacant state land behind the hotel.

(In truth, I have no idea whether the present owners would sell the hotel or sell it at a reasonable price.  But some time ago, I checked the owners’ webpage and it seemed to be one of the smaller and least attractive hotels in the portfolio. I also am told it needs a good freshening-up.)

I am comfortable with the city exploring the site it is exploring and I am likewise comfortable with the questions that have been asked about the long-term adequacy of the current plan. I am confident they will be answered during the long process ahead. And we should not be surprised if the final design is substantially different from the preliminary drawings we have seen. The process of completing a project this ambitious involves a lof of adjustments and evaluations.

I was the president of the State Historical Society of Missouri when we built our $37-million Center for Missouri Studies in Columbia and I know that what we built is far different from what we first thought we would build—-and it’s not on the site we originally hoped to use. But we kept asking, “How can we do this?” We were unafraid to adjust and to evolve and our finished product is still breathtaking to me five years after I helped cut the ribbon at the front door.

I imagine the city officials behind the convention center understand the finished product might be different from the early drawings we have seen.  The important thing is that the city has started moving on this project and I am confident the final result will not be hastily-drawn or carelessly-built.

As mentioned earlier—from my various viewpoints, I see this as the beginning of a series of bold moves that can make us a greater city today and be an example to the people of the next hundred years that being “good enough” is a mindset of the past.

But what happens if the planned convention center location doesn’t work out?

It’s ways good to have a Plan B. In this case, my Plan B focuses on the Capitol and Madison site.  I will leave a new convention center location to others if one is deemed more practical and advisable. The ultimate decision will be up to the mayor, the city council, and the citizens who will be asked to finance it.

But how will the city recover its Capital Avenue investment if that site ultimately proves to be less feasible than originally thought?

Here’s one man’s vision:

Downtown condominiums for middle-to-upper-middle income residents that will contribute to a broader renewal of downtown beyond improving the bar and restaurant trade.

Why middle-to-upper middle class condos?  Think of how many thousand state workers come into downtown every day to work who would like to live within walking distance of their jobs.

Those condos coupled with the Simonsen redevelopment, Capitol Avenue restoration and additional re-development of upstairs areas of downtown stores would revitalize the city core and lead to more close-in redevelopment spirit that could spread to the south side.

Of course, if people are to return to our central core, they will need services.  If I were one of the bigger grocery stores, I would be thinking of opening a satellite store downtown; there’s plenty of available spaces, and anything not available from the downtown store can be easily delivered from one of the main stores on our periphery.  And that might be just a start.

I will leave it to your thoughts about how this could revitalize a wide area of our city’s heart in several different ways.

Understand I am not hoping for the failure of the Madison and Capitol convention center concept. Right now, the proper question is being asked: “How can we do this?”

But it’s always good to think about a Plan B.