He thought it would be easier....

This is not the post I had planned to write today.  That one will have to wait.  This post is, once again, a response to statements made by the current President.  In an interview with Reuters Thursday April 27, 2017, The President said he thought being President would be easier than being a businessman.  Who would have thought that?  Who might have imagined and/or considered that being the President of a country would be a difficult job?  Well, someone with a background in politics might have had a clue.  Someone with an understanding of how the government works might have had an inkling.  Someone with an understanding of the Constitution, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches and the concept of checks and balances might have had an indication.

Electing someone from the business sector with zero political experience was clearly not the wisest choice because the United States Government does not run like a business.  There is no Chief Executive Officer.  There are no Board of Directors and absolute power resides with no one person and no one branch of government.  Nor does it run like a dictatorship.  It runs like a government struggling with and at times paralyzed by partisan politics due to the loss of centrists and moderates.

Electing someone from the business sector with zero political experience who then chooses advisers who have limited to no political experience makes the job even more difficult.  While it is not impossible for someone to make the transition from the corporate world to the political world, it is extremely difficult to make that transition competently without taking the time to at least become familiar with the basics of how the government runs prior to announcing the intention to run for office.  Politics is never something to be done on a whim.  Campaign promises and rhetoric should never be spewed from the mouth like lava from an uncontrollable erupting volcano just for the sake of applause and popularity.

Along with not realizing how difficult being President would be, the current President also admitted that he knew nothing about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, more commonly known as NATO, when he repeatedly called NATO obsolete.  A simple web search would have enabled him to connect to the NATO web site and find out even some basic information.  Now that he knows what NATO is and what it does, he has decided it is no longer obsolete and is actually a good organization.

Throughout his campaign he vowed to "repeal and replace failing Obamacare" on day one of his Presidency.  With his Republican Party in control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act might not have happened on day one, but certainly there was the expectation that it would happen.  But "repeal and replace" has not happened.  The first attempt was met with widespread resistance from the Republican members of the House of Representatives for a variety of reasons including the bill being too harsh for some and not harsh enough for others.  "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated" was the current President's response for the Republicans in the House of Representatives being unable to secure the votes to pass the bill.

The negative responses to the President's statement were swift, many and well-deserved.  Anyone who had been paying any attention at all to the previous fight to pass health care knew how hard getting the Affordable Care Act was.  As a businessman with companies and employees who would be affected by the passage and enactment of the Affordable Care Act, one would think the current President would have had some knowledge about the difficulties of getting health care legislation passed and enacted.  But like so many other issues and topics that he spoke about during the campaign, this was yet another one about which he was woefully uninformed.

His ignorance regarding trade and global politics and dealing with foreign countries, whether allies or adversaries, is not just something that can be excused or overlooked due to his lack of political experience.  He has made statements which have caused tensions with our allies and not just Mexico over payment for a wall.  His statements and tweets are both reckless and dangerous not just for the citizens of United States but for the citizens other countries, including our allies.  In that same Thursday night interview, he also said that there could be "major, major conflict with North Korea."

That is the kind of statement responsible, thoughtful Presidents simply do not make to the Press or in any public forum unless there is grave danger and action must be taken.  Those words will not be taken by the North Koreans as some sort of warning that they should behave.  Those words will be perceived as a threat and North Korea's justification for accelerating their nuclear arms program.  Additionally and just as important, those words have placed our allies who are geographically close to North Korea in more danger.  The missiles North Korea has already developed can easily hit targets in South Korea and Japan.

Of course we could have chosen a President who was knowledgeable and well-informed with diplomatic experience.  A President who knew our allies and adversaries as well as all the risks involved in attempting to negotiate with both friendly and hostile leaders.  A President who understood that making compromises may be the only way to move forward and that making idle threats, reckless statements and attempting to bully people can have dangerous consequences.  But that candidate did not get elected despite receiving more popular votes.

There were emails and an FBI investigation that proved there was no wrongdoing yet was mysteriously reopened in days before the election only to once again result in no wrongdoing. There was that "pay for play" scandal that never happened but drew widespread media attention and coverage and that money from GoldMan Sachs for speeches.  There was Russian interference with an avalanche of fake news and thirty years of hate perpetuated by the Right and accepted by some on the Left.  There was the certainty that the candidate would lead us into war.  There was also one other fact: the candidate was a woman.

So the woman who was prepared, competent and qualified lost to the man who was unprepared, incompetent and unqualified.

There are no words to describe how tragic this is.  Whatever happens as a result of the actions of the current President, his administration and this Congress to our country and our citizens, to other countries and their citizens, to our planet and to our environment will not only rest heavily on the shoulders of the current President, his administration and Congress, but on all those who voted for him and his party as well as those who voted third party and those who did not vote.

The hate goes on... but love still trumps hate!

The hate goes on,

the hate goes on.

From the Right and the Left

the hate rolls on.

La-de-da-de-de

La-de-da-de-di

The title for this post as well as the words above were inspired by Sonny and Cher's song "The Beat Goes On".  The impetus for writing this post came from a video which was shared on Twitter and Facebook.  The video was Secretary Hillary Clinton's speech Thursday April 20, 2017 at a luncheon The Center, which is a LGBT community center.  Secretary Clinton was being honored with the TrailBlazer award.

In her speech, Secretary Clinton called for vigilance in protecting and continuing the fight for equal rights in the LGBT community.  She doubted that the current President and his administration would continue to push for or defend those rights.  She called on those attending the luncheon, as well as the wider audience who would watch the video of her speech to never quit. “I know that the election hit a lot of us hard. But I can tell you this: Even when it feels tempting to pull the covers over your head, please keep going.”

That speech would certainly rile up the Hillary Clinton haters on the Right because anything Secretary Clinton says angers them.  But how could such a speech possibly cause anger and consternation on the Left?  That just does not seem possible, does it?  Yet that is exactly what happened.  Comments on Facebook and Twitter were not just from those who applauded her words and thanked her for once again speaking up and speaking out for those causes about which she cares so deeply.  Comments were also authored by those who disdained her words with traces of the never actually expressed but still heard sound of boos.

Once again there were those calls for Secretary Clinton to go away and be quiet.  Once again, the anti-Clinton block on the Left expressed their dismay that she was giving another speech, despite the fact that she was addressing a critical concern for not only the LGBT community, but for everyone who believes in equal rights.  Once again she was criticized for not supporting LGBT rights soon enough and accused of only "jumping on the bandwagon" when it was politically expedient.  Evolving on issues is apparently not acceptable to some people.

Perhaps they were born with every political, philosophical, social and economic position etched in stone in their minds.  But just as we all age and grow and our bodies change, so too, for some of us, do our political, philosophical, social and economic positions grow and evolve over time.  For some of us, the idea of changing political, philosophical, social and economic positions as we move through life experiences demonstrates an evolving and positive view.  For others, perhaps, a narrowing and negative view.  The former is typically lauded while the other typically causes concern.

For some on the Left that is not the case with Secretary Hillary Clinton.  She is not given credit for changing her mind and broadening her views or lending her powerful voice to crucial causes.  Rather she is vilified yet again and accused of political posturing.  Ah yes, the hate rolls on...

Yet still, after all the vitriol, after election results which shocked Secretary Clinton's supporters, after continued Hillary-bashing in the media, on Facebook, on Twitter, in a newly-released book and from some on the left, a poll indicates that eighty-five percent of people who voted for Secretary Clinton would vote for her again.  The reason for this is quite simple actually.  As Secretary Clinton said over and over again:

Love trumps hate!

And yes Hillary Clinton's supporters still love her!

She will continue to speak!  She will continue to be a leader and role model!  Her supporters will continue to follow her, not like mindless beings incapable of having an original thought or unable to discern truth from lies, but as strong people standing behind one fierce woman.

Being anti-immigrant was not always a Republican Party virtue

The reports of families being torn apart as ICE agents take mothers and/or fathers away from their children tear at the hearts of anyone who has compassion to understand that what is happening is an outrage.  People whose only crime is the desire to find a better life, to embrace the hope offered by a woman in a harbor holding a torch and with these words from Emma Lazarus in the base,

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

are being removed as are those who have committed what is at best insignificant misdemeanors, while DREAMers face deportation for foolish youthful mistakes.  The deportation program that was supposed to remove "bad hombres" has quickly become the "round them up and get them out whether they could be considered "bad hombres" or not.  While various voices have risen up and spoken out against these outrageous and unfair deportation policies, other voices have remained silent, most notably those voices in the Republican Party.

Perhaps that is not surprising.  Perhaps that is to be expected from a political party whose Presidential candidate stirred up the voting base with anti-immigrant speeches.  Perhaps that is to be expected now that the candidate is President.  But anti-immigration was not always a Republican Party virtue.

In 1855, Abraham Lincoln, who would become the first Republican Party President, wrote in a letter to Joshua Speed:

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

The Know-Nothing Party were anti-immigrant and gained political power in some States.    In their party platform of 1856, they stated that Americans must rule America; and to this end native-born citizens should be selected for all State, Federal and municipal offices of government employment, in preference to all others. They also called for "A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-one years, of all not heretofore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers,and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners."

Abraham Lincoln could have decided that he not only wanted to change his own views on restricting immigration and naturalization but also try to influence the Republicans Party in Congress to enact legislation to restrict immigration and naturalization.  Irish immigrants not only joined the Democratic Party and voted against Republicans but also were pro-slavery.  But Abraham Lincoln held fast to his belief that immigration must continue, that immigrants must be welcomed and nothing must stand in the way of naturalization.

The Republican Party platform of 1860 stated "That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad."

Election loss was all Hillary Clinton's fault according to new book.

There is a new book out about why Hillary Clinton lost the Presidential campaign.  Although I have not read the book, I have seen some excerpts and descriptions. The book is entitled Shattered and was written by two journalists.  The new book provides details about problems within the Clinton Presidential campaign including in-fighting.  The blame is placed squarely on Hilary Clinton's shoulders.  She lost the election that was hers to win.  She alone is responsible "period" according to a tweet from Chris Cillizza.

Those who dislike Hillary Clinton must be thrilled at knowing they were right and she was not.  She did not run her campaign the right way.  She did not find the right message.  She did not communicate the right way.  She did not focus on what was really important.  She did not connect with the right voters. So many things she could have done differently and just did not.  Then there was the emails on the private server fiasco.  She never should have used a private server.  She should have known better.  She handled the revelations about the emails on the private server wrong.  If that wasn't bad enough, there was that whole Clinton Foundation pay for play scandal.  Yes, indeed, everything was her fault.

How wonderful that those two journalists are able to provide full and complete absolution to the Republicans who have vilified Hillary Clinton for more than two decades.  Those Republicans and their constant barrage of lies were never the problem, Hillary was.  How wonderful that those two journalists are also provide full and complete absolution to some Democrats who also vilified Hillary Clinton during the primary elections.  Those Democrats riling up voters to oppose Hillary Clinton to then have to try to convince those same voters to support Hillary Clinton were never the problem, Hillary was.  How wonderful that those two journalists are also able to provide full and complete absolution to the media who devoted more time to chasing a phantom email scandal and a phantom "pay for play" scandal rather than searching for the truth about what certainly looks to be a very real Russian interference and possible collusion scandal.  The media played no role in influencing voters' opinions of Hillary Clinton. It was Hillary.  How wonderful that those two journalists are able to provide total and complete absolution to the Russians who, at the very least, targeted voters on both ends of the political spectrum with fake news about Hillary Clinton.  That had nothing to do with the results of the election, nor did F.B.I. Director Comey's last minute reveal about the possibility of problems with newly found emails on another computer.  None of those events were the problem.  It was Hillary.  Hillary was also the one to blame for the misogyny that permeated the election.  After all she was born a female and not a male.

Must be a special feeling to be able to take the responsibility of an election loss and place the blame squarely on the shoulders of one person: Hillary Clinton.

Fortunately Hillary Clinton has strong shoulders.  She also has supporters who will stand by her side and speak the truth all day day, every day!

President Abraham Lincoln died April 15, 1865

One hundred fifty-two years ago today, on April 15, 1865, President Lincoln died shortly after 7:00 in the morning.  The President had been shot in the back of the head the night before while he attended a play at Ford's theater.  Then, as now, Christians around the world and in the United States were observing Holy Saturday.  President Lincoln had been shot on Good Friday.  With the shooting happening on Good Friday, there were some comparisons between Christ's death and President Lincoln's death.  Christ died to atone for the sins of the world and President Lincoln died to atone for the sins of his country.

The United States does not commemorate and/or remember either the day President Lincoln was shot nor the day he died in any special way.  There is no mention of either day on the calendar.   Perhaps those two days have faded from the collective memory of the country as those who had been alive at the time passed away.  Now only those groups dedicated to preserving the memory of the sixteenth President commemorate April 14 and April 15.  Perhaps the same will be said in the future of November 22, 1963, and the assassination of President Kennedy.  As those of us who were alive at the time of President Kennedy's death pass on, so too may the yearly recollections of that fateful day in Dallas.

Should the citizens of the United States still remember and/or commemorate either the day the President Lincoln was shot or died or both days?  Is there a reason to do so?  President Lincoln's election resulted in the secession of eleven southern States.  The United States had been torn apart and the President was faced with a choice: let the southern States go or accept a war to try to hold the country together.  The President chose to accept a war even though he knew the end result could be two separate countries.  Why did he choose war?  Why did he continue the war despite being deeply troubled and moved by the deaths and injuries sustained by the soldiers?

The answer is quite simple actually.  President Abraham Lincoln believed that the United States was just that, a united country.  He also believed that if the country could not remain whole and united, then democracy could not survive.  For the President, that was not an acceptable option.  The hopes enshrined in the Declaration of Independence must be preserved.  The government created by the Constitution must continue, bruised and battle tested and flawed though it might be, still the President believed it was the "last best hope of earth."

At Gettysburg he had called on his fellow Americans to join with him to ensure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth."  He died for those beliefs and for that dedication to this country, its democracy and its promises of hope and equality.

Isn't that worth remembering?

Is this what a Christian country does? A Good Friday Reflection...

Today, April 14, 2016, Christians around the world and here in the United States take time to reflect on the final moments of Jesus as he hung on a cross and died.  Christians are reminded in the days leading up to this day of sorrow that this same Jesus was welcomed and praised and greeted with palms and hosannas by the same crowd that would shout "Crucify him!  Crucify him!"  What happened to that crowd?  Why did they turn from shouting his praise to calling for his death?  What did he do?  What rebellion did he cause that would make both Jewish and Roman leaders not only fear him, but want to kill him?  He called for a change of heart.  He preached words of love, inclusion and forgiveness.  He spoke about following the spirit of the law, not always a strict adherence to the letter of the law.  He reminded those who heard his words to care for those in need of help.  How would he be received today?  With shouts of joy?  Or shouts of death?

Some in the United States, including those in various positions in government, say that this country is a Christian nation.  On April 13, 2017, when Christians celebrate the Last Supper of Jesus, when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to show that everyone must serve everyone, the United States military used its largest non-nuclear bomb in northern Afghanistan and some Christians cheered.  Is this what a Christian nation does?  What kind of Christian people cheer that decision?

Since the inauguration of the current President of the United States, who received the support, endorsements and votes of many conservative Christians, he has signed an executive order which has torn families apart in an attempt to get "the bad hombres" here illegally out of our country.  But "bad hombres" are not the only targets and the round up continues to the cheers of some Christians.  What kind of Christian nation does that?  What kind of Christian people cheer that decision?

The current President issued a travel ban that prevented even refugees from war-torn nations from entering the United States and some Christians cheered.  The travel ban and its replacement ban have both been deemed unconstitutional because both bans target a specific religion.  Still those bans were attempted.  Is this what a Christian nation does?  What kind of Christian people cheer that decision?

The current President signed executive orders which rolled back environmental protections jeopardizing the well being of the planet, the air people breath and the water people drink.  The current head of the Environmental Protection Agency made the decision to allow a banned chemical to be used again which is a health risk.  Once again some Christians cheered.  Is this what a Christian nation does?  What kind of Christian people cheer that decision?

The leadership and some members of the Republicans who currently control the House of Representatives tried to enact a healthcare reform bill which would have harmed millions of people currently insured through the Affordable Care Act.  The bill was supported by the current President who tried convince, then bully Republican Representative into voting for it.  Fortunately there was not enough support even among the Republicans to pass the bill in the House of  Representatives.  Unfortunately, part of the lack of support was because the bill did not take away enough of the benefits provided by the Affordable Care Act.  Is this what a Christian nation does?  What kind of Christian members of the legislature support that decision?

The President has proposed a budget which will effectively end funding for Meals on Wheels and programs which provide meals for low income students in schools.  Some Christians cheered.  Is this what a Christian nation does?  Take away food from the poor, the needy and children?  What kind of Christian people cheer that decision?

What kind of Christian nation is the United States?  What kind of Christians are its citizens?

The ignorance of the current U.S. President and his administration

Since November 9, 2016, I have refrained from writing a blog post specifically  about the then President-elect and/or his choices for Cabinet posts.  After the inauguration and Senate confirmations, I still refrained from writing any blog posts.  Rather, I expressed my opinions and concerns by sharing various posts on Facebook and retweeting various Tweets.  But what happened yesterday with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has moved me to now write this blog post.

I had debated what to title this post.  I was certain I wanted to use ignorance of the U.S. President and his administration.  The question was whether to use a word  before the word ignorance and if so, what word?  I had thought of careless or willful or reckless or even thoughtless or perhaps some combination of those words.  But decided instead to use those words within the post rather than in the title since all are appropriate for the different situations.  There are more examples than the ones I have chosen, but I believe these examples certainly illustrate my points.

Let us begin with Secretary of Education Betty DeVos.  She praised the historically African American Colleges and Universities for being good examples of  having choices about what school to attend.  That statement and sentiment clearly demonstrated ignorance as to why those colleges and universities were founded.  Her ignorance was thoughtless, careless and willful.  She needed only do some research to discover that those colleges and universities were founded precisely because African Americans had NO choices.  They were not allowed in colleges and universities due to legal segregation.

Betty DeVos was harshly criticized for her words and deservedly so.  She clearly knew little about the colleges and universities she chose as examples of why allowing tax dollars to fund private schools via a voucher system would be good for students and the country.  What makes her words reckless are that so many of the current President's supporters believe what she said.

The President displayed his own ignorance of history when he tweeted about Frederick Douglass in such a manner as to imply that he thought Mr, Douglass was still alive.  His words were thoughtless, careless and willfully ignorant.  Some research would have enlightened the President about Mr. Douglass, his life and contributions and the date of his death, February 20, 1895, 122 years ago.  His words were reckless because, of course, his supporters believe every word he says.

The President again tweeted words that displayed his thoughtless, careless and willful ignorance when he questioned who knew that President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.  That President Lincoln was a Republican is not something that should come as a surprise to anyone who has had any basic American History classes.  Perhaps what might be lesser know is that he was the FIRST  Republican President.  Maybe the current President was surprised to learn that President Lincoln was a Republican because the present day Republican Party principals and policies have so little in common with President Lincoln's Republican Party principles and policies.

The words from the current President and current Secretary of Education pale in comparison and seem trivial after Press Secretary Sean Spicer's comments Tuesday April 11, 2017, about Adolph Hitler, the use of chemicals and the Holocaust.  Thoughtless, careless, reckless, willfully ignorant words spewed from Mr. Spicer's mouth like lava from an erupting volcano.  To suggest that Hitler did not use chemicals, to refer to the death chambers as "Holocaust Centers", to then  say that Hitler did not use chemicals "on his own people".  There are no words, although many on Twitter and Facebook have tried to find ways to express their collective shock at such appalling ignorance.

There have been numerous calls​ for Mr. Spicer to be fired.  He has said he "let the President down."  No, Mr. Spicer did not merely "let the President down", he let the United States down and even worse, he desecrated the memory of those killed in the Holocaust as well those who survived and those who lost members of their families.  There is no turning back from that.  There are not words, regardless of how heartfelt and sincere that will undo that damage.  All of which could have been avoided with just some research and careful, thoughtful, willful consideration of what words to say.

That was not the only ignorant utterance from a member of the current President's administration on that day.  The Secretary of State questioned why the American taxpayers should care about the Ukraine.  Stunning words from the Secretary of State.  Thoughtless, careless and willfully ignorant words from the person who represents the United States on the world stage.  Why should American taxpayers care?  That question actually crossed Secretary Tillerson's mind.  That was a question he believed he needed to ask out loud where others could hear him.  Why should American taxpayers care?  Because the people in the Ukraine deserve the right to choose their form of government and not be invaded, that's why!  Because when the rights of any are threatened, the rights of all are threatened, that why!

Hillary Clinton will rise and so will we!

Hillary Clinton has returned from her journey into the woods and her time with family and friends.  She made the decision to start speaking up and speaking out once again about the issues that matter most to her, the issues that stir her passions and motivate her to continue moving forward when she could easily just sit back and say nothing.  While Senator Mitch McConnell's words that "she was warned, nevertheless she persisted" were directed at Senator Elizabeth Warren as the reason the Majority Leader told the Senator to sit down and be quiet, those words sum up much of Hillary Clinton's life.

She had been warned numerous times by various groups who opposed her wanting to be more than just her husband's appendage to be quiet.  But Hillary Clinton, like Senator Warren, refused to remain silent.  She refused to allow her intelligence and her education and her work to fade into the past because she was married, nor should she have had to that.  But that was exactly what some men and women not only expected but insisted she do.  Rather than sit down, Hillary Clinton stood up and spoke up and was vilified for doing so, but she continued rising every time she was knocked down.

She recently gave a speech at the Women in the World summit in New York, N.Y. and was interviewed by Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times op-ed columnist.  She spoke about work still left to be done.  She spoke about losing the election and the impact of Russian interference.  She also spoke about the role misogyny played in her loss.  She described an all too oft repeated scenario about men being praised and admired for certain qualities while women are condemned and disliked for the very same qualities.  Research suggests she might be right.  Might be?  As in, she might be talking about something which could be the rule, not the exception?  Women have experienced that double-standard for decades, not just from men, but from other women who for whatever reason, admire the strong, tough male leaders yet disdain the strong tough female leaders in professions considered traditionally male.  Of course what some people seem to forget is that the majority of professions were once considered traditionally male, including teaching and nursing.

Now that Hillary Clinton is speaking again, she is also being told to be quiet again from both ends of the political spectrum.  Not surprisingly, the conservative Right always wants to silence her.  So, too, do some of the progressive Left.  Her time is over, they say.  She lost and needs to go away now, they mutter loudly.  She's the past and the time has come to move forward into a future without her presence looming over the Democratic Party, they explain.  So this woman who has lived the women's revolution and continued to rise every time she was knocked down has no value and nothing more to contribute?  Her voice must now be silenced and her ideas and opinions be kept to herself or shared only among family and friends in private conversations?

Perhaps that is what some people want, but that will never happen.  Once again Hillary Clinton will rise and once again, so will we!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PEGGY LENNON AND ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU!

 This blog is usually about politics, history 

or a combination of politics and history.

Today's blog post is more personal.

Today, April 8, is Peggy Lennon's birthday.  One year ago, to celebrate her seventy-fifth birthday I wrote a post entitled HAPPY BIRTHDAY PEGGY LENNON AND THANK YOU.  In that post I shared details of meeting Peggy Lennon in 1982, seeing her again in 1983, making a promise to finish college and learning to "never say say never" from her not once or even twice but four times and in four different decades!

In the weeks just prior to writing that post, I had been thinking about the possibility of going to Graduate School.  That was something I had not thought about since I left Graduate School shortly after the beginning of the Spring Semester in 2002.  As a matter of fact, I never thought I would go back to Graduate School.  I believed that moment had long since passed.  Life had taken me in different directions between 2002 and 2016 but none of those paths seem to lead to finishing Graduate School.  But then those thoughts found their way back into my mind again in the weeks leading up to Peggy's birthday.  I began to consider the pros and cons of returning to school and was still undecided.  One reason was that in my search for an online Graduate Program in History, many colleges and universities required at least one, usually the final, semester the classes be taken at the school not online.  Another reason was that local universities offering Master of Arts degrees required taking the Graduate Record Exam.  I had previously taken that exam and qualified, but as it was over ten years ago, I would have to take the exam again.  The prospect of taking the math test was definitely something I did not want to do.

As I wrote the post about Peggy Lennon, I realized that I had not quite finished keeping my promise to her.  When I sent her a copy of my Bachelor of Arts degree in History in the summer of 2001, I also wrote a little note to her informing her that I would be starting Graduate School in September 2001.  So while I had kept my promise to her to finish college by earning my Bachelor of Arts degree, I had not finished Graduate School.  So I made the decision to go back to Graduate School to not only finish what I started, but keep the promise I made to Peggy Lennon in August 1983 that I would finish college!

Four days after Peggy's birthday, on April 12, 2016, I contacted Southern New Hampshire University and began the process to start Graduate School.  I was accepted into their Master of Arts program with a concentration in American History.  On May 23, 2016, just forty-five days after Peggy's birthday, I started my first graduate class!  Now, one year later, I have completed four graduate classes and started my fifth class on April 3.

Thank you Peggy Lennon for the inspiration and for giving me the opportunity to make that promise to you nearly thirty-four years ago!  You told me then, "You should finish school."  I am going finish the Master of Arts program and keep that promise!

For anyone interested in reading the post from last year, here is the link:  HAPPY BIRTHDAY PEGGY LENNON AND THANK YOU

Oh the frustration of being a Hillary Clinton supporter.

The media has apparently woken up sort of to the fact that the current President does not tell the truth and does not care whether he tells the truth.  Still some struggle with calling out the obvious lies and still they do not always press for answers.  Still they are willing to talk with members of the the current President's staff despite knowing those individuals will lie to them.  They even seem concerned now about the growing evidence of possible collusion between the current President's election team and the Russians who sought to influence the outcome of that election.  But during the campaign the media routinely dismissed Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff's warning about Russian interference.

Rather than actually focus on the lies, the overt racism, sexism, fear-mongering and ties to Russia that emanated from the current President and his campaign staff during the election, the media gleefully chased stories about Hillary Clinton's emails and discovering who donated to the Clinton Foundation.  They bought the whole "pay for play" scenario drummed up to taint Hillary Clinton while ignoring the fact that the current President was engaged in what certainly seemed like "pay for play".  But then again, the media has had a long-standing love-hate-love affair with Hillary Clinton.  When she is either in office or out of office and NOT running for anything, the media acknowledges her intelligence, wit and ability to do the job well.  But once she decides to run for office, then the media turns against her.  They portray her as a conniving, ruthless, liar who will do and say whatever will get her what she wants.  They have done this for so many years that there were enough people who learned to believe the lies rather than the truth to prevent her from becoming President. Ironically the description of Hillary Clinton could easily describe the current President quite well yet the media never portrayed him that way.

Hillary Clinton faced not merely an uphill climb in her quest to shatter the highest glass ceiling, she faced an obstacle filled, booby-trapped mountain of soaring height.  She was criticized for the sound of her voice, for not smiling or for smiling, for what she wore and what she didn't wear, for the sound of her laughter.  What male candidate faced such a constant barrage of criticism about such trivial matters?  During the primary season Hillary had to tread gently as she squared off against her opponent.  She could not risk alienating his supporters.  Apparently he was much less concerned about alienating her supporters because he and his surrogates denounced her as part of the establishment, beholden to Wall Street and wealthy corporations and just not progressive enough to really wear the mantle of liberal.  As the outcome of the primaries turned more and more favorable toward Hillary winning the nomination, her opponent and his surrogates continued their relentless attacks while riling up their supporters to oppose Hillary.  How did they ever expect that those people would just forget about all the words and accusations and reasons they heard against Hillary to then cast votes for her?  Too many never did.  In the general election, she was repeatedly criticized for not having a message and not being able to connect with voters while the republican candidate was praised despite his message being one of fear-mongering and anti-immigration.

When Hillary lost the Presidential election, her primary opponent's supporters railed against the Democratic Party for not choosing their candidate.  He would have won, they taunted.  The Democrats had made the wrong choice.  They picked someone so flawed that she could not even beat a Republican opponent that should have easily been defeated.  An opponent that many polls showed she would defeat.  Their candidate would have easily won according to polls despite the fact that he could not win the nomination.  Well that was stolen from him.  Really?  How?  The Democratic Party did not control the outcomes of voting.  Perhaps their candidate would have won because he would have something Hillary did not have: a united Democratic Party determined not to allow the Republican candidate to win.  That is something Hillary did not have.

Nor did Hillary Clinton have the support of all Democratic women.  Some women, in particular the younger voters, were outraged to think that they would be counted to support a female candidate because she was female.  For them the struggle for women's rights was something they read about in history books, not something they lived.  The battles had all been fought and the struggle was over perhaps they thought.  But what they could not seem to understand is just how fragile every one of those gains still is and how easily they can be taken away.  That is something we have witnessed in the past few days as protections for women in the workplace were removed by executive order.  Hillary would never have had the support of every woman because there are still women who reject the idea that women should be treated as equal to men.  Whether it is their culture, their religion, their upbringing or some combination of all three, they will never believe in equality for women.

So Hillary and her supporters climbed that obstacle filled, booby-trapped mountain of soaring height together and fell together as the election results became clear.  She would not shatter that glass ceiling not because she did not get enough votes to win, she actually won the popular vote, but because she did not get enough votes in the States that she needed for a victory.  Now as we face such an uncertain future with the fate of country in the hands of a man who lies because he knows he can and surrounds himself with people who will do more harm than good in their postions, we can only imagine what could have been.  One thing is certain in these chaotic times: Hillary's supporters will always stand with and be with her!