President Lincoln' Gettysburg Address

One hundred fifty-four years ago on November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln stood up to say a few words on a battlefield in Gettysburg Pennsylvania. He said “the world would little note nor long remember what we say here.” But that is not true. President Lincoln’s speech is still studied not only in history books but in literature books. He also said that “we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.”

He was right, of course. Mere words can never really dedicate or consecrate any place which has already been dedicated and consecrated by the blood and sweat of those who gave their lives there and those who fought there did. So President Lincoln called upon his fellow Americans to honor the living and dead soldiers by “being dedicated here to the unfinished work… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Today let us take some time to reflect on what those words meant on a blood-soaked battlefield to a young country torn apart with its young experiment in government teetering on the brink of failure. The war had been waging for over two years with no end in sight. A war President Lincoln accepted on behalf of the United States because he believed that the country must remain whole. he asked his fellow Americans to hold on and to fight on to preserve that “noble experiment” the founders dared to create.

Let us ponder what those words continued to mean to the United States in the years after the Civil War as the country tried to come back together though forever changed by the bloody battles and division. Reconstruction was not easy nor was the struggle for equal rights. Fights for equal rights have continued throughout all these years.

Let us then ask ourselves, do the words of the Gettysburg Address mean anything to us today?

Honor, dishonor and patriotism

I consider myself to be very patriotic. But no one has to take my word for it. Family and friends know how I feel about the United States and can easily provide "references" should anyone want proof. I love the United States. I love studying the history of the United States, particularly early American political and constitutional history and President Abraham Lincoln, which is why I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and why I am currently in graduate school pursuing a Master of Arts degree in American History. I love the American Flag, the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. I love the Statue of Liberty. I really do stand up in my living room and put my hand over my heart when the National Anthem is played on television. 

Given my feelings about the United States and its symbols, one might expect that I would be against taking a knee during the National Anthem. That would be the patriotic response, wouldn't it? After all, taking a knee is disrespectful to the American Flag, the National Anthem, the country and the military, right? Well, many veterans have stated that they served this country to ensure that everyone's rights were protected, whether or not we agree with them. They do not feel disrespected.

Think about the first twenty words in the Pledge of Allegiance "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands". What does "allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands" mean? Merriam-Webster defines allegiance as "devotion or loyalty". Promising to be devoted and/or loyal to the Flag "and the republic for which it stands" means promising to be devoted and/or loyal to the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined in Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees "freedom of speech" which has also been defined as "freedom of expression". Taking a knee is freedom of expression. Taking a knee is saying that "liberty and justice for all", the words which end the Pledge of Allegiance, have not been applied equally to all and we must come together to talk about what we can do to ensure that "liberty and justice for all" really does mean all people.

I cannot profess patriotism, love of country and its symbols, nor devotion or loyalty unless I am willing to defend its Constitution and Bill of Rights. I cannot do that unless I support all who take a knee. That is how I honor the Flag and the National Anthem. That is how I honor the Pledge of Allegiance. That is how I honor all the men and women who served and those who lost their lives, defending our country and the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. To refuse to do so would be dishonorable.

Yes, I am still angry about the 2016 presidential election

Nearly ten months after the 2016 presidential election, I am still angry.  Not only am I angry that the most qualified, best prepared candidate lost, but I am still angry with third party voters who could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton.  I am angry with everyone who could not be bothered to vote.  Of course, I am still angry with those who voted for the Republican candidate.  But my anger with them is different than with those who voted third party or did not vote.

This weekend eight hundred thousand people who are DACA recipients do not know whether they will be allowed to remain in the United States or be deported to the country of their birth.  A country they have little, if any, memory of because they have lived in the United States since they were children.  This is their home.  This is their country.  This is their life.  With one signature from the current president, the life they have known will be ripped from them.  They will be sent back to a place they do not know.  For what?  To make America great again?  How could destroying peoples' lives possibly make America great?  Did the lives of the DACA recipients not matter enough to vote to protect them?  Obviously not.

We have already heard the stories of ICE agents tearing families apart as they round up all those "bad hombres", some of whom are not really bad, after all.  So how does this make America great?  How does destroying peoples' lives make America great again?  What has happened and what might happen are not surprising to anyone who understood what the current president said during the 2016 campaign.  He said he would do this.  Did the lives of these people and their families not matter enough to vote to protect them?  Obviously not.

The current president has rolled back protections for women, LGBT people, the environment, and wage-earners while promoting the interests of business and the wealthy.  Did women, LGBT people, the environment and wage-earners not matter enough to vote to protect them?  Obviously not.

The Affordable Care Act has been under attack since it was passed.  The most recent attempt to destroy it failed.  The current president remains undeterred in his quest to destroy the ACA one way or another.  His latest tactic is to cut the advertising budget for ACA open enrollment as well as shorten the enrollment period.   Again, this is not surprising.  One of his campaign promises was to repeal the ACA "on day one."  The ACA is not a perfect system.  But it has provided life-saving insurance for millions who had been uninsured.  Millions of people are able to go to a doctor on a regular basis and afford medications that help them control medical problems that would otherwise kill them.  Did protecting accessibility to healthcare insurance for millions of people not matter enough to vote to protect it?  Obviously not.

The current president has not merely lifted the lid on the simmering undercurrent of racism that has always pervaded the United States, he ripped that lid off and made racist speech and acts acceptable again.  This is not surprising to anyone who understood what he said as candidate during his rallies.  Was working to continue to keep racism from becoming acceptable enough to vote to prevent it?  Obviously not.

So what did matter?  What would have been the one issue that would have mattered enough for people to vote to protect it?  If the answer is that the Democratic party should have picked a different candidate and/or another candidate would have won, then that is poor excuse for all the damage that has been done and will continue to be done by the current administration and the Republican controlled Congress.

Yes, that angers me because it did not have to happen, and yes, I am angry at the people who could have prevented it with a vote and chose not to stop it.

What makes America great?

The current president, during his campaign, used the slogan "make America great again."  Those of us who opposed him knew the slogan was intended to appeal to white voters, especially men, who felt they were losing power and longed for "the good old days".  Katy Tur, MSNBC reporter and host of her own hour-long show on the cable news network, covered the current president's campaign and recently said that some of his supporters talked about the 1950s being a time when America was great.

The United States of America was flawed in its conception.  After having declared independence in a document which stated that "all men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the country not only continued to engage in slavery, but wrote and ratified a constitution which protected slavery.  The constitution also limited citizenship to white men, leaving out women, African Americans who had gained freedom and Native Americans.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,  ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, African Americans were guaranteed citizenship as well as the right to vote.  Then came the Jim Crow laws which were enacted by white Southerners after returning to power in Southern states.  The laws were designed to severely limit the rights of African Americans and every attempt was made to impeded their right to vote.  Murders and lynching took place on a regular basis.  White supremacy reigned in the South, while many whites in Northern were ambivalent at best.

Although women finally won the right to vote with ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the fight for equal rights continues into the present as does the fight for equality for many groups.  While some white Americans may think the 1950s were a time when America was great, that was not the case for non-whites, women or gays and lesbians.  African Americans were still engaged in fighting for equal rights in 1950s.  That fight continued into the 1960s and while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made great strides, the fight for equality continues.

So was America ever great?  Is America great now?  Can America ever be great?  The answer is a resounding "yes" because greatness and perfection are not the same!  When the Declaration of Independence was issued, there were people who understood that slavery could no longer exist in a country that declared all men equal.  During the convention in Philadelphia which produced the United States Constitution, there were men who argued that slavery should be abolished. During the 1850s, abolitionists argued forcefully against slavery and Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle' Tom's Cabin which disputed the Southern myth of "happy slaves" and added fuel to the calls to end slavery.  In 1860, when eleven Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, men fought and women served in whatever capacity they could to initially save the Union and ultimately end slavery because President Abraham Lincoln understood that slavery had to end and guided the Union in achieving that outcome.

When the war ended, as African Americans began their fight for equal rights, they did not fight alone.  They were joined by whites who understood that they could not sit back in silence.  When women fought for equality, they did not fight alone.  They were joined by men who understood that they could not sit back in silence.  When gays, lesbians and transgender people fought for equal rights, they were joined by heterosexual men and women who understood that they could not sit back in silence.  When people did not have enough food to eat, people joined together to find ways to help them get food because they understood that they could not sit back in silence.

There are countless numbers of examples of times when people stood up, stood together and spoke out because they understood that they could not sit back in silence.  Each and every time they did is what always has and always will make America great!

Removing Confederate monuments.

Some States have begun the process of removing Confederate statues and monuments.  Other States are still debating and Alabama passed a law to protect Confederate monuments from removal.  One of the arguments for preserving those monuments is that they represent part of history.  After all, there have been countless numbers of statues and monuments erected throughout our country to commemorate a person, a people and/or a significant event.  So what is the problem with the Confederate monuments and why do people want them removed?

Statues and monuments are erected to honor a person, people and/or events or to remember something tragic.  So what's wrong with having Confederate statues and monuments to honor those who fought for the Confederacy?  There is no honor in fighting a war to keep a race enslaved.  There is no honor in fighting a war to destroy a country.  There is no honor in erecting statues and monuments as testaments to white power and white superiority.  There is no honor in erecting statues and monuments as a way to remind a race of people that they are former slaves or the descendants of former slaves and will always be inferior.  There is nothing brave, courageous or righteous about fighting for, shedding blood for or dying for the right to own another human being. 

So what is the history that these statues and monuments represent that deserves to be protected, preserved and honored?  A history of enslaving a race of people.  A history of fighting for the right to own another human being.  A history of fighting to tear apart the world's first democratic form of government.  A history of fighting to say that all people are not created equal?  A history of fighting for white superiority and power.  Is that really a history worth honoring and preserving?

Hillary Clinton's supporters will not be silenced or dismissed

The media has featured various stories about those who voted for the current President.  The focus of the stories tends to be about the fact that those who voted for the current President still support him even though his policies and those of the Republican controlled Congress will likely hurt them.  Once in awhile the media will talk to people who now regret their choice.  But those are few and far between.  The media also focuses on the most progressive members of the Democratic party and have come to the conclusion that not only should Hillary Clinton be silent, but that her own party wants her to be silent.  She no longer has a reason to speak unless she is finally willing to accept complete and total blame for her loss.  After which she must be forever silent.  But Hillary Clinton is not the only one the media as well as those on the right and some on the left want to silence.  They also want to silence those of us who support her.  How many times has the media interviewed or written about Hillary Clinton's supporters?  Maybe a story or two, but other than that, Hillary Clinton's supporters have been dismissed as no longer important, not worth talking to or listening to any more.

Perhaps the lack of media coverage of Hillary Clinton's supporters gives the impression that her supporters have dispersed, are no longer engaged, just do not care any more, have accepted their fate and moved on to other things.  Such suppositions might seem quite right, but are in fact quite wrong.  We are alive and well and very vocal on social media, particularly Twitter.  We care about what is going on our country.  We are angry because we know that much of what is happening could have or would have been prevented by the election of Hillary Clinton.  Oh yes, there is always that specter of the unending investigations and stalled legislation if she had been victorious and the Republicans maintained control of Congress.  But there would not have been executive orders undoing what President Obama had done.  There would not have been families torn apart by ICE agents.  There would not have been a travel ban.  There would not been a withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.  The Republican "repeal and replace" healthcare plan would have been vetoed.  The list goes on and on.

But we are not merely rehashing the election and lamenting what could have been.  We are raising our voices and using social media to speak truth to power.  We are calling out the leaders of the Democratic party who seek to silence us and reminding those leaders that we will not be silenced nor dismissed.  We are not some little group who can be dismissed as unimportant.  We are a big diverse group and we vote.  Yes, we are still with Hillary Clinton.  We are still listening to her because she has the wisdom, knowledge and experience to guide us through these difficult times as one of the Democratic party's leaders.  She was not a weak candidate and the media and others saying that over and over again will never make it true.  Hillary Clinton has withstood an onslaught of lies and rumors that has lasted over thirty years.  She chose Rachel Platten's "Fight Song" as one of her main campaign anthems because that is what she has always done: continue the fight for the voiceless.   She will never be silenced or dismissed and neither will those of us who stand with her.

The American Flag

 In a column published July 6, 1970 and then included in her book, I Lost Everything in the Post-Natal Depression, Erma Bombeck wrote about the American Flag.  She wrote because of something she had seen on television.  A group students and New York construction workers had an altercation and part of it involved the American flag.  The students referred to the American Flag as the construction workers' Flag and symbol.  What struck Erma Bombeck most was the students did not think of the flag as their flag or symbol.
    As a parent, I guess I always thought respect for the flag was congenital. Is it possible I was so busy teaching the basics, I never took the time to teach “flag.”

     She included in her column a few well known quotes along with her own words about what she was saying to her children instead of teaching "flag".

“Oh say can you see by the dawn’s early light.…”

(Don’t slouch. Pick up your feet. Don’t talk with food in your mouth. Stop squinting. Turn that radio down. Get off the phone. Tie that shoestring before you trip on it.”)

     She then ended with these words:

Did I forget to tell them it was their flag they hoisted over Mount Suribachi? Their flag that flies over champions at the Olympics? Their flag that draped the coffin of John F. Kennedy? Their flag that was planted in the windless atmosphere of the moon? It’s pride. It’s love. It’s goose bumps. It’s tears. It’s determination. It’s a torch that is passed from one generation to another.

I defy you to look at it and tell me you feel nothing.

On July 4, 2017 I watched the end of the Boston Pops concert.  As they played and sang "You're a Grand Ole Flag" an American Flag unfurled behind the orchestra.  I thought about the Flag, what it means and what is has endured throughout the years.  It is more than just a decorated piece of cloth.  The Flag has been stepped on and burned by people to protest inequality and discrimination and it it has been revered by people who seek to deny equality to and discriminate against others. It has been a source of controversy as people argue over whether pledging allegiance to the Flag is a form of indoctrination or an act of patriotism.  It has draped the coffins of those selfless men and women who served in our military and been derided by those who oppose democracy.  The American Flag is given to new citizens when they take the citizenship oath and the American Flag is waved by nativists who want immigrants to go back to their countries.  It represents the best the United States of America can be and the worst the United States of America can be.  But through it all, just as it did during the battle Francis Scott Key witnessed, the American Flag has endured, just as the the country has and just as the Constitution has.  We can let the conservatives continue to claim the American Flag as their own or we can take it back, wave it proudly, and let it lead us forward as we continue to move toward that "more perfect union".


 

(The link is to the online text of Erma Bombeck's book.  Scroll down toward the end to read Flag)

July 4, 2017

July Fourth has always been one of my favorite holidays.  As a patriotic. flag-waving democrat who loves her country (yes, we Democrats do LOVE our country and our flag) and its history and studies early American political history, early American Constitutional history and President Lincoln, I celebrate the birth of our country and the very beginnings of our republic.  Many people tend to think of the War for Independence in terms of the issue of taxation.  While that is true, that is not the only grievance the colonists had against King George III..  They also listed among their grievances that the King "refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good" and "excited domestic insurrections amongst us."  Once the colonists signed the Declaration and publicly declared independence, they were, of course, guilty of treason for renouncing the authority of the King.  The outcome of the war was not certain.  They faced a Royal military that was well armed and well trained.  If they were defeated, they could very well lose their lives.  As Benjamin Franklin wrote before signing the Declaration of Independence "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." 

Two hundred forty-one years later, we are nation questioning whether our Federal government and whether our Constitution are still strong enough to withstand the events taking place now.  There is an assault of the press from the office of the Presidency.  What are we to do about that?  Can that really happen?  Perhaps the answer can be found in the past, in the attempt by President John Adams to silence the press as well as any opposition to the Adams administration through the Alien and Sedition Acts which made any public negative commentary on the the Federal government illegal.   The Acts also made immigration and naturalization more difficult.  The Acts were enforced during Adams presidency, but effectively ended with the election of Thomas Jefferson.

Are we facing a moment in time when we, like the colonists, must form a new government through revolution?  No, despite how dire the situation may be or even seem to be, our Constitution, will continue to be strong enough to survive. We must remember that the Constitution is a document. a blueprint, for the way government ought to work.  But as we know all too well from our country's history, and from its Civil War, making government work as well as protecting and preserving the Union requires everyone's participation.  Members of Congress must understand that their oath of office to defend the Constitution must take prority over their allegiance to their party.  As Joan Walsh noted during her appearance on the Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell on July 3, 2017, the framers of the Constitution never thought members of Congress would not do their job.  Anyone who might doubt Joan's assessment can read the James Madison authored Federalist number 10 in which Madison  wrote "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."  When that does not happen, then the voters must use the power they have been given to elect members of Congress who will do what is best for the country.

Two hundred forty-one years ago, a group of men were willing to risk their lives to give birth to our country.  One hundred fifty-six years ago President Abraham Lincoln accepted war to preserve our country, our Constitution and our Federal government.  On July 4, 2017, let us honor those who gave their lives and those who risked everything to create and preserve our country by holding our members of Congress accountable by demanding they protect and defend our Constitution, work together to pass laws which will do the most good for the most people and use our power to vote them out of office if they refuse.

Weeping for my country...

I have cried many times since the Republican Senators released their heath care bill.  I have cried for myself and what might happen to me.  I have diabetes and may not be able to get coverage.  I have cried for the brave people who showed up at Senator Mitch McConnell's office in Washington D.C., most of whom where in wheelchairs, and some of whom were actually removed from their wheelchairs by Capital police.  What a heartbreaking and utterly heartless moment.  This is who we are now?  This is what we do now?  We forcibly remove people in wheelchairs even if it means removing them from their wheelchairs to do that?

I have avoided watching the video of the young boy clinging to his mother as ICE agents took her into custody because she is undocumented.  I could not watch.  Is this who we are now?  Is this what we do now?  Rip families apart to satisfy some false fantasy that by doing so we will make our country great again or safe again?

How heartless do people have to be to think what is happening to undocumented immigrants and their families is acceptable?  How heartless do people have to be to believe that people do not deserve to have access to affordable healthcare and help to afford it if they cannot?  How divided have we become that we believe only certain groups deserve rights?  Only the rich deserve breaks?  How did we arrive at this moment in time and not have learned anything from our past?  From the struggles?  From the fights for equality?  From the people who fought to protect our country at any cost, even their lives?

The Civil War ended May 9, 1865.  The steps we have taken to move forward have been difficult, slow and filled with setbacks.  Yet people persisted and made strides and kept moving toward that "more perfect Union" the Constitution was written to create.  The Constitution was the beginning and each generation has been given the responsibility to continue on that path.  Some generations succeeded in moving toward that "more perfect Union" while other generations, determined to push the country back to some mythical past that never really was, gained control.  But eventually, those obstacles were overcome and we moved sometimes a step, sometimes only half a step, but still forward.

I weep for my country.  Just as I am certain others in generations before me also wept for this country.  I tried to find some solace in knowing the past, knowing what we have overcome and what we can overcome.  But it will take something we have not seen yet in this present Congress.  It will require members of Congress to stand up and say that they will not accept what is happening in our country.  I weep because I am not certain that there are enough members of Congress with the courage to do that. 

Time will tell... but what will it say?

Less than two years ago, actually one year, ten months and eleven days ago to be exact, on June 25, 2015, those of us who had health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, celebrated when the Supreme Court ruled for the second time that the ACA was constitutional.  Many of us would have lost our insurance if the ruling had gone the other way because the subsidies which helped pay for health insurance would no longer be available in States like Florida, where I live, and any other States that had refused the Medicare expansion or refused to set up its own healthcare exchange.

While the Republicans had continually challenged and attempted to repeal the ACA from the moment it passed Congress and was then enacted March 23, 2010, we always knew we had one solid wall of protection:  President Obama would always veto any attempt to repeal his landmark legislation.  Democrats in Congress had been willing to commit what amounted to "political suicide" in order to ensure that every person had affordable healthcare.  Such a pro-life attitude from the political party that has been so demonized for not being pro-life.  Democrats did indeed pay the price for their votes with losses in the mid-term elections which gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election and the Senate in the 2014 election.  Still though, we had President Obama to protect us.

During the 2016 election, there was so much on the line.  Healthcare, equal rights, women's rights, just to name a few.  Every vote would matter and every vote would determine not just the future of the United States, but the future of its citizens.  Those of us who understood all that could be lost and all the would be jeopardized did our best to encourage everyone to elect Hillary Clinton.  She would protect the rights we had gained just as President Obama had.  Rights that included the freedom to marry whomever we love even if the one we love happens to be the same sex as us because on June 26, 2015, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court stated that marriage between same sex couples cannot be denied in any State.  Rights that included women making their own choices regarding their bodies and having access to all types of medical care through Planned Parenthood.  Hillary Clinton also understood that the fight for equal rights for all was far from over and we still had far to go.  But one barrier, the highest glass ceiling, would have been shattered with the election of Hillary Clinton as the first woman President of the United States.

As the election results came in on November 8, 2016, those of us who had voted for Hillary Clinton, who looked forward to celebrating her victory and her leadership were shocked that she had lost.  Mixed in with that shock was some sense of dread.  Those of us who depended on the Affordable Care Act for insurance knew that with Republicans in control of the Presidency and Congress there was no one to protect us from losing our healthcare.  No one to protect the millions of people who would suffer, whether they realized it or not, without affordable healthcare.  No one to ensure that people could afford to go to the doctor, pay for prescriptions and not be bankrupted by illness.

Thursday May, 4, 2017, Republicans in the House of Representatives finally achieved what they had been promising since March of 2010.  They passed their own healthcare bill, the American Health Care Act to replace the ACA.  A bill which will negatively affect millions of Americans regardless of whether they have insurance through the ACA, their employers or even Medicare.  The ones who will benefit most from this new bill are the wealthy who will receive a tax cut and business who will no longer have to provide insurance,  Additionally businesses can "shop around" for the States with the lowest basic requirements for insurance coverage.

There is some hope that the Republican controlled Senate will not vote for the current bill but will write their own bill.  If that happens, then members from the House and Senate will meet to write another bill which must then be passed by the House and Senate before reaching the President's desk for his signature.  The hope is that the new bill will not pass the House because of  whatever changes were made.  There is also some hope that the bill would never pass the Senate because no Democrat will vote for the bill.  However by using reconciliation, which would mean a simple majority of 51 votes rather than the necessary 60 votes, Republicans in the Senate could succeed in passing the bill.

Time will tell whether the Republicans will be successful in passing their own healthcare bill before the 2018 elections.  If they have not passed a bill before the 2018 elections, will everyone who will lose healthcare benefits end Republican control of the House or Senate or both?

Time will tell... and in the mean time... millions of people wait to see what happens, knowing their fate is the hands of people who are trying to take away their health insurance.

So time will tell, but what will it say?

We are women... with a long, long way to go

In 1968, the Phillip Morris Company launched one of its most successful ad campaigns when it introduced a cigarette designed for women and used the slogan "You've Come a Long Way Baby" despite the fact that women still had far to go in the fight for rights and equality.  The 1970s were not a time of "hope and change", they were a time of hope for change.  Glass ceilings were not shattered, but little cracks began appearing.  Cracks that would ultimately lead to shattering glass in some places but not all.

In 1970, the Mary Tyler Moore show aired and was considered ground-breaking because it was depicted a single women with a career making her own decisions with no boyfriend or fiance by her side.  When the Mary Tyler Moore Show ended, "Mary Richards" did not marry the man of her dreams and go off to live happily ever after.  Rather she and most of her co-workers had been fired and faced the prospect of finding new jobs.

In 1971, a singer from Australia named Helen Reddy released a song she had co-written entitled "I Am Woman" which would become the anthem of the women's rights movement.  In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification.  The premise of the Equal Rights Amendment was quite simple: women and men would be treated equally under the law.  The United Nations declared 1975 International Women's Year and used Reddy's song as the theme.

One of the many issues women struggled with during the 1970s was equal pay for equal work despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act had been passed by Congress and signed into law in 1963  In 1972, the Mary Tyler Moore Show addressed this issue.  “Mary Richards” discovers that she is being paid less money than the man who had previously been in her position at the newsroom. When she asks “Lou Grant” about the disparity in pay, she is told that the reason she is paid less is because the man needed to make more money. She, of course, is dismayed, but cannot really do anything.

Moore's show was not the only show to address the issue of equal pay.  In 1977, Alice, the comedy starring Linda Lavin, also addressed the issue when Mel hired a man and paid him more money.  The waitresses quit, but came back to work.  Mel's solution was not to give the waitresses more money but to give the man less money.

More woman were elected to office on both the State and Federal level making more and more inroads into places that had previously been male only.  In my former home State of Massachusetts, in the district next to mine, Sharon M. Pollard defeated the incumbent in the 1976 election to become the first woman to be elected to the State Senate from that district and one of five female Senators when she was sworn in to office.

Interestingly some of the biggest opponents to changes for women were women themselves. In the 1970s, Erma Bombeck, beloved writer whose newspaper columns were posted on many refrigerator doors, spoke out in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment, she defined it in the most simple terms, “one size fits all”. Yet not only were there women who opposed her for her pro ERA stand, there were some who accused her of being part of the problem because of her writing. Mary Tyler Moore, whose show was considered ground-breaking in its depiction of a single woman who was not dependent on a man, was criticized for not being more “militant”.

But those were the 1970s and things surely changed as a result of of the women's movement.  Well, in 1995, just twenty-two years ago, the words “Someday a woman will be PRESIDENT” were printed on a t-shirt along with a drawing of Margaret, with a happy expression, from the Dennis the Menace comic strip. Those words were enough to get that shirt removed from Walmart because some shoppers found them offensive. I read about the incident in a magazine. I was stunned to think that in the mid 1990s the idea of a woman being President of the United States offended anyone. I immediately went in search of the shirt which I found at another store. I wore that shirt proudly for awhile then put it away and wore other shirts. Ah, but that was the mid 1990s and things are different now, right?

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election despite winning the popular vote because she did not receive enough votes in the "swing States" to win the Electoral College vote.  She was the first woman to be nominated by a major political party as its Presidential candidate.  There were women who objected to being told they should vote for her just because she was a woman.  I certainly understand their position.  I would not vote for a woman just because she was a woman.  As Senator John McCain found out when he chose Sarah Palin, women do not vote for a candidate just because she is a women.  Ironically though, some women will vote for for a candidate just because he's a man.

But back to Hillary Clinton and women objecting to being asked and/or told they should vote for her because she was a woman.  Hillary Clinton was not "just a woman" running for political office.  She was the most qualified, most prepared and most ready to lead candidate that this country has seen in our lifetimes.  The fact that a candidate so well suited and prepared for office was a woman should have drawn women to support her cause, not rally women against her because they felt they were being asked to vote for her "just because she was a woman".

Oh they will say that there were other reasons they refused to support her.  That she was flawed.  That she never should have been the candidate in the first place and on and on and on.  But regardless of what they say, she was the first woman who had the best chance to shatter that highest glass ceiling.  She was far more qualified than her male opponent.  While there were many factors which contributed to her loss, the fact that she is a woman placed more obstacles in her way and imposed unbelievably high standards on her which men have never experienced.

On the day after the inauguration of the current President, there was a massive Women's Rights March held throughout the country.  One reason for the march was that with the election of the current President and Republicans controlling both the Senate and the House of Representatives, women's rights were on a fast track to be reversed.  One of the people who attended the Women's Rights march in Los Angeles was Helen Reddy and yes, she sang "I Am Woman".

Ah yes, "I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore", the opening lines of that song.  But she did not sing all the verses.  One of the lines from the verse she did not sing was:

"But I'm still an embryo with a long, long way to go until I make my brother understand..."

Forty-six years after Helen Reddy's song was released, women are no longer embryos.  But we still have "a long, long way to go..."

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!