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!

"For God and Country"

History is filled with wars and battles which were fought "for God and Country".  One political party in the United States not only makes "for God and Country" a political slogan but makes Christianity part of their platform and how they define themselves and want to define the United States.  "For God and Country" is more than just a rallying cry to fire up the party's base, it is also a weapon to use against the opposition.  For if one party is for something and/or someone, the opposing party must be against that something and/or someone.  So one party declares itself God-fearing, flag waving Patriots and paints the other party as, well, not because they do not embrace the exact same values.

Abraham Lincoln understood that creating those types of labels does not work and is misleading.  In his Second Inaugural Address given on March 4, 1865 just forty days before he died, President Lincoln said that the Union and the Confederacy "read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. " Both sides believed that they were correct in their interpretation of what is right and just in God's eyes.  Both sides held opposing views.  Who was right?  If the outcome of the war was meant to be the indication of which side God had chosen, then the Union had it right and the Confederacy had it wrong.  Unless, of course, the God who can never make a mistake, did make a mistake.  Or the Southerners were being punished somehow and would eventually and ultimately be rescued from their defeat.

History records the outcomes of the wars and battles, but people often decide their own reality based not on facts, but on what they want to believe.  So members of one one party want to believe they are always good Christians and ever "for God and Country" and want to believe the opposing party is filled with people who are both godless and unpatriotic.  True or not true?  How does one decide?  Perhaps by looking at the actions rather than the words of the political parties?  That's a thought worth pursuing.

In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus talks about giving food to the hungry, giving something to drink to the thirsty, giving clothes to the naked, giving shelter to the stranger, and giving comfort to the sick.  Which political party has done this most often?  The Christian "for God and Country" party that does not support Social Programs which provide assistance to the those most in need of help?  Or the other party that not only supports those programs but was responsible for creating them?  Perhaps more important than wearing "for God and Country" like a badge of honor is acting like all lives and all people matter.

Why do people vote against their own best interests?

Along with wondering why do people fight against what will help them, why so many people choose to vote against what is in their own bests interests?  Everyone knows, or should know, that clean air and clean water are life-sustaining necessities.  Yet when a political party denies that there are serious problems with the climate and want to eliminate or at least render totally ineffective the Environmental Protection Agency, the question which begs to be asked is why do people support that?  Why would people think that eliminating the agency which serves as a means to protect the planet, including the air we breathe and the water we drink is the best way or even a good way to respond to scientists who have been sounding the alarm for years that we are on a path which will not only destroy the planet but humanity as well?  Everyone needs to breathe and everyone needs water in order to live.  Yet some are willing to risk the present and the future to allow corporations to make more money.  Money which will never, despite all the promises, make its way down the corporate ladder to the workers.  So why do people do that?

Why do senior citizens consistently support a political party which promises to privatize Social Security and Medicare?  Taking those programs out of the control of the Federal Government perhaps sounds like a good idea.  After all, as one political party explains in great detail the Federal Government is far too involved in the every day lives of the citizens of the United States.  But what happens when private interests take control of a social program?  That of course depends entirely on who has control.  The question is who would be in control and how would privatizing Social Security and Medicare work?  How would payments be made into the system?  How does the system protect the money?  Why are those changes necessary?  How would that benefit anyone now or in the future?  Have those questions been answered adequately by anyone supporting the issues?  Or is it enough that the political party supports it so that is all some people need to know?

One political party talks about the need for widespread deregulation.  Their message is simple: government regulations hurt businesses and cause problems which lead to loss of jobs.  If the government stayed out of the way, then businesses would thrive and people would be employed.   Sound like a good idea, actually sounds like an excellent idea, but what are some of the areas government regulates in business?  How about safety?  Perhaps people have long since forgotten the twenty-five workers who died in a fire in a North Carolina chicken factory as a result of blocked exits. But their families surely have not forgotten those deaths which could have been prevented.  Oh, but that is the exception, not the rule.  Yes, it is because of government regulations!  Without regulations or with a loosening of  regulations, job safety becomes an issue.  Regulations are not a punishment, but rather a reminder that there are certain standards and codes of conduct which businesses must abide by in order to provide safe conditions for workers and customers.  So why would anyone other than a business owner really think that voting for deregulation is good?

There are so many more examples, but the question remains, why are people so willing to vote against their own best interests?  Or for that matter, the best interests of future generations?  What would they tell those future generations?  That their political party said it was good and helpful so they believed them?  That they did not really understand what was happening because they only listened to certain news programs which reinforced their political party's platform?  Or that they just did not care about the future?  Those are tough questions to have to answer.

Why do people fight what will help them?

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act which made having healthcare mandatory.  The ACA, more commonly, and at times derisively called ObamaCare, also made health insurance affordable for the first time for many people.  Before the ACA had been passed and signed into law, there was opposition to it for numerous reasons.  One reason was that people did not want the President or Federal government of the United States telling them what they had to do.  On the surface that might sound like a reasonable argument.  After all, few of us really want to be forced to do things.

But it is important to pause and really think about what is being opposed and whether that opposition is really in the best interests of those fighting against it.  In fighting against the Affordable Care Act, people are fighting to stop being told they must have health insurance.  They oppose being told they can now afford to go to a doctor on a regular basis.  They oppose being told they can now afford prescription drugs that can cure, prevent and/or treat medical issues which could increase their life span.  They oppose being told they can now afford to have blood work, diagnostic imaging and other tests which can detect health issues sooner rather than later.  They oppose being told they now no longer have to rely on the Emergency Room for their only and primary care.  All of which are good and beneficial to them, all of which they implicitly oppose when they vehemently oppose ObamaCare because they are denied the freedom to die due to lack of medical care.

Health care is not the only life-saving issue people have opposed because Federal and/or State governments imposed something on its citizens.  Wearing seat belts was another instance where people rose up to stop what they believed was the overreach of government.  People opposed being told they had to wear a seat belt.  They opposed being told that they no longer had the freedom to impale themselves on the steering wheel or smash their heads and faces into the windshield in an accident.

Think about that for a moment.