by

Trump’s Latest Lie; Republican Sycophants Bow


Donald Trump declared that Facebook is hindering his First Amendment rights. That is an absolute lie. His right to free speech extends to what he writes, public speaking, except in fraud, libel, slander, child pornography, purgury, blackmail, incitement to lawless actions, true threats and solicitation to commit crimes. On privately owned platforms there is no First Amendment priveledge. Facebook, and other platforms, have the absolute right to control the type of speech on their platforms. One of the more infamous type of barred speech comes from insider trading on Wall Street where one party knows of something that is going to affect his company and tells outsides to buy or sell stocks based on that knowldge.

McCarthy and Cruz have blasted these platforms claiming they are part of a liberal bias against conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, and they know it however they are cowtowing to a still popular former president who has a large and loyal base. They are far more interested in the political funding they get from siding with Trump then speaking against him.

But there are two Republican centrists who advocate the truth, have spoken out against Trump’s lies and know are pariahs in their own party rather than be touted as heros of the party. They are Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney. McCarthy is so incensed with Cheney’s sticking to the truth that he has arbitrarily decided that she must be removed from power. He decided this without conferring with other members of his party. But he is probably on safe ground as a large portion of Republicans either agree with Trump or are too fearful to speak against him.

It would seem that Republicans themselves are more against free speech than they are in protecting it. They seem cowed by the lingering presence of an out-of-office president who is probably the most devisive personality since Andrew Johnson. I do hope that in the near future cooler heads will prevail, that truth will prevail and that Republicans will get their heads out of their butts and just do the right thing!

by

Five New States? Why Not!


The United States possesses four territories plus the District of Columbia. The territories are the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rice. The United States has held the territories for over 100 years. And in the case of Guam, this territory cannot exist on its own.

The District of Columbia is a special case since it has always existed entirely on American soil. The idea of it, as proposed by George Washington, was to provide a neutral place for our nation’s Capitol. It was established in 1790 but the Capitol Building itself was not finished until 1800, along with other supporting buildings. The city’s population in 1800 was a little over 14,000 people. Today the city’s population is about 690,000 people. Contrast that with Wyoming’s population of 578,000, Vermont with 626,000 and North Dakota with 760,000. Washington has a larger population than 2 states and is close the a third. Why are the people of Washington kept from having a voting representative and two senators?

It was not until 1971 that Congress allowed the district to have a non-voting representative to Congress. From its earliest days, Congress has been the presiding power over Washington DC. The city of Washington has an elected mayor who with her city council passes ordinances. From time-to-time, Congress acts to overturn certain of these ordinances as it sees fit and the city has no right to redress. Clearly a violation of our Constitution.

The Spanish-American war allowed the United States to gain province over the aforementioned territories. The population of American Samoa is 55,300, of Puerto Rico 3.2 million, of Guam 167,000, and of the American Virgin Islands 106,000 people. Together they represent 3.5 million people with no say in their administration. When Arizona was admitted to the union in 1912 it had about 200,000, and when Wyoming was admitted it had barely 56,000. To argue size is made irrelevent by these numbers. One of the most recently admitted states, Alaska had only about 200,000 people.

These four territories plus D.C. have a legitimate complaint about not being properly represented in Congress. Each has one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. They get to be heard but are not allowed to vote on laws which deeply affect their constituents. The present U.S. Government is doing exactly what the British Parliment did prior to the Revolution. And the colonists vocally decried that lack of representation to Partliment. In a final try to gain that representations, Benjamin Franklin eloquently laid forth his case for the representation only to be mocked and laughed at. This was one of the final acts which lead to the revolution.

The people of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have been quite vocal in the same way. But their complaints have long gallen on deaf ears. It is wrong and it must be corrected. Republicans have long voted against statehood only because they fear these two areas would only send Democrats to Congress. They have shown no concern for the people who live there. It is time for Congress to act and for Congressional Republican to stop being obstructionists.

by

Biden’s Horrible Decision About Afghanistan


President Biden has pledged to take all of our troops out of Afghanistan by September. His generals in Afghanistan have been vocal about this being a mistake and President Biden needs to listen to them!

I have heard it said that our country is not about “nation building.” Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of World War 2, we left a very sizable number of troops in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. Of those four countries, all still have U.S. troops stationed there to help maintain the peace. Other countries which host a contingent of U.S. troops are Poland, Turkey, Greece and Spain. It has been 76 years since the end of that war, so why do we keep troops there? In the cases of Germany and Japan, the U.S. insisted in 1945-6 that those countries write into their constitutions that they will only maintain a defensive force, although in recent years both countries have built their military to a size where they could easily become offensive. For the most part, those countries have become very stable and their contributions to the world of innovation, science and industry have been huge.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this month there were about 2,500 troops each. The stability of each is quite precarious to the extent that U.S. troops could do little to stop ISIS when it terrorized that region and is still lurking in the background. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are an even greater threat to the security of that country. By and large, the people of Afghanistan are quite happy to have U.S. forces present. Not withstanding that, the Taliban have taken a sizeably portion of the country and returned it to the brutal subugation it held prior to the war. It does not take much intellect to know that when the U.S. creates a military vacuum, one which Afghany forces are not prepared to defend, the Taliban will quickly take over.

If anything, the U.S. needs to increase its forces in Afghanistan and maintain a presence for the foreseeable future. Afghanistan has tremendous agricultural potential but that will be minimal if the Taliban are allowed to return. History dictates that it must be remembered. When the U.S. and other allied forces were victorious in World War 1, no troops were left in Germany to insure its stability. There existed several far right wing groups who did not care for the new regime and from the early 20s until 1933, they engaged in political war with the ruling government only to have it taken over by the Nazis. Other huge mistakes were made, ridiculous reparation demands of Germany cause the country to remain bankrupt until Hitler took over and refused to pay. Would things have been different had the allied forces maintained a presence in Germany? We can only speculate but at the very least it would have put a damper on right wing efforts to overthrow the ruling government.

It is very unlikely that Afghanistan will ever reach the economies of Germany and Japan, but it can become a very stable country if it is allow to find its own way with inteferance from the Taliban. And even more importantly, the work is far from done in Afghanistan for the U.S. as long as the Taliban is allowed to maintain its current strength. I can only hope that someone in Biden’s circle will read and take to heart this article, or, that he will heed his generals and stop removing troops.

by

Keep Your Religion Out of My Government!


Everyone knows the First Amendment, right? I kind of doubt it because most people believe it is all about freedom of the press and the right to assemble. It is but that is just the first part. The First Amendment reads in its first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The is the first portion. It is not until the second part that freedom of speech is address as-well-as the freedom of assembly and to petition the government with its grievances. During colonial times, Americans had a long running battle with the British over their right to assemble, have a free press, and to demonstrate their grievances.

When it came time to write the Constitution, all of the first 10 Amendments we left out as an expediance to getting it passed by at least 10 states, the minimum required. They knew that when the government was officially formed in 1789, they could present amendments to the constitution. To show how almost paranoid the early leader were about establishing their personal freedoms, that one amendment seems a bit of an anathema today, the third amendment. It deals with the quartering of military forces in private residences. Why did they put this one in as anyone today knows that it seems a bit ridiculous. Back then it was not. The British has passed a law called the “Quartering Act” which allowed exactly that.

It took two years for the states to agree on what we call “The Bill of Rights,” but they knew these amendments had to be faultless. The second amendment, always of great discussion, was a direct response to General Gage’s numerous attempts to capture gun power the various town militias kept as they felt their right. Again, in colonial times, all men from 18 to 60 were considered a part of that town’s militia and were required to purchase their own gun and to partake in regular exercises as the town saw fit. The very first part of the amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to to secure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The idea of a regular military, today’s active duty, was held by a minority, George Washington being its most fervent supporter and Thomas Jefferson stating that he believe only act active navy was necessary. Still, the idea behind this was that no one could ever keep our country from being well-armed. Even the NRA, as recently as 1939, believed that to be the truth. But in recent years the US Supreme Court has ruled that it does indeed extend to private individuals. I only bring this up to show that we have differences about what the amendments mean, and the 2nd Amendment has been the most visible.

My ancesters were Puritans who arrived here, at Ipswich Massachusetts in 1638. The very word “Puritan” came from the idea that these people had about “purifying” the Church of England which they believed to be too “papist.” The Puritans of Boston who moved to New Town, a portion later known as Cambridge, founded Harvard College, as a non-sectarian seminary. To this day, the Harvard Divinity School retains that ideal. But this is import to recognize because these Puritans to a man believed that religion was a personal thing which each man had to decide for himself. These beliefs brought about the founding of the Congregational Church which allowed for no hierachy. And later the founding of the Unitarian Church but the transcendentalists. To differentiate the Puritans from the Pilgrims, a mistake often made, the two groups were at odds with each other. John Brewster, the leader of the Pilgrims, was the leader of a seperatist group. A radical group who did not believe the Church of England could be reformed. They were Calvanists who believed in predestination. But Roger Williams, a Calvanist preacher with the Pilgrims, split of and founded Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in America.

The British were always upset that the Americans refused to be a part of the Church of England although there was little the could do about it. But the British had the Church of England at the center of their government. The colonists hate that ideal and refused to abide by it in America. This feeling was even stronger at the writing of the Constitution. Among them were the atheist, Benjamin Franklin, and the indifferent, Thomas Jefferson, who called himself a “Theist,” to George Washington who was an Anglican, and others who were Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Congregationalists, and others. To them, it was obvious that the inclusion of religion in matters or state was against all they held true. Their differences were on display at the Constituional Conventions, and none tried to claim their religion over all others. That they knew of Britains efforts to force the Church on England on them allowed them to understand the need to keep all religion, without exception, out of their government.

It is ironic that the Republican Party, whose adherents claim often to be originalist, fail to apply that to religion in government and are frequently trying to put conservative Christian beliefs into law, or to defeat laws they dislike or claim to be against their religion. Now they will never say it is against their religion but instead state their belief and tell all who will list that to thing otherwise is unpatriotic. Their efforts to ban abortion are absolutely of religous belief. What they fail to realize that they are doing exactly what they claim to be against, defining morality on certain issues. Morality, or lack thereof, is the right of the individual to decide and must remain out of our government!

The right wing attack of Planned Parenthood is an abortion unto itself. Ninety percent of everything Planned Parenthood is about is helping to educate women about sex and their bodies. That the Federal Government would fund an organization whose main task is to educate any portion of our society is against all reason. For example, Ted Cruz, who is a Southern Baptist, and claims the moral high ground, speaks for on 6.7% of American when calling upon his religous beliefs. He does this often. Our founding fathers knew full well the danger of this. Why cannot right wing Republicans do the same. Republican claim to be the party of Lincoln. Did they ever look to see that Lincoln did not care for any formal religion. The great minds of our early country usually believe in a power greater than themselves, a God who above all, and for no one in particular. Why cannot those who seek to push religion into our government see that?

by

Cancel Culture? Not so Fast!


Let me start my little diatribe by saying that the whole idea of “cancel culture” seems to be a misnomer, and in the worst possible way. First there is the changing of names of military bases and other institutions which sport the names of slave owners and others of disrepute. There are those among them who are quite deservedly being brought to task. There are people today, both Democrat and Republican, are taking a very narrow view of our ancestral leadership.

I start with a man who is know as a great patriot of our early nation. His name was Major General Henry Lee, or, Light Horse Harry Lee as he became known. Lee was an important figure in our country’s struggle for freedom during the Revolution. He later served as the governor of Virginia and a representative to Congress. Importantly, he was also the father of General Robert E. Lee.

I have a master’s degree from Harvard University where I studied U.S. History. A lot of time was spent in my studies in dealing with various reform movements, slavery and the Civil War. Now, there are a lot of people who want Fort Lee’s name changed. To what and why? The why is simple, he was a slave owner and prominent soldier for the Confederacy. But Lee was not an idealogue. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, President Lincoln spoke long and personally to Lee, offering him the position as Commander of the Armies of the Potomac. In today’s lingo, he who be one of the joint chiefs of staff. Lee and Lincoln were friends and Lincoln knew full well that Lee was a slave owner but still asked him to serve. Why? Because he was the best candidate, by a lot. Lee went home and spent many a sleepless night angonizing over what his answer should be. Lee graduated in 1829 from West Point second in his class. Conversely, U. S. Grant, class of 1839 at West Point, graduated 21 of 39 graduates. In the end, Lee chose the Confederacy only because of his desire to honor his home state of Virginia. Lee was never a politician, except as his military duties demanded, but the ultimate soldier. His devotion was to his men and the uniform he wore. Once he accepted his role as an officer from Virginia, he assumed his role as a military leader but never a political leader.

An example of a more modern time General who had the same issue was the German General Erwin Rommel. Rommel was the hero of World War One for the Germans and got swept up in the Nazi wave. Like Lee, Rommel knew only the Army and did not care at all for the politics involved. He was constantly at odds with the political hieracy, finally plotting to kill Hitler which brought about his own death.

Even later, many us, myself included, fought in the Vietnam War, a widely unpopular war. But as soldiers we knew our duty to the military and to follow all legal orders, We did that even though many of us, if not most, hid silent views of being against the war. I suspect, although this is not written anywhere, that General Lee harbored similar views. What to do? When the hostilities of the Civil War broke out, both sides thought the war would be a very short one. Neither side anticipated the future.

When the war was over, all officers and politicians of the Confederacy were barred from any further military or political service. This was their sentence, similar to one a court would hand down, for life. I suspect, had anyone asked, Lee would have abandoned slavery.

This brings me to General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Was Jackson really a slave owner or one who had an indentured servant. Jackson may be the most peculiar of all the famous southern generals. He was born in Virgina, now West Virginia. As the other generals, Jackson graduated from West Point in 1846. Jackson held a seven slaves, who are described in a paper written by Larry Spurgeon, Stonewall Jackson’s Slaves. One slave, Albert, begged Jackson to buy him and free him once his debt was paid. Another slave, Amy, was sold to Jackson so her owner could pay a debt. Amy became the cooks for the Jacksons. Other such accounts can be found and in every case of a male slave, Jackson insisted up their becoming well educated. And in the end, you find that each took a place in the Jackson house much like servants and not of slaves. And like so many of those in the north who in the mid-1700s held “slaves,” each were allowed to live in the main house, frequently the only house. Jackson steadfastly believed in both freeing all slaves and embracing state’s rights. That dichotomy is an anathema to most today but it is good to remember that he was a product of his times. Jackson’s only desire was to become a general in the army and be the ultimate soldier. He had absolutely no political inclinations. And like Lee, his allegiance to Virginia was unassailable and so he felt the obligation to join the Confederacy.

By today’s logic, we must also include George Washington, the father of our country, in that group. We must also included every President from Washington through Grant because all owned slaves! Washington, Jefferson, each owned over 600. Others who owned over 100 include Madison, Jackson and Taylor. Even U. S. Grant owned a slave.

Before we go off and start renaming any installation because of their relationship with slavery, and “worse,” to the confederacy, we necessarily must ask ourselves, “Where these men of their day?” To answer in any was but the positive is to deny the truth. In a cursory look at various fort names, only a few seem to arise to the level that whom they were named after were nafarious enough to warrant change; Fort Gordon, GA, Fort Bragg, NC, and Fort A. P. Hill, VA. Both Washington and Jefferson were aggregious in their slaveholdings. Should we tear down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson memorial? Should every “Washington Street” in our country be renamed? I think not! The era of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were quite different from those of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, but each must be given fair consideration as men of their times. Today, we do not see things in the same light as any of the aforementioned men. It would be foolish to thing otherwiase. It is necessary to treat each very evenhandedly.

As sort of an addendum, which I find most distasteful, but which Sen. Cruz is hell-bent about, is this idea that “liberals” are trying to rid us of a Dr. Seus on the premise that he was either racially or gender biased. They do not nor does anyone else. It serves no purpose to create such scenarious other than to promote self-interest and to appeal to those who allow that person to think for them

by

Biden’s Failed Speach to Congress


One thing Biden did correctly was to enumerate what is enclosed in each of his trillion dollar packages he wants Congress to consider. Biden campaigned on being someone who would bring both parties together but this speech was entired divorced from that pronouncement.

I voted for Biden and want him to do a good job. But on Wednesday, he had the opportunity to reach across the ilse to embrace Republican issues with his bills. He not once said anything to that effect, and that was clearly seen on Republican’s lack of enthusiam. No one expects the party out of power to respond favorably to such a speech but Biden never once gave them the chance to even mildly applaud him.

This was Biden’s chance to bring Republicans to the table by simply stating that he was open to compromise and that each bill may be reduced in part. Had he simply said that he knows Republicans are against certain portions of his bills and that he knew compromise was essential, he may well have garnered some positive response from them but he did not give them the chance.

Additionally, he made a big mistake by introducing a second trillion dollar bill at this time. The two bills equal about $6 trillion which he must have known such a large figure is immediately unpalitable to Republicans. Right now he needs to make a public statement that he is pulling back the second bill until it can be vetted in committees by both partis.

Republicans have proposed a more than $900 billion bill on infrastructure. They knew, and any Democrat with a lick of sense knows, that this is the avenue to compromise between $900 billion and $2.6 trillion. Democrats must assuage Republican by agreeing to compromise rather than digging in their heel against any.

Republicans have acknowleged the need for investment in our infrastructure. Democrat’s hold on power in tenuous at best and the next elections may swing that power back to Republicans. If Biden and the Democrats truly want to claim a victory here, they must acknowlege that certain portions of their bill must be reduced or eliminated. They must not pass this bill along party lines. To do so is foolish.

by

Expanding the U.S. House of Representatives


The U.S. Constitution in Article 1 states that each state shall have 1 representative for every 30,000 residents. Right now the population of the United States is almost 330 million. A little quick math tells you that would mean the House of Representation should have over 10,300 members to meet that requirement. In 1929 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the “Permanent Apportion Act” which set the House of Representatives at its present level of 435. At that time the U.S. population was 123 million, more than 200 million fewer people than now.

Right now each representative has more about 750,000 to represent as opposed to the 28,000 in 1930. As I have shown. If the size of the house is doubled to 870 members, each representative would still have 370,000 people to represent. That is a far cry for the level set in 1929 but almost half as many people that they represent now.

Each representative has an average of 750,000 people they must represent. Our 10 year census was set up to meet the requirements of the Constitution. But by today’s standard, the Constution put an impossible level to meet and the 1929 Act tried to bring U.S. House representation more in line with the Constitution. But it would also mean, each representative would be able to serve the needs of their constitency in a more equitable form. This would also give Congress the opportunity to direct states to end their practice of Gerrymandering. That practice has allowed states with divergent desires to shape the voting districts so that the Democrat or Republican power within their state remains in tact. This practice was started in Massachusetts to insure that the Republican power in Massachusetts remained in tact in the early 19th Century. It persists today.

For example, Massachusetts, which has long been described as a “Blue” state with all 9 of its representative being Democrats, might well have, with its redrawn districts, gain a Republican representative in its more conservative areas. It is quite unlikely that states such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah would gain a Democrat representative. Conversely, Rhode Island and Delaware would unlikely gain a Republican representative. And so, the cry from Republicans that such a change would sway towards the Democrats, with the likely addition of Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states, as the sum total of representative for those areas would be 4.

There is no representative who can claim that 100% of his constituents is of his party. But our partisan politics of today have allowed that representatives of one party, where the population is a 51-49% split between Democrats and Republicans, that the party who has that seat, does not properly represent the desires of the other party. But those present districts, where there is a 51-49% split, when split between 2 representatives, may well find that one representative from each party is elected. The point is that the people of the United States deserve better representation than they now enjoy. The time to act is now.

by

What is is Biden’s $2.6 Trillion Infrastructure Plan?


Republicans recently declared that only 7-8% of Biden’s $2.6 trillion request will actually go to infracture claiming the rest will go to Democrats pet projects. So what is the truth.

First off, I cannot see how Republicans came up with 7-8%. The bill calls for 24% to go to our nation’s transportation: roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, waterways, airports and electrical vehicles. The only portion of that which is questionable is the investment in electic vehicles unless it is directed towards the government’s purchase of such vehicles. The other parts are unquestionably urgent infracture needs.

Then there is $400b for home care services and workforce. I think this portion, though a good investment, belongs in a different congressional request.

Then there is $300b for manufacturing. Biden and the Democrats need to remove this portion as well and present it as another bill. Those two, the $400b for home care/workforce and $300b for manufacturing, reduce the bill to $1.9t, already more platable to Republicans.

Next there is $180b earmarked for research and developement. The idea behind this portion is to help in climatology and other notable projects. This part is tangentally important to infrasture but again needs to be part of a different bill.

There is also $100b for digital infrastructure. Again, tangental to into main infracture but important in its own right, not here.

Then there is $100b for workforce developement. This most certainly does not belong here. That is $1080b which should be removed for this bill and takes us down to $1.5t. Please do not worry that the numbers I have put for do not add up, that is intentional. This is just to show that Republicans are at least partially correct in pointing out that this bill, as presented, does not accurately or properly state pure infrastructure needs, those that the public at large need now.

In 1933-35 President Roosevelt got three bills passed to help the nation recover from the depression, the National Recovery Act (NRA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA) of 1935, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The WPA built many of the roads and bridges still in existence today which puts them at 90 years of age. Engineers were reluctant then, as now, to allow for anything they built to have more than a 50-year life span. We are long overdue.

In 1953, drawing upon his experience as a General in Europe, and seeing Germany’s autobahn, Eisenhower helped develop today’s Interstate Hiway System. In each case of the afore mentioned project, millions of Americans were put to work. Biden’s bill will do the same as our infracture, both transport and utility, is in desperate need of either replacement or upgrading, will put million of Americans to work for years to come. It is a worthy bill but each side, Democrat and Republican must accede, and find a middle ground where both sides are relatively happy. More importantly, that Americans will quickly see a strong positive result.

by

What is the Future For Our Children, Our Grandchildren?


What we do right now will necessarily affect our children and our grandchildren with how we treat our planet.

Amaericans seem to have difficulty believing what our nation’s scientist tell us. Sadly, I believe it is our politicians who, for their own personal enrichment, tell us their truth when the science behind it does not line up with the actual truth. For too long it has been “us” against “them,” Democrats vs. Repulicans. It would be too easy to blame Republican’s for our present state as they have most recently poo-poo’d what scientists told us about Covid-19. In truth, Democrats are equally to blame. Republicans, notorious for resisting change, made themselves the target of Democrats but Democrats spoke as if they were well-versed in the science behind COVID-19. They were not. But what I found truly headscratching were two Replublicans, both of whom hold medical degrees, backing Trump when he declared early on that the virus would quickly go away. As public sevants, they are given the public trust to do what is best for their constituency even when it goes against what others in their party resist. The two senators, McConnell and Paul, knew the truth but backed what was politically expedient. This is abhorrent to what our Constitution demands. There are two our physicians in the senate who were largely silent, Cassidy and Barrasso. Each to an oath, “first do no harm,” for which they conveniently forgot and in turn hurt not just their constituents, but our entire nation. And our House of Representatives there are 13 physicians. Where were they during the outbreak?

And now we come to climate change. I want to first qualify by saying that I worked at MIT for a number of years where I was hand-in-hand with some of our nation’s most brilliant minds. Those people, and others at our nation’s leading research facilities, have no political agenda. Their’s is the search for the truth in science. They necessarily are pragmatist. These people frequently are pubished in journals that are revied by their peers and to misspeak brings rebuke.

For two decades now those best and brightest have been warning about the harm we are doing to our planet. But scientist can only report on their findings. They can, of themselves, bring some change, but it is up to the politicians of the world to bring about true change. And their is one thing true in all nations, most scientists act the same in their quest for the truth: they do not bend to politically motivated pressures. That was easy to see last year when Dr. Faucci cringed at so many of Donald Trump’s pronouncements. But were you to go to Russia or China, you will find that the scientists in those countries have little interest in politics.

It is absolutely necessary, right now, for all Americans to weigh the ideas of scientist much more heavily than those of politicans. Here in the United States most our our politicians are lawyers. And most lawyers seldem move from the law degree to advanced degrees in science. Even so, each time we elect one of them to the house or senate, it is in them that we are giving public trust that they will do what is best for everyone and not just for their political base.

I spent most of my working life in science but now retired I have taken to teaching our children and grandchildren. I frequent remind them that what they do right now affects what they will do in the years and decades to come. Ergo, what I polticians decide right now absolutely affects generations of Americans down the road. It is up to each one of us to pressure them to do “the next right thing” and not the next politically motivated thing. They must be pragmatists and not fold to the desires of one small portion of their constuency. They must think both locally and nationally. In the end, their decisions affect all Americans. It is on this point that I believe the members of both parties fail.

The best example of a political appointee doing what is in the best interest of our nation was when George H. W. Bush put David Souter on the US SJC. In Souter, Bush believed he was putting a good conservative on the bench. But what happened was that Souter always took the high road, putting politics aside, and being a pure pragmatists. We need our politicans to act thusly. Our children, our grandchildren are deserving of the very best we can do but sadly, right now, that is seldom the case. This being true, it is ultimately up to each one of us to think of our children and grandchildren when we elect those who represent us. We must make them show that they are fully capable of doing what is in the best interest of our nation. Time is fast running out. Save our planet, not our political ideas.

by

Americans Slaughtering Their Native Tongue


I call it “Their Native Tongue” because English, it is not. Here in America we speak a modified version of English which should more properly be called the American Language. Why, well, one very obvious thing to look at is how we spell things and what we call things, for example, the English spelling of the word color is colour. There a many other subtle differences as well in spelling. Then there is what we call things where in England it is one name and in America, another. What we call a car’s trunk in America is at boot in England. Other such notable difference is a truck in America is a lorrie in England and as trolley car is a tram.

But Americans in general but journalist in particular seem to butcher proper grammer and word usage. Last night I was watching a t.v. show where a guy referred to something as being “notoriously good.” The problem with that usage is that it is a contradiction in terms. That is, notoriously means something or someone is bad which in essence means you are calling something badly good. Makes no sense. The proper usage is either notoriously bad or famously good. But even in those proper usages there is a type of word that Americans frequently use improperly and that is the adjective and adverb. For example, when someone asks you how you are feeling, it is improper to say you are feeling “bad.” The proper usage is to say you are feeling badly. The difference there is that you cannot use an adjective as a direct object where an adverb belongs. The other such example is using a participle at the end of a sentence, such as using the word “of” to end a sentence. For example, you say “there is nothing I can think of.” Properly using the word “of,” the sentence should read, “there is nothing of which I can think.” This may be the most difficult usage the average American can change his way of speaking.

Journalists, people who should be well versed in the proper word usage, frequently misuse words in both print and speaking. One of my great bug-a-boos is the using of the words “fewer” and “less.” The word “fewer” is meant to describe words which are plural whereas “less is mean to describe words in the singular. For example people frequently say “I have less days” where it should read “I have fewer days.” In dealing with time, it is proper to say “I have less time” where “time” is a singular word. Using that same word in the its plural form is to say, “it is happening to me fewer times.” Another is saying “I have less dollars now” where it should be “I have fewer dollars.” And so it goes.

One answer is to inform students during their grade school and high school years, when they are learning the American Language,” is to inform them why they need to learn about nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Learn to speak properly is dry but also extremely important. For the college bound student who must turn in written papers, a professor will not waste his time on explaining about the improper sentence structure and word usage which will in turn be reflected on the paper’s grade.

The other way to get Americans to speak their language properly, is for journalist to lead the way. But also, those who are responsible for teaching our children necessarily need to speak and write the American Language properly. Repeated proper usage in the presence of students from their earliest years of education to the latest, will reap benefits for all.