Category Archives: America

America, Politics

Agree With Me On This or I Will Unfriend You

2 Comments

How many times have I seen something like that on Facebook? That’s my only social media platform. I assume it happens on other platforms also. I saw statements like that about ten times on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. Let me set my scene for you.

My morning was as normal. Up around 6:45, down to The Dungeon with coffee. Devotions and prayer. Then I go through the whatever is new on the few blogs I read, mainly writing blogs. I checked e-mail and read an article on Yahoo Finance. I went through my Facebook news feed to see if the world had blown up while I had been sleeping. By then it was time to start my trading day. I didn’t have much planned; I think I made one trade. Wrote maybe 1,000 words on my novel. I did a little decluttering. I think I found a couple more items from our Kuwait years, transcribed them then put them in the collated file. At that point I went upstairs, got my third mug of coffee, and went out to the sunroom earlier than normal. At this point I checked Facebook again, then started my reading. I think that was 11:30 a.m. or 12 Noon CST. When I came upstairs my wife didn’t have TV on, or if she did it wasn’t on daytime news.

I alternately read and checked my cell phone as it dinged and vibrated. Several friends had posted that a mob had attacked and occupied the Capitol in Washington DC. But I elected not to go watch the news since early reports are so often erroneous or exaggerated. I read what was going on. Soon I began to see statements similar to the title of the post. The statement is usually made this way:

If you think this is ok, let me know right now so I can unfriend you.

If you think this is ok, unfriend me right now.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? A heinous thing is in progress. How can anyone support it? If YOU support it I can’t possibly be friends with you. Some things are just bad enough that’s the only way to respond to them, right?

Well, I want to suggest another path forward.

I responded to one of those on Wednesday, sometime in the early afternoon. One of my friends posted something to the effect, “If you think this is ok, go ahead and tell me so that I can unfriend you.” I assumed by “this” he meant the attack on the Capitol. Some others responded. I responded something like this: “By this I assume you mean the attack on the Capitol? I haven’t seen any news coverage yet, so all I know is what I’m seeing on Facebook. But from that it sounds bad. I condemn this violence based on what I’ve heard so far. But tell me, why the passive aggressive approach to this?”

As I wrote that, I envisioned a dialog between him and me where I laid out this alternative approach. Depending on his response, I planned to lead into this series of questions:

“Do you want the world and our nation to be a better place?” I would assume his answer would be yes. I mean, who wants the world to be a worse place. That’s almost an insulting question.

“Do you feel that you have any responsibility, any role to play, any work to do toward the end of making the world and our nation a better place?” Again, the answer would be an obvious yes. No one would say “I want the world to be a better place but others must do the work, not me.”

“What do you feel is your role in making the world and our nation a better place?” This answer would vary, of course, but would no doubt have a number of tasks: be a good husband and father, pay my taxes, live peacefully with all men, work to fight injustice,” etc. The list could go on with both general and specific tasks that a person might feel are their responsibility toward building a better world and nation.

At that point I would shift to a statement. “I assume you believe that those who attacked the Capitol are making the world and the U.S. worse, and that those who believe their actions are a good thing are also making the world worse. But tell me, if you unfriend such a person, cut off all dialog with them, are you not reducing your potential to reason with them and perhaps change them? I abhor their views and the actions of those they seem to be supporting, but I will not cut off dialog with them. Who knows but that, by a few well-placed and carefully reasoned statements, I could help them see another way of thinking and maybe change them.”

Now, I’m not naïve enough to believe that I can change the heart of an individual so calloused that they would turn in an instant from being in favor of violence to be a peacemaker. But I can nudge them. By several such nudges, by me and others over time, the world could be made a better place. Slowly, one obstinate and misguided person at a time. Yes, I will remain friends with such a person. I will dialog with him or her. Because I believe that makes my task of making the world and our nation a better place.

I never got there with this friend. As I renounced the violence at the Capitol I also renounced the violence of the summer protests. That brought in another person to call me a coward and make many other disparaging remarks. I thought, ah, I’m now dialoging with two people. But, my friend unfriended and blocked me and the dialog ended before it got started. Such is life. I pray the breach may someday be healed.

I had more to say about this, but my post is already too long. I anticipate another post on this, maybe on Friday.

America, Christianity, Church History Novels, Documenting America, Genealogy, self-publishing, Sharon Williams short stories, The Teachings, Writing

2020 Writing Recap

Leave a comment
The 5th story in my Sharon Williams Fonseca – Unconventional CIA Agent series. Published in January 2020, I’ve sold one copy.

Ah, 2021 is starting out good, with January 1 falling on Friday, my regular blog post day. I always start a new year here by summarizing the year just ended and making some goals for the year just starting. I’ll do that today with a recap of 2020. On Monday I’ll put some writing goals for 2021, assuming, that is, that I formulate some goals between now and then into a publishable state.

Retired from my day job (for the 2nd year), cooped up due to the corona virus pandemic, you’d think I got a lot of writing done, right? You’d be wrong. I’ve said all this before on the blog, but let me go through it again.

In January I published “Tango Delta Foxtrot”, the next short story in the Sharon Williams Fonseca series. That was written in 2019 and passed through my critique group. It all came to January and I published it then. So far I’ve had one sale. Yippee.

Also in January, I continued work in the next novel in my church history novels series. Begun in late 2019 and tentatively titled The Teachings, it falls chronologically between Doctor Luke’s Assistant and Preserve The Revelation. The action takes place during the first Jewish war of 66 to 70 A.D. I got a few chapters in, running them by the critique group, when I bogged down on making my story fit into the historical events. I spent a lot of time reading in source materials, adding a little text, setting it aside, and going back to the sources again. By mid-March I had about 21,000, or between 20 and 25 percent of the intended length. Feeling frustrated with it, I decided to stop my major work on it.

Stephen Cross was quite a character. Frequently in court, involved with a pirate, taking part in two military excursions, he left a lot of footprints that I’ve been able to follow.

Instead, I pulled out some genealogy work I had begun some time ago. This was the lives of Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney. Elizabeth is a gr-gr-whatever-aunt of Lynda’s. I began studying them two or three years prior and realized I had enough material on them to make a short book. I organized the material back then and wrote the beginnings of a book. I picked up that work again and saw that yes, I could make a book out of their lives, but I really needed to do more research. I worked on that the second half of March, making good progress.

Then Lynda went into the hospital on April 3. I couldn’t go in to see her, of course, so to keep myself busy, instead of going back to The Teachings, I focused on Stephen and Elizabeth. By the time Lynda got out on April 21 I had most of the research done and was back writing the book. My labor on it continued after Lynda came home. It all came together around the end of May, I edited and formatted in June, and published it in July. Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Newbury has—wait for it—one sale so far. That’s fine. This isn’t intended to be a best seller. Hopefully some day a few Cross and Cheney researchers will find it.

From there I moved to decluttering/dis-accumulation work at our house. I dug into boxes of papers left behind by my mother-in-law. That caused me to also look at our own boxes of papers and begin culling. In the process I found our Kuwait years letters. I collated them, indexed them, and then decided to transcribe them. This took up some of July, all of August, and some of September. Someday I will add photos and make it a book for the family. For now, it will sit in the cloud.

During this time, I occasionally picked up The Teachings and did a little work on it, either research or writing. I added 500 words here and there. But I still couldn’t focus on it.

I updated my first Documenting America book for conditions in 2020: correcting typos, correcting formatting, adding new text for 2020.

In September, I think, I decided to re-publish my first history book, Documenting America: Lessons From the United States’ Historical Documents. I published it first in 2011 and decided it could use some updating for conditions in America in 2020. I think it was September to early October that I: re-read it; corrected a few typos; and added text to each chapter for what’s going on now. I also had to improve the formatting because, in 2011, I didn’t know much about print book formatting and made some errors. I completed this work in mid-October and re-published it.

Meanwhile, I had been dissatisfied with some formatting and illustration quality in the Cross-Cheney book. I tackled that in October as well, substituting some figures, improving the pixel quality of others, and re-published it. I still wish they were better than they are but at least they are better than they were.

Writing related, but not new writing, was taking part in two week-long on-line seminars about using Amazon advertising to boost book sales, once in July and once in October. I saw an increase in sales as a result, though the ads really are not paying out. I’m still within the budget I set, so I’ll keep the ads running. I’ll take the challenge again this month, then see where I go with it.

Finally, in the second half of December, I was ready to return to serious work on The Teachings. Over the last few days of the month I added over 5,000 words, bringing my total to just short of 33,500. I have much of the rest of the book planned, and should be able to make good progress, so long as other things don’t get in the way.

Here’s where my Church History Novels series stands. Working on that “gray” one.

Things such as a new short story, or deciding to transcribe more letters, or let decluttering overtake me again.

Was it a productive year, writing-wise? Perhaps. I wish I had more to show for it. May 2021 be better.

America, Documenting America, History

Peaceful Transfer of Power: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment
Both the people of the new nation and those who ran the government wanted power to transfer peacefully. With all in the same mindset, peaceful transfer happened.

This is now the third (and I think the last) post in my series on defining characteristics of the USA—those things that make us stand out from all other nations: peaceful transfer of power.

When we made our second attempt at being a new and independent nation, under a new Constitution, George Washington became our first president. So revered was he that he could have been president for life. Actually, Americans might have accepted him as king. But Washington knew that someday power would have to transfer from him to someone else. Two terms was enough, he thought. Let the transfer happen peacefully.

My book on the Constitution doesn’t spend a lot of time on transfer of power, but it’s a good primer on how we got this amazing document.

You see, historically, transfer of power had been a violent affair. If it was peaceful, it was because a monarch’s heir was clearly popular with the people and with those in leadership who had surrounded the now dead sovereign. Going back a long way, it was common for the new king to kill the other potential heirs, assuring that he wouldn’t be challenged in his position and that, sometime in the future, power would transfer to his own heir, without challenges. Yet, even at that, the new king (or queen) would often be challenged. Looking through the kings of Israel in the Bible books of Kings and Chronicles shows frequent struggles in the first few months of the new king’s reign.

This also happened in Europe. At least three times in British history a king was overthrown. Sometimes it occurred without bloodshed. The nation had become more sophisticated, so potential rivals weren’t killed off. Heirs in other nations weren’t always so lucky. A study of the transfer of power in Europe would be fascinating. The same for other countries outside Europe.

I just updated my first Documenting America book for conditions in 2020.

What about in America? Washington declined to run for a third term. The nation elected John Adams as president in 1796. Power transferred peacefully and the baby nation chugged on. But Washington and Adams were of the same political mindset. What would happen when someone with different beliefs came to power?

That happened in 1800, along with the first of what would later come to be called a “constitutional crisis”. Thomas Jefferson was elected president. Actually, he tied with his vice presidential running mate, Aaron Burr. It took a vote by the House of Representatives to break the tie, and a constitutional amendment to correct a minor flaw in the relatively new document so that such wouldn’t happen again. The point is, however, Jefferson, of a different political party than Adams, came to power and all was peaceful. The nation chugged on. Adams wasn’t exiled; his children weren’t killed; Jefferson didn’t kill off or exile other potential rivals. The people didn’t riot in the streets over who became president. All was peaceful.

The new nation was showing that we could govern ourselves. Peaceful transfer of power from one party to another occurred. No coercive force was necessary. The American experiment was succeeding.

Looking at future elections, the peaceful transfer of power occurred all the way up to 1860. The South couldn’t accept Lincoln as president and his new political party as the one that would be setting policy and making laws. Rather than accept that, they declared themselves no longer part of the United States of America. The government said no, you can’t do that. We have property in your state and we will defend that property. The southern states said oh yeah? Just try it. And civil war broke out. The North won (as we know), and the nation stayed as one nation.

After fourteen peaceful transfers of power, including once at the death of a president, we had our first experience with violent transfer. It wasn’t pretty.

We had a questionable transfer of power in 1876, as the winner of the election was in dispute. I have more study to do of that transfer. Suffice to say that a compromise was reached, a president was selected through a combination of constitutional provisions and cooler heads who didn’t want to go through another bloody transfer prevailing.

From that time on, we had peaceful transfers all the way up to 2000. Even in 2000 the transfer was peaceful, though the closeness of that election required the judicial branch to get involved. Some say the judicial branch stole the election from Gore and awarded it to Bush. Some say Bush won it outright (by a tiny margin) and the courts simply prevented Gore from demanding endless recounts. Either way, while the transfer of power was in question, and while we wish it hadn’t come down to the Supreme Court,  it happened peacefully.

Then came 2016. Trump won. Many people didn’t like it. The people who favored the other candidate took to protesting in the streets, though that died out. Transfer was contentious but, as the election wasn’t in doubt, was peaceful.

That brings us to 2020. While Biden appears to be leading and heading toward victory, that’s the way it was in 2016 and the outcome is not certain. But what is certain is that if Trump wins again there will again be protests in the street. Will these turn violent? Will the transfer of power—actually the need to not transfer power—be peaceful? Or, if Biden wins, will Trump peacefully allow the transfer of power to take place? Will we have a clear winner, or will the courts have to intervene again?

Peaceful transfer of power, a defining American characteristic. We are not far from seeing it end. It has happened because the people and leaders wanted it to happen, and because we had a supreme law that everyone accepted and revered. Right now we don’t know if either of them do. And that could have disastrous consequences of our country.

America, American Colonial History, Documenting America, History

Land Ownership: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment

My research into US history and genealogy has convinced me that widespread ownership of land was a uniquely American phenomenon. I have more research to do, especially into European land ownership, but what I’ve been able to glean from American documents has been instructive.

In Documenting America: Lessons From The United States’ Historical Documents, I cover a curious 1792 writing of James Madison. Then in the US House of Representatives, Madison wrote about an unfortunate situation in Great Britain, then, concerning his fellow Americans, wrote:

“What a contrast is here to the independent situation and manly sentiments of American citizens, who live on their own soil, or whose labor is necessary to its cultivation….”

Madison realized that Americans tended to own their own land. Since that contrasts with the situation in Britain, I conclude most Britains didn’t own their own land. It seems to me, from history readings years ago still clinging to a few gray cells, that the feudal system was long gone in England by the time Madison wrote this, but clearly elements of that system remained. Land was owned by English nobility—princes, dukes, earls, and whatever other titles there were—had huge holdings of land and leased it to the poor peons who worked it for the lord, dividing the proceeds with him.

Land ownership in America wasn’t universal, but it was widespread. As I study my wife’s genealogy on her father’s side, which stretches back to the earliest days of Massachusetts Bay Colony, I read a lot of wills and inventory of estates. Most of them include land. Upland lots, marsh lots, lots on “The Way”, town lots, farms. Defined by maple trees, stone walls, and nascent rights-of-way, almost every estate, be it modest or great, had land in it.

That’s not to say that everyone had an equal amount of land. In Ipswich, Massachusetts, many people received a 2-acre lot in town, but some lots were better than others. One man would sell “the eastern 15 feet of my said lot to….” Another man carved a small house lot out of his 2 acres for his wife’s sister and husband. Land was subdivided and sold at a brisk pace. But it was people’s to sell. In England, none of these people would have had land.

I realize, of course, that much of this land was stolen from the native peoples. Or they were enticed with alcohol and sold their land for a fraction of its worth. This is a shameful chapter in our history. Wealth was stolen or coerced away from the rightful owners.

My research into three Ipswich families in the mid to late 1600s led me to the issue of Mason’s claim. It seems that John Mason had been granted title to a large tract of land in what is now Northern Massachusetts. The towns of Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, and others were settled on these lands beginning in 1633. Land was apportioned to the settlers, who built houses, established farms and trades, and lived a rugged existence. Civil war in England, the Cromwell years and then the restoration, made enforcing Mason’s claims difficult. He died without ever seeing “his land”.

But come the 1670s and Mason’s grandson said, “Hey, that’s my land!” Court battles took place, one court ruling in favor of Mason’s claim, another overruling that. It must have been quite the legal doneybrook.

But, in the town records, in extant pamphlets and broadsides, you see the fear of the people. Their land might not be theirs after all. Some feudal lord who was the king’s friend had a title to it. People were scared. In England, Scotland, and Wales they could never dream of owning land. Here in the New World they had 20 upland acres and a town lot, plus some marshland that was really arable. And some grandson of some wealthy person is going to take it from them? Fortunately for the colonists, the grandson eventually gave up.

As New England and other Atlantic seaboard places filled up, the march west began. At times seeking gold, most settlers were after land. Somewhere beyond the mountains was land for the taking, and they would go get it. Once again, England, France, Germany, Spain, and other European nations had no equivalent.

Even today, the quest for land goes on. It’s not quite the same as it once was. A hefty bank account is also a sign of wealth, and you can have that while renting. But home-ownership remains a strong American goal. Americans want land, at least a lot of us do.

But times have changed, and with the size of our population we no longer have as high a percentage land ownership as we did in the colonial years and soon after. Not being a landowner changes one’s perspective.

So far I’ve covered two unique aspects of the USA that I consider worth studying: self-determination and land ownership. Stay tuned for the third, which will be coming in about a week.

America, American Colonial History, Genealogy, History, Politics

Self-Determination: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment

My first characteristic of what makes the United States of America different than most other nations is the concept of self-determination. In other words, we chose our own form of government and our own leaders, and have maintained that for over 230 years. Actually, the choosing of our government goes back much further than that.

The residents of Waterville Vermont wrestled with choosing leaders and setting the tax rate in the mandatory annual town meeting. How interesting it was to read those records.

From the moment that Europeans came to these shores in the early 1600s, selection of leaders through voting has been a part of our nature. The form of government was at first based on what the colonists knew back home, or what was imposed on them by the terms of the charter by which the colony was established. However, slowly, the form of government changed and settled into a pattern.

First it was pure democracy at the local level, with a fledgling republic at the colony level. By the time of the revolution, when the colonies considered themselves states, republican form of government was well-established. At the local level even, a mini-republic had mostly replaced democracy. Some vestiges of democracy remained, but for the most part the form of government was a republic.

Of course, a republic requires active participation of its citizens in terms of voting. At regular intervals, from as short as six months to as long as two years, the people chose their leaders. In doing so peacefully, the people were saying, “We are satisfied with this form of government. All we are doing now is choosing those who will lead us, either returning those already in leadership or voting new ones in.” Election after election, for more than a century before we were a nation, this process took place from New Hampshire to Georgia. Those eligible to vote chose new leaders and kept their form of government.

The colonies did well governing themselves, until the King of England tried to impose new government on them. Resistance to that became the seeds of the American Revolution.

Self-determination. We will govern ourselves. How different this was than in the Europe they had left! England had a monarch, a king or queen, who ruled. In the 17th Century the parliamentary system was flexing its muscles and growing in importance. England went through three revolutions (one bloody, two peaceful) and one counter-revolution. All other European nations had much the same. The monarchy was a coercive power. The people didn’t choose it so much as the king ruled by “divine right”. France, in a bloody revolution that would eventually lead to a worse dictatorship than the kings ever were, would throw off that monarchy thirteen years after the American Colonies declared their independence. Other nations would eventually follow suit. But it was the bloody American Revolution that set much of that in motion.

As I researched my first genealogy book, Seth Boynton Cheney: Mystery Man of the West, I had occasion to look into town records of Waterville Vermont, where Seth was born and raised until he was 13. It was interesting to see the notices of the town meeting on the last Saturday in March (right in the middle of maple sugar harvest no less) and having all voters required to attend. I read how they set the tax rate: “Voted to establish the rate at $X” or “Voted a rate of $Y to construct a fence around the cemetery.” These people were governing themselves at the local level, deciding big issues as a democracy but electing representatives to lead the municipal republic the rest of the year. I “watched” as new towns were formed, Waterville carved out of Bakersfield because the Waterville residents couldn’t cross the snow-covered mountain in March to attend the town meeting. Self-government in action, the form of government chosen by the people and maintained year by year, decade by decade, century by century.

As I researched my second genealogy book, Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Ipswich, I saw the same thing from a much earlier period, Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the years 1647 to 1710. I actually went back earlier than that, as I was simultaneously researching an earlier ancestor in the Cheney family, the subject of a future book. I saw the same thing with the town, and more so at the county and state level. One rabbit-hole I went down with my research that took place during Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s lives was the change in colonial charters forced upon the colonies by the king of England. This did not go over well. In fact, the seeds of the American Revolution were sown right here, as people, who had chosen and maintained a form of government they liked—self-determination—had a form of government and leaders forced on them—a coercive power—who served at the whim of and benefit of the monarch, not the people. Ipswich was a hot spot about this and some consider it to be the cradle of American independence.

Now, in 21st Century America, we have a hard time conceiving what the world was like during our colonial days. Oh, we know from studying our history what the colonies were like, and may have a vague understanding of England, from whence most of those settlers came. But I think we need more study of just how different the government was in our world. And to what extent the people had, not just the right, but the obligation to maintain that government through votes and taxes. We had our faults back then, and took far too long to address those faults. Compromises would eventually be forged that would keep us as one nation rather than several regional federations, compromises that later would almost tear us apart.

Yes, I believe self-determination is a defining characteristic of the United States of America. Other nations now have it. Yet many other nations only dream of it. It defines the USA. How long can we keep it?

America, American Colonial History, History, Politics

Three Traits that Mark the USA

Leave a comment
When the time came for a new form of government, American traits were well-established. This series of blog posts will explore those.

What is it that differentiated the United States of America? What separates us from all other nations? Or is there anything? Are we the same as the other nations, but we became wealthy and powerful by chance of time and location? Did we just happen to find the right combination of population and resources?

Many talk of American exceptionalism. When did that kick in? Were we exceptional at the beginning, or did we develop into an exceptional people and nation in response to circumstances?

These are difficult questions. I’ve been pondering them for a while—at least ten years, since I’ve been writing the Documenting America series. I’m learning more and more as I do the research on this. In addition to that, I do a lot of research into genealogy—American genealogy. My first genealogy book dealt mainly with the years 1830-1910, long after American traits would have been established. My second genealogy book dealt with the years 1640-1710, right in the foundational period. As I wrote that genealogy/family history book, my thoughts began to focus on that question: what differentiated the USA from other nations?

As I researched to finish this work, I came upon some Massachusetts Bay Colony documents that led me to concluding one of the characteristics I’ll discuss in this series.

Added to researching my books is a love of history and an ability to self-study and learn. I love to read, and history is about my favorite topic to read. Since I started writing history books it’s difficult to read history for simple enjoyment or personal learning. Still, I try.

I don’t know that I’ve finished my thought process on all of this, but I believe I have identified three items that are in our nature that made a difference in our journey to exceptionalism.

  1. The consent of the governed. Another explanation for this is self-determination. We decide what type of government we want and establish it.
  2. The common man as a landowner. A big difference in the USA is everyone—just about everyone—owned land. This gives a huge change in perspective on government.
  3. Peaceful transition of power. When we change leaders—with two notable exceptions—the transition happens easily and peacefully.

These are probably not the only things that have contributed to making the USA into the nation that it is, but I see them as critical components.

In three posts coming soon (maybe not next, but soon), I’ll cover these three factors. By the time I finish them, I may have another one or two posts to make in the series. I hope many will read these posts, and consider how these helped to make us what we are.

America, Racism

Racism: Eradicating Racist Acts

Leave a comment

My prior posts in this series have laid out a case, however correct or incorrect, that racism and racist acts are two different things, the latter springing from the former, and that many people who are racists don’t realize they are racists. Needless to say, we ought to be eradicating racism from our country. We ought to be eradicating racist acts from our country. We all who detest racism ought to be engaged in the process of eradication. And, not everyone will have the same role in the eradication.

Now I come to a discussion of how we accomplish that eradication. First, what do we do about racist acts?

We have laws on the books against racist acts. Housing and employment cannot be denied on the basis of race. The right to vote has been established by law and regulation without consideration of race. Other laws have been enacted, supported by regulations. Enforcement efforts exist at the state and Federal level. Court cases have backed-up most of these laws and regulations.

Are they perfect? I’m sure they aren’t. We can always take a look at our laws, many of them passed in the 1960s, and see how they can be strengthened. That’s a job for lawmakers at different levels of government. For them to know this is needed they need the input of those tasked with implementing the laws and regulations. They need input from those who have been on the receiving end of racist acts. From the data received the legislators can make informed decisions on how to strengthen that which is intended to prevent racist acts.

But even if the laws and regulations are made perfect, their implementation will probably not be perfect because they will be implemented by imperfect people—people who may or may not be racists, or may be latent racists. What will correct this? Policies by institutions and businesses will help. These policies must be well written, widely disseminated, and fully explained to those who must abide by them. Each of those steps have lots of room for imperfection, and constant vigilance is needed by those who work with the policies and those who manage the policies.

This diligence is obviously needed at all levels of law enforcement. Officers and administrators much watch to see that racist acts don’t creep in, almost unrecognized, such that suddenly the law is being administered in a racist way. Again, administrators need feedback to know that their diligence isn’t sufficient.

Feedback. What do I mean by that? It can be data, data such as “unarmed blacks are three times more likely to be killed in an encounter with police than are unarmed whites.” Both races sometimes get killed. The numbers of unarmed men who are killed by police are small (maybe 30 people per year for all races), but the disparity is real. Such data needs to be gathered, examined, and lead to changes in administration. Yes, data is important feedback.

What other type of feedback? How about protests? Protests are a way to bring lack of equal enforcement to public notice so that something can be done about it. Administrators, no matter how well-intentioned, how well-trained, how diligent, are fallible. They can easily miss something going on during their watch. A protest can alert them to this. A protest can also generate public awareness that will put pressure on administrators to correct unlawful situations. This can apply to businesses as well as government.

This covers racist acts. Correct laws and regulations properly implemented and acidulously watched should put an end to racist acts. As a nation we aren’t there. Plus, that’s only part of the problem. We still have racism to deal with. That will be the subject of the next post in this series.

America, Health

Staying Quiet at Home

Leave a comment
When I was out and about on Thursday, I didn’t see any blooming redbuds. When I walked the neighborhood on Saturday and Sunday, there they were. It’s nice to greet them each spring.

As I write this we are in the midst of the growing corona virus pandemic. According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, worldwide cases now exceed 700,000 and deaths are over 35,000. In the USA it’s 143,000+ cases and 2,500+ deaths. In my county in Arkansas we have 33 cases, up 5 since Saturday. Thankfully, no deaths to this point.

We are under many restrictions imposed by the government, and other restrictions self-imposed. Our church cancelled in-person services before our governor restricted gatherings. School has been closed two, or maybe it’s three, weeks now. We go out as little as possible. I’m cancelling a doctor appointment this week, and will not be able to go in the building when Lynda goes for a doctor appointment tomorrow.

In some ways this isn’t much different than normal retirement. We’re a little more isolated, but, since I’m only working a little as my former company needs me, I don’t get out much for that. Normal weekly trips were for church, groceries/meds, and doctor as needed. Now it’s mainly groceries.

Sometime late this week there’s supposed to be a pre-construction conference at Centerton that I’m supposed to chair. They are trying to figure out how to make it a digital conference. But, I also need to sign the approved construction drawings as city engineer. We’ll see if I have to go in to City Hall, speak with no one, just do the signing in the lobby.

For the last two weeks I taught our Life Group via a Zoom conference. It’s been a learning experience, as each week we were cut off before I’d finished. I think we have it down for next week, but we’ll see. It was good to see everyone and hear them, even if we couldn’t be together. On Saturday we had a family Zoom conference, which went well. Nice to see the grandkids, our son, our daughter, and my sister. This may become something regular.

These bloomed all December through January, dropping their flowers during February and March. Here they are blooming again.

Meanwhile, spring has arrived. I’ve upped my walking, now trying to get three miles a day, trying to lose the last 50 pounds I’d like to lose (the doctor says 30). Yesterday I did the three miles in almost perfect weather. The redbuds are blooming, and the dogwoods aren’t far behind. Forsythia are still yellow, and a few jonquils have blooms. Our Christmas cacti have a few late blooms to brighten my reading time in the sun room.

We will get through this. The corona virus hasn’t peaked yet, but the end may be in sight. I suspect we will have another month of social distancing, though even longer wouldn’t surprise me. We’ll see how it goes for us. My prayer is that we humans, in the USA and around the world, would be smart about this and do what we can to end it.

America, Politics

Looking at One Person’s View On Impeachment

Leave a comment

I write this on Thursday, December 19, 2019, for posting on Friday.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Passions are running high on both sides. One FB friend I never would have suspected is FOR impeachment, mainly on the charge of obstructing Congress. I have debated him on FB, saying the president has no obligation to cooperate with those who are trying to remove him from office.

In past similar situations, thinking mainly of Nixon, he also defied Congress. Congress took him to court and asked that the SCOTUS fast-track the process. In compliance with the court, Nixon handed over the subpoenaed items, they showed he had indeed committed crimes, and he would have been impeached had he not resigned.

That’s not what Congress has done here. They have subpoenaed Trump for documents and witnesses. These have not been produced. Rather than go to court to have them enforced, they just impeached him.

In the debate with my friend on FB, another friend said Trump had already committed impeachable offenses and he offered a video of Robert Reich from April 5, 2017 as proof. While I have no respect for this former Cabinet member, I decided to listen to his video to see if I may have overlooked anything. Reich suggests four impeachable offenses at that time, with a fifth one brewing. Let’s look at them

One: Trump is “unfaithfully” executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, President Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Sorry, Mr. Reich, but no one appointed you of what is or is not faithful or unfaithful execution of office. It is unfaithful execution to criticize your predecessor? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

Two: The Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it. And will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand, decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Is Trump “steering” business to his hotel? Or are foreign delegations using it because it’s a good venue in Washington DC? Is Trump donating the profits from that hotel to charity? Hardly impeachable. And, as to China, has any president in the last 100 years been tougher on China than Trump? Reich, your argument doesn’t hold up.

Three: Trump’s ban on travel into the U.S. from 6 Muslim countries, which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees—violated [the free exercise of religion clause].

The courts struck down that travel ban and it wasn’t enforced. How can it be impeachable when Trump complied with the court? Again, Mr. Reich, that’s ridiculous. I also point out (since you don’t seem to know this), that there are some 30 Muslim majority countries. If travel from individuals of six of those were banned, then travel from individuals from 24 of them was allowed. That’s hardly against the free exercise of religion.

Four: Trump’s labeling the press the “enemy of the people” and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates [the freedom of the press provision of Amendment 1].

What Reich is saying is the president cannot criticize the press. How did this criticism prevent them from doing their job? It didn’t. They were still free to publish. He denied them an audience. Guess what, Mr. Reich, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the press an audience. The president is free to give interviews to whom he wants to.

Five: Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election—which Reich says meets the definition of treason.

Reich was so wrong on this, where to begin? Several investigations failed to find the alleged collusion. The evidence mounted against this. If this took place, it happened while Trump was a candidate. Do you really think a president can be impeached for things he did before he was president? I think not.

I’ve never liked Reich, never thought he had the country’s best interests at heart. Now I’m sure of it.

America, History, Politics

Thoughts On Impeachment: Original Sources

Leave a comment
One of my copies of the Federalist Papers. Yes, I bought it used, to have at the office. This copy stays in the sun room; my other stays in The Dungeon.

As we deal with impeachment of the president in 2019, we have few precedents to base a position on. Impeachment has happened only twice, and would have occurred one other time had not the president resigned.

What is an impeachable offense? What was on the Founders’ minds at the Constitutional Convention? How would they approach it today? The place I always turn first on Constitutional issues is the Federalist Papers. What did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay have to say concerning this?

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

Federalist #65, by Alexander Hamilton

I don’t find this particularly helpful. Or, rather, it’s helpful, but not very comprehensive. Impeachment is a political process. Because the president is immune from being charged criminally while president, so that he/she wouldn’t be continuously harassed in office, impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate—resulting either in acquittal or conviction, resulting in removal from office, and then charging and trial by the courts. That’s the process, but for what can the president be impeached? I just went through the entire Federalist Papers, searching for “impeach” and other related terms. I’m surprised at how little is included. They include much discussion of why the Senate is the right body for impeachment trials. But, as far as discussions on what is and what is not an impeachable offense, I find very little, except what I’ve quoted above from Federalist #65.

An additional source is James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. I just went through those notes, looking for discussion on what is impeachable, and I found this.

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”

Mr. GERRY seconded him.

Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. MASON withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst. the State”

On the question thus altered

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

James Madison, Notes on the Constitutional Convention, for September 8, 1787

 This gives us a little more to go on. The original clause on impeachment was for treason and bribery. Mason of Virginia wanted to add “maladministration” as a reason for impeachment. What, exactly, is maladministration? I interpret it to mean “doing a bad job” or “not doing a good job”. In other words, incompetence or malfeasance.

The summary of the debate, somewhat spare in Madison’s words, was that maladministration would never in fact be used as a reason for impeachment, and the correction for maladministration is elections.

Facing rejection of his motion, Mason changed the motion to add “other high crimes & misdemeanors”. In other words, for crimes other than treason and bribery. This seems to me to be more or less the same as felonies and misdemeanors—things that would result in being charged in criminal court if not the president.

Others think the word “high” applies to both crimes and misdemeanors. If that were the case, the bar would be a little different than my interpretation.

The question now comes down to whether the impeachment of the current president meets the constitutional definition. Alas, I’ve already exceeded a reasonable word limit for a blog post, and will have to answer that in a future post. I may post earlier than my normal schedule.