Roger Rosenberg: 2017

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Sunday, August 27, 2017

I kind of wonder why people are worried if a football player kneels rather than stands during the playing of the national anthem. Oh I mean I get it all right: part of the answer is so obvious! They feel the player is being disrespectful. Got it, makes perfect sense.

On the other hand I don’t believe there’s ever been a requirement to stand: it’s just been assumed that players and fans will want to do so. I mean, if a player or fan did not stand up, is there a law on the books under which he or she could be arrested and carted off to jail?

While some patriotic fans might wish for such a law, I don’t believe there really is one at present. In other words, it’s not a crime not to stand. You know, I once ran into a similar situation when I was a teacher.

When we recited the Pledge, I expected all students to stand. One time a student didn’t stand. I talked to him later to find out what was going on. It turned out his family was Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t stand for the flag salute as they honor no secular authority.

It’s a right of theirs recognized by law. Well, I was a little miffed at first but turning it over in my mind I could see they had the right on their side and there was nothing else for me to do. I did whisper one final suggestion to the boy:

“I understand it is your right not to stand and you won’t have to in this class. However, it might be nice if you stood up to show respect to the other students, even though you aren’t going to say the words. I'll leave that choice up to you."Sure enough, next time the class recited the Pledge, he stood, quietly.

Well, what about the expectation, law or no law, that all athletes should naturally want to stand because they are role models?

There is some truth to this view; athletes are role models for the young. The question becomes, what kind of role models do we want them to be? Even though they are wearing a uniform and playing on a professional team, this does not mean they cease to be ordinary American citizens. They have rights, too, which they are free to exercise.

The people who get upset by this “taking a knee” believe that the kneeling athlete is being disrespectful, rude, and frivolous. And yet we’ve not seen that attitude or behavior from any of these athletes. All of them appear to be following the dictates of their conscience. Indeed, they must know that such abstention may not be good for their popularity, at least in the short-term.

Colin Kaepernick, the first to refuse to kneel, has spoken out clearly to explain his reasons: he does not intend to be disrespectful but there is a serious problem in our nation regarding the mistreatment of Black people by the police.

Americans have the right to protest peaceably; it says so right there in the First Amendment. They even have the right, if they have the courage, to engage in non-violent civil disobedience to protest injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us that lesson.

So getting back to the role model question, especially for parents and teachers: do you want your kids to see absolute conformity all the time or do you want them to see individuals on occasion who are willing to put their beliefs ahead of routine conformity by following their conscience?

I mean it’s the easiest thing in the world to stand for a few minutes but sometimes among those standing are probably some people who don’t care or aren’t listening, aren’t thinking deep thoughts or feeling deep emotions. It’s easy to make a habit of something and do something in a habitual manner without putting much thought or feeling into it.

But even if every single person who stands feels something stirring inside of them, feels pride in being an American, even gets misty-eyed on seeing the flag raised and hearing the high notes of “and the rocket’s red glare”—well, what are they saluting and feeling if not the pride that comes of knowing we live in a country where each individual has freedom of speech and liberty of conscience?

You see, I’m thinking they can’t have it both ways. If they love the flag it’s okay for them to want everybody else to love the flag, too. Truth is, we don’t all have to act and think alike. That’s a fundamental right we have: to be different.

I would submit these kneeling athletes are not being disrespectful; I submit they are being extraordinarily respectful of the rights and duties symbolized by the flag. Where there is injustice, should they keep quiet? They have decided no, it is time to join their voices to others who hope to stop the senseless killing of unarmed Black men and women.

People protested to end slavery; they protested to end segregation; isn’t it past time to protest police brutality and excesses of violent abuses under the cover of authority?

It’s odd how history turns things upside down: “taking a knee” was once considered ultra-respectful. People knelt before royalty. Personally, I refuse to kneel to anybody for that reason. I only knelt once of my own volition. I was visiting Washington D.C. and wandering around the wading pool area after seeing the Lincoln Memorial when I came across a small statue of a man I did not recognize from a distance.

I got close enough to read the inscription and saw it was John Paul Jones. Something blast of patriotic fervor seized my soul at that very instant and before I could help myself, I knelt before him. Oh great courageous warrior who helped free a nation from the shackles of British tyranny! I arose after a few seconds and I have never knelt again before statue or person in homage or submission and never will.

If the athletes were talking, listening to music, checking email, playing a video game: that would be disrespectful. Make no mistake: there is a huge difference between rude, disrespectful, and insulting behavior—which this is not—and individual athletes “taking a knee” to register a protest over a perceived injustice.

In this latter context, I could never call “taking a knee” disrespectful or forget they have a moral and lawful right to do so. If our flag stands for anything, it stands for their right to try and bring attention to the long string of questionable deaths of Black men and women at the hands of the police.

If our flag stands for anything, it stands for the rights of all Americans to follow their conscience when circumstances and social conditions call for them to do so.

Pressuring them to stand is not the answer. Stopping the unnecessary deaths and removing the cause of their silent protest in the first place: that is the way to go!

Afterword:

There are 1,776 words in this blog, a number intended to remind us of who we are!

Charlottesville: the Fight to stop Neo-Nazism

(The following is a reply to a friend who disagreed with my point of view in "Charlottesville: A Lesson for Us All". He supports freedom of speech for all, even Neo-Nazis, and would continue to draw the line between speech and violent acts. There is merit to his point of view but I maintain there is room for a stronger push back against Neo-Nazis and white supremacists)

In response to your comment: it’s a good question! To recapitulate briefly where we left off:

I wrote: “We should also take cognizance of the increasing political maturity of the American people.” You asked: “Which is it, are Americans politically ‘mature’ enough to discern the truth, or are they so fragile and gullible that they must be protected from themselves?”

I don’t see the same contradiction you apparently do so I guess my answer would be “both” or “neither”. When Americans are mature enough to oppose white supremacists, I don’t really see that as an argument for allowing white supremacist racist hate speech. There are more and better reasons for actively opposing racism than for tolerating it under a false sense of security: i.e., by “allowing” such speech Americans can demonstrate a degree of sophistication, etc.

As to the other half, I’m not urging people to speak out because I believe they are too weak to understand the ideas of the Far Right. To the contrary, it is because they do understand these racist and fascist ideas that they are moved to act! I didn’t arrive at my position along those lines; I’m not thinking Americans need to be protected from themselves. I just happen to believe Americans have the right to pro-actively protect our democracy from Nazis, racists, and fascists.

My view is that there are many Americans who are mature enough to oppose Neo-Nazis and racists without conceding individual rights for the non-Nazi majority, if I may coin such an awkward phrase. I don’t think of them as fragile or gullible at all!

This weekend (Aug. 26-27) the group Patriot Prayer canceled appearances in SF and Berkeley. I wonder if they would have done so were it not for the many people who spoke up against them and were organizing their own demonstrations? Sure, it’s not neat or an ideal democratic forum where everyone keeps a civil tongue in their heads, etc. But reality is not always neat, either.

By “politically mature”, I’m not aiming to be naïve or fail to appreciate H. L. Mencken’s classic line: “No one lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” No, I’m thinking of race relations in our country from a very long time ago down to the present day.

First, the nation tolerated and profited from slavery for approximately 250 years (1619-1865). Then the American people put up with another 100 years of Jim Crow segregation, right up to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Not that racism ended then, nor has it ended today, either institutionally or in terms of a racist individual’s attitude and behavior.

The point is, there was a time when a majority of white people were found along the “somewhat prejudiced” to “highly racist” spectrum. To encourage or expect a majority of white people to actively oppose racism during these periods would have been highly unrealistic, to say the least. In the 1920’s the KKK had five million members and organized huge marches in the nation’s capital; meanwhile, a bill to outlaw lynching went nowhere for nearly half a century.

The white majority once put up with racist language, oppressive discrimination, back-breaking exploitation, the denial of civil rights and endless episodes of violence against Black people.

White racists still exist, granted, but now they are now the numerical minority and not the majority. That is what has changed expectations in this era--there are new variables in the rules of the game. Liberal-progressives have a numerical edge, as well as law and democratic moral precepts on their side.

We cannot go back in time and ask a lynch mob to stop in their tracks; that lost fantasy hope belongs to a bygone era. Today, we are asking people to speak out against racists and fascists the best they can so we can change society for the better for ourselves and our children.

Mike, I still believe in non-violent civil disobedience and a person accepting consequences for his actions. I was prepared to go to jail after the Oakland draft board denied my application for Conscientious Objector status (up to 5 years and/or $10,000 fine at the time).

I do not want to see violence from the counter-protesters but I also note, wryly or reluctantly, that it sometimes appears to take this degree of fiery fight-back spirit to slow or stop the Far Right’s momentum.

Another Tech classmate wrote to me, too, and she expressed herself along the same lines as you did. Both replies taken together have served as powerful reminders to me of our nation’s traditional distinction between speech and action.

I am reminded that some writer (Hemingway or Fitzgerald?) said something about the need for an artist to be able to handle two sets of contradictory ideas at the same time. I suppose I’m coming ever closer to putting myself in that unenviable spot.

For the record, the traditional interpretation of the First Amendment is fine with me if that proves to be our most forward progressive point of view.

However, I also believe it is time for Americans to start pushing back sooner, harder, and ever more decisively against the emerging threats posed by Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.

Let history be our judge.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Charlottesville: A Lesson for Us All

CHARLOTTESVILLE: A LESSON FOR US ALL

I’ve never agreed with the view that First Amendment freedom of speech protects Nazis.  The First Amendment does not state we must tolerate “hate speech”.  

The notion that opposing freedom of speech for Nazis and white supremacists means a slippery slope is something of a bogeyman figure; it sounds plausible to suggest that such a curtailment means everyone’s freedom of speech is in danger but it is not necessarily so.  

It has been suggested that drawing such a line would be difficult if not impossible; I think it’s no more difficult than crafting language describing the hate speech enhancement of certain types of crimes.  

Germany and other countries have passed anti-Nazi laws.  They appear to have no trouble maintaining freedom of speech for everyone else.  They know the Nazi mentality leads in only one direction and they do not wish to suffer the devastating consequences of such a movement ever again.  

The Germans now see the danger more clearly than do some Americans who mean well but do not truly understand the threat posed to democracy by fascism.  If the goals advocated by Nazis and white supremacists were ever realized, they would destroy that democracy of which we speak.  

We are in an age where the internet has made recruitment far too easy for white supremacists; we need to find new ways to push back and recapture lost ground.  

If opposing free speech for Nazis is seen as contrary to the First Amendment, so be it.  Think of it as a form of civil disobedience in much the same way anti-slavery northerners once broke the law demanding that they help capture runaway slaves (when slavery was still legal).  

The abolitionists helped create new laws, and we who are opposed to the Nazis can do the same.  In Illinois, the state senate has already voted to designate neo-Nazis as a terrorist group.  We should support similar legislation in other states.     

The Constitution is not carved in stone; it was never intended to be.  The framers knew ideas and social conditions could change and so they included the right to amend it.  

We should also take cognizance of the increasing political maturity of the American people.  There was a time when ultra-conservatives, including southern democrats, dominated Congress.  Back in their home states they safeguarded both the speech and violent acts of extremist racist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan.  

In the last decade of the 19th century, it is estimated that 150 Negroes were lynched annually.  An organization like the KKK, with that type of violent racist history, falls outside the norm of how peaceful Americans exercise free speech and the right “peaceably to assemble”.   

That is why today there is a growing sentiment among many Americans that we need not accept this racist, hate-filled, violence-provoking speech of the KKK and Neo-Nazis any longer.  

Enough is enough!  

After the Civil War, under the Grant administration, steps were taken to stop the KKK including legislation and the use of the U.S. military.  There is precedent for seeing such an organization as a violence-prone terrorist organization.  We have the right, nay the duty, to stop such terrorism.

Today we have thousands of ordinary Americans willing to take to the streets to protest fascism and racism while the political leadership in Washington D.C. keeps strangely quiet.  

We, too, must grow and change with the times.  There is always the chance of the slippery slope but I think the American people can handle it.  

I do not concede the point that supporting restrictions on white supremacists flaunting swastikas will lead to an attack on free speech for everyone else. We can and must make a special case when dealing with the hate-speech of racists and Nazis. 

Certain types of speech are meant to incite fear, hatred, and division.  

In this instance, we can surmise that such racist speech is meant to be a stepping stone to the organization of a functioning para-military group of thugs and ruffians who one day will use physical force to subdue their critics if given the chance.   

We have the actual history of the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich to provide ample testimony as to the practices and ultimate goals of the Neo-Nazis. 

History shows us how they use lies and deception to further their aims: namely, to reach a point of strength where they can rely on brute force to attack their enemies.  

We’ve had to stomach the stench of their propaganda for far too long.  Now that more Americans are waking up to the dangers of such fascist rhetoric, I for one welcome the awakening.    

I ask myself (as others have done) at what point in time could Hitler have been stopped?  In short, what lessons should we learn from World War II?  

One lesson is obvious: the longer you wait, the more dangerous the fascist threat becomes.  

Contrariwise, the sooner strong anti-fascist counter-measures are employed, the better the chances become of stopping such a movement before it gains strength.  

Striking at an incipient fascist movement while it is still in embryonic form makes far more sense than waiting to see how much violence and terror the Neo-Nazis will wreak before realizing “something must be done”.

I’d like to ask lynched Black men swinging on southern trees, the gassed and tortured Jews of the concentration camps--the beaten and murdered victims of Nazism and racism from all around the world--what they truly believe: 

I want to ask these victims if they think it is prudent to protect the rights of the Nazis and KKK assassins who amassed a long bloody record of brutality and murder towards them and others?  

I wish I could ask one more person, too, to see what Heather Heyer would say: 

Heather, should I fight to protect “freedom of speech” for Nazis and white supremacists or should I oppose them with all the power at my command?  

You know, I’m not sure I can hear the voices of the others but I think I can hear Heather’s voice.  She’s whispering “Steady on!”

We’ve been down that other crazy road already.  The world came to regret—too late—the policy of permissiveness and appeasement.  

This time round, I intend to support all such popular movements to up the ante so our nation can pursue a bright future free of all such scourges.  

Fascism is a disease; it is a cancer that must be cut out!

Whether I’m right or wrong on the legal interpretation of the First Amendment doesn’t matter.

The souls of our brightest thinkers and fighters, the souls of all those who gave their lives in courageous struggle against racism and fascism, are calling to me: 

Act now, fight now to stop the Far Right.  

“Later” may be too late.  

In Heather’s name, let us act!

Thursday, August 24, 2017

American Philosopher

It seems the American Philosopher is not doing so well these days. There is no need to reference the convoluted abstract absolutism that characterized “European philosophy” of a bygone era.

No, even in terms of a clear concise explanation of what inspires our nation and motivates its citizens, it seems our literary reputation has been sinking.

Indeed, not since the founding of the country has our repository of intellectual expertise sunk so low.

The current resident of the White House explains himself in short repetitious phrases, either orally or on social media, including statements that are demonstrably false.

Have we hit bottom yet? It appears we have.

Looking back, the American Revolution involved a long bloody fight but it also provided us with an abundance of “thinkers”: Adams, Jefferson, and Paine--they led the pack.

One could argue there was a second “revival of thinking” in the era before the Civil War: Emerson and Thoreau, Douglass and Garrison, among other poets, essayists, and Abolitionists.

No doubt they were motivated by high moral ideals—freedom versus slavery—which helped inspire their clarity and purpose.

Lincoln took democratic thought to new heights not seen since the Revolution with its bold fighting words: Paine’s Common Sense and The American Crisis, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, to name a few of the documents that have shaped our history.

WHO WILL TAKE UP LINCOLN’S MANTLE?

Look around you: who do you see today whose writings come close to climbing the heights of philosophy that these early Americans expressed so nobly and well?

Perhaps we would be wise to content ourselves to copying their thoughts without attempting to add original commentary to “that which is”. It is hardly the hallmark of a mature modern society, however, to accept the ideas of the past without contributing something fresh to that large and generous body of thought which preceded it.

In almost every other discipline, progress is made continuously; the astronomers of today build upon and advance many-fold the knowledge accumulated by others. Nearly all fields of endeavor appear vitally alive--until we come to the Arena of Philosophy where stagnation rules the day.

Certainly, there are many professors of philosophy busily teaching and writing on college campuses all across the nation, but who comes to mind when we ask: who is the greatest American philosopher today? Silence ensues.

SPEAKING UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

I do not pretend to have the literary ability to compare myself to the inspired giants of the past. Nevertheless, it is possible we are looking in all the wrong places. We are twiddling our thumbs needlessly waiting for a new genius to emerge.

Perhaps our nation’s foundation beliefs are stronger than we realize! What is simply needed is the ability to express them clearly.

We need not attempt to solve all conundrums such as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? We already have a Democratic Philosophy that has stood us in good stead for more than two hundred years.

It has become a beacon of hope to millions of people here and around the world. Why not let the Philosophy of the Revolution continue to guide us?

No doubt a reader will reply: “Well, it does! What is more important to our beliefs than the national ideology which emerged after Bunker Hill and Yorktown?”

Were that it were only so!

It is true that millions of Americans treasure principles of freedom and self-government, the author among them.

It is also true, however, that there are too many Americans who have given themselves over to the vilest passions engendered by prejudice, bigotry, and hatred--fermented in notions of racial supremacy buttressed by a contemptuous derision toward all groups not to their liking.

The contest begun in 1776 for the rights of man is far from over! Myself, I wish to declare openly for the ideals of 1776 and align my every waking thought with them.

If this desire necessitates personal forays into the “whys and wherefores” of American Philosophy, the journey shall prove its own reward.

www.rogeramericanwriter.com

My intention is to contribute my small share to keeping America’s Democratic Philosophy alive and well, especially in contests of word and thought with its detractors and enemies!

“RAISON D’ETRE” (REASON FOR BEING)

A word or two about this website, therefore, is in order. I have tried my hand at a variety of genres for the sake of literary creativity, yet the heart and soul of Roger’s Library remains its serious side, especially the Essays.

The "Academic Works" are intended for scholars with a particular interest in a given topic; the lighter works (such as Blogs and Short Stories) are for those readers with a sense of humor who need a quick pick-me-up or have nothing better to do.

I make no pretensions of literary grandeur here; I know my limitations. The "Essays", however, reflect a genuine attempt to wrestle with social propositions of grave importance.

As I do not subscribe to the notion of easy fixes--nor see any reason to give in to tirades of insult and vituperation--it became necessary to develop this genre slowly and carefully.

The first step was to establish a historical context before taking on one or more of the controversies putting our fellow countrymen at each other’s throats. My doctoral studies helped me find my calm voice.

Readers and writers share a common journey as they explore and discover, then discard or retain that which is most valuable to them in way of human action and thought.

The author is not sure if he is up to fulfilling this ambitious task, this life-long project, but he wishes to pay his respects to those great American thinkers who have gone before him. He wishes to try, if nothing else.

There is no one American Philosopher we need to honor above another; our American Philosophy is born of the sum of words and deeds of all brave and compassionate good-hearted Americans everywhere.

Still, even the most virtuous of people can benefit from a writer tying to help express their deepest thoughts and innermost feelings. I wish to be their American Philosopher, so long as the power to think and to write shall last.

This website defends the ideals of the American Revolution as well as the hopes and dreams of all Americans who believe in freedom, justice, equality, and self-government.

I am not the first nor the last, not the best nor the worst, but simply “another” American Philosopher ready and willing to champion the cause of American liberty and democracy!

Friday, August 18, 2017

George Washington and Robert E. Lee

The president appears worried that if a statue of Robert E. Lee is taken down, then a statue of George Washington might be next. The president asks what’s the difference between the two men, since both owned slaves? Good question, Mr. President!

One difference is this: George Washington was the general who led an undersized Continental Army to a tremendous victory over the forces of King George III.

Another difference is that George Washington was the first president of the United States; he helped the country end the arbitrary rule of monarchy as it became a constitutional democracy.

A third difference is that Washington came to oppose slavery and provided for the emancipation of his slaves in his will. Did Lee? Of course not!

Washington also subscribed to the principles of the new nation. When one attempt was made by officers to make Washington their king, he firmly refused; he would have none of it.

At the end of the war, he resigned his military commission and returned to civilian life. He did not seek power beyond what was called for by service to his country.

I can go on but you get the point. It’s not just the difference between Lee and Washington that is involved; it’s also recognizing that the neo-Nazi racists idolize men like Lee and Hitler.

The Confederacy represented a rebellion against the legitimate authority of the U.S. government, Lincoln having won the 1860 election fair and square. As the South intended to keep Slavery, the Confederate flag came to represent a very brutal form of oppression.

By contrast, the American flag of Washington and the whole country represents the progress made in granting universal suffrage over the years to Black men (1870), women (1920), and Native Americans (1924). We remain a self-governing constitutional democracy.

The Nazis and fascists want to turn back the hands on the clock of history; the rest of the nation wants the country to move forward and live up to its ideal that ‘all men are created equal.”

If removing a statue of Lee could one day lead to questioning the wisdom of honoring Washington, so be it. That would not be the end of the world. It seems unlikely that people will ever wish to tear down the Washington Monument but you never know; the president apparently thinks that’s a real possibility!

Perhaps that question will arise in the future, at which time--through discussion and debate--the American people can make their decision. It is not a question that needs to be raised now; it is a red herring invented by the president to sidetrack people from the real issues.

Trump also just repeated a lie that has no basis in historical fact, concerning General Pershing. This is another red herring, no doubt—or an example of astonishing ignorance on his part.

It would seem rather than suggesting that George Washington is the same as Robert E. Lee, President Trump would be better off studying American history--at about the 8^th grade level, to make a guess.

He seems unable to grasp why Americans protested the neo-Nazis and fascists in Charlottesville. He does not understand the threat posed by the white supremacists of the Far Right who historically have resorted to violence. History teaches us that much, if nothing else.

A car slamming into protesters was not an accidental byproduct of the thinking of such white supremacists. It is who they are, always seeking to provoke clashes and trouble.

In his “many sides” view, President Trump would say the American colonists were as much responsible for the violence of the American Revolution as the British soldiers.

He would say that the slaves were responsible for the violence of the Civil War when they ran away to freedom, fought back against slave-owners, supported the Underground Railroad, and enlisted in the Union Army.

He would say women are responsible for the conflicts and attacks upon them when they fought secure the right to vote. (Yes, not unlike the “blame the victim” mentality).

He would say the followers of Dr. King’s non-violent civil rights marches were as much to blame for the violence in Montgomery, Selma, and Birmingham as the Southern racists who planted bombs, fire-bombed Freedom Riders bus, turned on the fire hoses, released the dogs, swung batons to bust heads, while attacking and murdering peaceful protesters.

The president’s view lacks any sort of moral compass. He does not recognize the historical necessity and significance of these many struggles for freedom and equality.

He lashes out at his critics rather than trying to understand their point of view. He attacks and slanders protesters rather than leading them in opposition to such a brazen and open display of racism and fascism as witnessed in Charlottesville.

He does not understand the brutality brought to bear by southern racists and German fascists. If Nazi Germany taught us anything, it is that the people everywhere must not wait to build a strong popular movement of opposition to them whenever the first signs of fascism appear.

President Trump cannot seem to wrap his head around the notion that there is a difference between the violence of the Far Right trying to revive Segregation and Hitlerism and the brave actions of American men and women openly confronting them and their terrorist tactics.

A man that confused by history has no business opening his mouth to try and explain to anyone that there really is no difference between the two sides.

American patriots who fought for independence, courageous abolitionists who fought to end slavery, brave women who fought for equal rights, anti-fascists who fought to defeat Hitler, and clear-headed protesters committed to stopping the growth of racist and Nazi ideology before it is too late—all have high moral purpose and great personal courage on their side.

That the president seems unable to grasp the deeper issues involved, is a sad commentary on his lack of compassion, courage, and insight.

Monday, August 14, 2017

Dear President Trump

Dear Mr. President (an open letter):

I have a few questions to ask you. If you are too busy to reply to me personally I will understand that but I hope you at least take the time to read them:

Do you support or oppose these white supremacists?

Do you admire Adolf Hitler? (they do)

Do you support another Holocaust against Jews? (they do)

Do you support a terrorized second class citizenship for Black people? (they do)

That is what the swastika and fascist salute mean, Mr. President! But you have a choice:

Do you believe that “all men are created equal”? (they don’t)

Do you believe that America should be a democracy? (they don’t)

Do you admire the World War II soldiers who defeated Nazism? (they don’t)

An American president must believe in and defend our nation’s fundamental principles.

Mr. President, why won’t you speak out against these white supremacists?

Are you not the president of all the people regardless of race, color, or place of birth?

Please uphold your oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

PLEASE ACT NOW TO STOP THE MADNESS FROM SPREADING!

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Senate Votes on Health Care July 25, 2017

“The Mother of All Votes”

I’m not sure if this is true but someone told me Donald sent out this tweet then took it down:

“We had a vote on health care, it was great, very close vote, 50-50, then I asked for a recount, all Republicans voted for it which is 100% so final vote was 100 votes yea and no votes against, maybe one or two, final vote was something like 96-4 only disgruntled employees Sessions and Comey, you know, not doing their job they voted “no” to get back at me everybody else voted yes final vote 108 to 2 most votes ever amazing win for WH. Sad, fake news, cofefe!"

It is not clear as of this writing why he took it down but when more information comes to light, you’ll be the first to know.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

I and Me

EASY ENGLISH: LESSON 1

"I AND ME"

I am a teacher who can teach anybody anything. I can teach a dog to talk and an elephant to fly.

As hard as it may be to believe, I am now going to teach you something too. I am going to explain the difference between “I” and “me”.

This is a very difficult task, no doubt about it. For years and years teachers have tried to impress upon young students’ mind this grammatical distinction.

All these thousands of teachers failed time after time.

The difference between me and them (or is it them and me?) and “me” and “I” is really quite simple. It’s just that many students prefer using the wrong word. It is a game of rebellious nonsense to them, like walking backwards instead of forward.

This is okay because I will prove to you anybody can be wrong! (even teachers.) Some kids work at being wrong harder than others so you should not feel jealous or sad when they don’t get it and you do. You are smart!

NEVER BE JEALOUS!

Never be jealous of dummies because they need to be wrong all the time and they get real good at it through hours and hours of practice. Normal kids cannot keep up.

Even for smart kids, the difference between “I” and “me” is a real challenge! They have to be very careful or they might use the right word by mistake.

To avoid that from happening, both smart kids and dumb kids must practice being wrong no matter what the sentence is. With enough practice, they will always use “me” instead of “I” and “I” instead of “me”.

It’s an art form at which kids excel beyond all expectations! Do not be jealous if you already know the difference between "I" and "me" and wish to unlearn your knowledge to be more like them, the dummies. They are unique and resist imitation copycatting.

A CONFESSION

To be perfectly honest, when I was a kid I myself was often confused by when to use “I” and when to use “me”. None of these Grammar Rules and cute Grammar Rhymes really stick, you know?

Teachers have explained the grammatical rule to me so many times they have turned blue in the face . . . but my memory loves to play tricks and refuses to cooperate!

It’s pretty easy to get to the point of not knowing which is correct, “I” or “me”, so then you have to guess. Nine times out of ten you will guess wrong because the long odds do not favor the gambler.

Even the one-time-out-of-ten you manage to guess right, you probably won’t be sure if you are right or not . . . so you might as well have been wrong!

THE OLD WAY AND THE NEW WAY

That was the old way of teaching. Now I am going to use the new way invented by me, myself, and I since all three of us worked together.

I am going to explain to you when to use “I” and when to use “me”. For clarity’s sake before we begin, I am now talking about the real you. I am not talking about me.

This can be confusing when talking about these two words and whether me the author really means “you” as a person or “you” as a word meaning "anybody".

"You" should not talk with your mouth full of food is you-anybody, see?

“You better not talk back to your Pa or you’ll get whacked” is also an anybody-you since all kids can be part of this kind of “you”.

All of them have a Pa that can do some right smart whacking and smacking when he’s got a mind to. (more about Pa the Smacker later.)

Are you with me so far?

CLARIFYING THE OBVIOUS

I will try to let you know which is which so you will not get confused like you would if I did not tell you when I meant the real “you” and not the anybody-you.

I think you will find clarifications like these are very helpful. (“Me think” is no good.)

Okay, Lesson 2: use “I” whenever you are talking about yourself. I don’t mean I should use my name that goes with “I” just because I am writing this down.

(I am currently incognito with a bad case of urgent legal need for underground pseudonymious concealment and so not my usual open and sunny self.)

Remember, you should use the pronoun “I” that goes with “you” when you are reading this which is why I wrote “you” and not “I”. Person 1 to person 2 is a two-way bridge. Words can be people but they can be pronouns too!

THE PRONOUN BLUES

“I” is called a pronoun. So is “you” so both you and I are pronouns. The "P" word is not a bad word. Do not start a fight if someone comes up to you and says “Hey, I do not like your pronoun”. They are idiots! Tell them to get lost or go jump in a lake.

However, if the teacher reads what you write and she tells you she doesn’t like your pronoun, do not tell her to get lost or jump in the lake because she will put you in a can of hot soup.

Just say “Yes ma’am”, “No ma’am”, “You’re right, ma’am” and keep agreeing with everything she says so she will keep her can of hot soup to herself!

JOHN MEETS SALLY

Example 2: let us say your name is John or Sally or both. If you are John (pretend along with me here) instead of saying “John like chocolate”, say “I like chocolate”.

See how easy it is? If you are Sally (play along) instead of saying “Sally like chocolate”, say “I like chocolate”.

Notice that both John and Sally like chocolate and this probably means they like each other. It’s possible that John likes other neat stuff about Sally besides her chocolate but Sally ain’t gonna give John any of her chocolate until John acts more like a gentleman.

If you are LGBT then don’t worry too much about these gender-biased names but choose any name you prefer. For that matter don’t bother to worry about “you”, “I”, and “me” at all because you’ve got bigger problems to fry anyway.

REVIEW OF LESSON ONE

In lesson one it was brilliantly explained “I” is a pronoun and “you” is the opposite of “I”. (Another way to say this is “We is opposites” but that’s a lesson for another day.)

I also conclusively demonstrated that using names like John and Sally will help you understand who is who and why they like each other’s chocolate.

Lastly, I explained it is best to agree with the teacher all the time so you do not have hot soup for lunch. If your teacher asks you for your phone number so she can call home to rat you out, pretend you cannot remember your phone number.

END OF REVIEW / START OF LESSON TWO

Lesson Three: I am now going to explain when to use the fake pronoun "me” instead of the real pronoun “I”. This is where the fun begins! Luckily, the answer is really easy, so easy even a parrot can learn to talk English.

Rule #1: use “me” whenever it is wrong to use “I”.

For example, “My friends and I like standing on the beach” is 100% correct.

It would be wrong to use “me” in this sentence because “I” is right or I “are” right if you prefer.

Do not use “me” in place of where “I” is standing on the beach because “I” is going to kick your ass if you try and take my spot.

“Me is going to kick your ass” should not sound right to your ears because “I” (not “me”) is going to do the ass-kicking. Get it? "I" is an ass-kicking pronoun!

MORE CLARIFYING EXAMPLES

Example 13: “I love school” is right. “Me love school” is not right. If you hate school then neither is right but remember these are just pretend sentences.

Example 14: “I love chocolate” is right. “Me love chocolate” is wrong. If you hate chocolate then neither is right but they are both wrong only because you don’t like chocolate and not because “I” got knocked over by “me”.

“Me” cannot knock over “I” when “I” is in the right because “me” is not strong enough to replace right with might. Note that by changing the “r” to “m” you get a brand new word which is rather neat!

Anyway, remember what I am telling you:
If “I” feels right then pretend you never heard of “me” because “me” can never replace “I”. (Write “me is not the pronoun I” 1,000 times if you are afraid you will forget!)

LESSON NINE: WHEN TO USE “ME”

Let’s say I am going to write a letter to you and then you are going to write a letter back. Where is your letter going to go? That is when you use “me” because you are going to write the letter to me. It’s really just that simple!

You are not going to write the letter to “I” because “I” is the pronoun and it can write to you but it cannot write to itself: “I is going to write me” makes almost no sense except maybe to second language learners.

“I” can only write to another person--you--and you can only write to another person

(me). You must write to me!

EXAMPLE 24

Example 24: “My brother and me ate two green apples.”

This is wrong and will give your teacher fits which she will take out on you and your classmates in subtle and not so subtle ways.

If you can say “I ate two green apples” then it does not matter how many brothers you have because you need to stick to the apple-eating pronoun “I” like glue.

Suppose you have five brothers. “My five brothers and I ate two green apples” is still right. “Me” did not do anything because me wasn’t even there.

Now, if one of your five brothers gave you an apple then you can say “My brother gave me an apple” or “my brother gave an apple to me” but you cannot say it if your brother gave you an orange or did not give you anything but hogged the whole apple himself.

Remember, I am not asking you to tell me if this sentence is really true or really not true in real life. I do not care how many brothers or sisters or cousins you have.

Instead, I want you to pretend the sentence is true and tell me if “I” or “me” makes it better true or worse true in terms of true-blue grammar true.

LAST RULE

Last Rule you'll ever need to know:
Use “me” when something happens to you or somebody gives you something or you should happen to see the word “to” bobbing and floating along in the sentence and coming your way: “She is going to give the gift to me.”

Get it? Sally is not going to give the gift to you as “I” but to you as “me”.

“She is going to give the gift to “I” makes no sense unless maybe if she is planning to trick you and take your gift and give it to herself rather than to you.

Girls are generally more honest than boys so this is highly unlikely although not out of the question entirely, especially if you have done something bad to Sally (which she did not want you to do) in which case you should not expect a gift from her to either one of you, I mean either “I” or “me”, at all.

LET THE LIGHT SHINE!

You were probably confused at the beginning but I have a good feeling by now you really understand the difference and know when to use “I” and when to use “me”.

Make up some imaginary sentences of your own to prove this to yourself and if you get confused remember these three basic rules:

1) I” is a pronoun. Do not use “me” when “I” is already there pronouning itself.

2) Use “me” if using “I” is wrong or when you see the word “to” a-coming.

3) I forget what idea number 3 is but it is probably related to ideas 1 and 2.

If you can figure out what idea 3 is, write it down and mail it to me. I will be very happy that you learned this very-important difference which often eludes even the best of us.

A HAPPY END

You will never be confused by these two words “I” and “me” ever again!

If you should forget, just remember to ask: “What difference does it make to me?” and answer “I think it makes a world of difference because I don’t want me to end up in a can of hot soup!”

Brought to you by:
The Committee to Bring an Enlightened Understanding of the Difference Between "I and Me" and "You and Me" Which Together We Are.

(Signed)
Committee Chairperson,

Chicken Little Feet

Next time: the very important difference between verbs and gerunds where the author knocks both grammatical units-of-meaning right out of the park. Stay tuned!

A LITTLE ZAP SAVES THE COUNTRY

After devoting much of my life to serious academic study, I have reached a conclusion about what this country needs most in order to make continued progress in all spheres of its multi-dimensional and institutional democracy: a buzzer.

Yes, a buzzer. And not just any kind of buzzer but a very special buzzer. You see, this buzzer would give off a tiny electric shock and would be used only under the following conditions: whenever any person, male or female, black or white, young or old, said or did anything that was full of prejudice, that person would have to wear a buzzer! Every new act of prejudice would automatically lead to the buzzer delivering a small zap.

Moreover, even the president would have to wear one. The next time he goes to say “it’s okay to bomb people of a different color” anybody in the country could reach for a buzzer and give him a little shock of electricity. Eventually some may succumb to the temptation to over-zap him, but this buzzer would be so technologically advanced that it will not allow for that: only a genuine act of prejudice gets zapped!

Check out how history might have been different had we all been wearing buzzers a long time ago:

There’s the Grand Wizard of the KKK and he’s about to light a torch and deliver another hate-filled speech demanding violence against Black people when, all of a sudden, out of the blue ZAP! he gets a major shot of electricity since mass-zapping would be allowed for persons who are particularly obnoxious in their prejudices . . .

There’s the mighty growers of California’s vineyards and agricultural lands--the land and yearly output of foodstuffs is literally worth billions--and a whole roomful of growers around a big conference table are sitting and saying “Oh those Mexicans don’t deserve any higher pay because . . .” when big multi-wired units of zap energy unload their electric charges and every one of them growers would get ZAPPED!!

Why that room would be so charged with electrical energy it would be dangerous for a stranger to try and to walk through it!

Or how about some of those Black Muslims when they screech that idiotic crap at us like they’re holy saints and all non-Blacks and non-Muslims are pieces of dirt? I mean, LIGHTING BOLT-SIZE ZAPPERS would be crashing all about them, not from the little electric zapper, but from the Almighty Himself who detests liars and hypocrites more than any other kind of deceitful fools!

A Black Muslim says “All white men are the devil” and as soon as anyone says “that’s not true” or “that remark contains prejudice” what do the Black Muslims do? Like all reactionary elements before them, they accuse the other party of being the racist. Now why is that? How racist is the party of the prophet Muhammad if that kind of twisted, inverted, and sick piece of reasoning passes mustard?

Well, if someone says the Black Muslims don’t believe that, they used to be that way but not anymore, how about letting us hear one of their spokesmen say so? Or is that too minor a philosophical shift--from virulent racism to something only slightly more tolerant--to bear mentioning in public?

Would they be ashamed to say something like: “Not all members of a group are the same; there’s good and bad in every group; you can’t judge a whole group by the actions of a single member . . .”

. . . and so forth, ideas most of us are all very comfortable with--would it too insulting to Islam to say something like that? I mean, even Malcolm X talked about how on his trip to Mecca he broke bread with a man- whom he came to look upon as a brother- who had blue eyes and blond hair.

Or are the prejudices of Black Muslims a form of racism particular to our own nation alone? I mean, do they agree or disagree-- accept or reject-- what Malcolm X was telling them when he made this statement?

Some may think that as a matter of religious toleration, we must put up with this Black Muslim racism. I, for one, most vigorously disagree. Americans should never tolerate racism but actively combat it, as the people of any democratic nation must.

The Grand Wizard of the KKK should be opposed because he is a racist, not because he is a member of a Christian denomination. We are not opposing the religion but the racism. There is a world of difference between these two approaches.

Louis Farrakahn is a racist and his racism must be condemned as we would anyone else for uttering such racist remarks, regardless of what religion they proclaim, or none at all.

The Grand Wizard and the leader of the Black Muslims are, if you’ll pardon the literary idiom, one and the same person or at least cut from the same cloth and drifting into the same sea of chaos that the insane bitter dregs of racism always bring to the deteriorating minds of those who prefer violence to peace and hate to love.

Let them wear the buzzer and let the people decide who gets zapped the more often!

-Roger R.

San Jose, California

October 26, 2002