Originally published on Citizen Stringer, April 25, 2022

The debate over gender identity and sexual orientation discussions in the classrooms of young children has become a controversial national issue in recent months.

As I was observing what people on all sides of this issue were saying about it, it dawned on me that I once had a conversation with one of my children that is a perfect example of how literal young children think and why conversations on the subject should not be held in a public setting, such as the classroom, until they are a little older.

When my son was in second grade, at around age eight, he and a friend were in the back seat of the car after I picked them up from school one day. As often happened, we would chat about whatever was on their minds. This particular day, I heard, “Mom, [name not recalled] said Michael Jackson is Gay.”

This was one of the many times I was grateful, from my position in the driver’s seat, to have only my eyes visible to them in the rear view mirror, making it possible to conceal my facial expressions.

I responded with, “Well, that might be true,” hoping this would be the end of the discussion, but alas, his inquisitive mind wanted more information.

“What is Gay?” was the next thing I heard from the back seat.

Like many parents, I did lots of reading from the “experts” on how to raise children. One especially helpful tip was to not react immediately when they fell or got hurt. I would hold my breath and wait to see if they would simply get up and walk away, or witness that dreaded cry that begins with complete silence.

I have witnessed children taking cues from freaked out parents in situations such as these, and if the parent had not immediately gone into “Oh my God, are you ok?” mode, everyone would have carried on as if nothing had happened, instead of the child realizing they could create a pattern of garnering attention.

This technique was proven out one day while sitting at the dining room table, when one of my son’s toys rolled under it. In an instant, he rushed under, grabbed the toy, and stood straight up – his head and the table making contact in a loud crash. I held back the impulse to yell, “Oh my God, are you ok?” and waited to see how he would react. He simply removed himself from under the table and went off to play with said toy. But I digress.

I also did my best to practice another technique regarding answering questions from children – that answers to complicated questions be answered directly, without lying or making up extravagant stories, while limiting or tailoring the details to something simple and age appropriate.

I thought I did a magnificent job of balancing these things out when I answered his “What is Gay?” question with the following: “Hmmmm…well, that would be something like, instead of a man and a woman living together, like mom and dad…two men would live together.” I was also cognizant of the fact that I had someone else’s child in the car.

That seemed to satisfy him and the incident was forgotten about…until weeks later when his father and I attended Parent-Teacher Night at his school.

After some of the typical discussions on grades and classroom behavior, while sitting in the tiny chair, which already tends to make you feel a bit awkward, his second grade teacher said, “I have to tell you about something curious that [name withheld to protect the writer] said in class recently.”

This was not a particularly alarming phrase, since our guy was an entertaining entity from a very young age, so I was totally unprepared for it when she shared the following classroom conversation.

It went something like this: In English class, they were going over changing words to plurals and the teacher said she was explaining the change from ‘fe’ to ‘ves,’ as in the case of wife/wives. She said she explained the concept and used the example, “for instance, a man has one wife – he cannot have two wives.”

A simple concept gone bad when she told us that our adorable and innocent son raised his hand, and when called on said, “When I grow up, I’m not going to get married, I’m going to be Gay!”

After I picked my jaw up from the surface of the table, I managed to say, “I have no idea why he would say something like this.” Now, to put things in perspective, this was many years ago, when conversations of the sort were not as commonplace as they are now, and these exchanges might have gone differently today than they did back then.

We left the school that evening befuddled and shaking our heads, but a few days later, after wracking my brain about it, the lightbulb went on. I connected the dots between our conversation in the car and his classroom comment.

It was clear to me that at his level of maturity and ability to understand these concepts, that my simplistic example of being Gay – two guys living together, rather than a man and a woman – sounded fantastic to him. At his age, and at that moment in time, the thought of living with a girl was not at all attractive to him; a roommate situation, if you will.

Without having held the “birds and bees” discussion with him at this point, no other explanation seemed appropriate, and if he was “put off” at the notion of any kind of liaison with a girl, I can only imagine how the explanation of two men being in a romantic partnership would have gone over.

I did call the teacher and related my findings to her.

While children seem worldlier at younger ages than they were in the past, it is still a good example of how these conversations should be left up to parents, at least until a certain age.

I know Gay people that agree with what Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill does. For the most part, I would have to believe that everyone screaming about it is either purposely blowing it out of proportion, or has likely been misinformed that the language in the bill specifies that “classroom instruction” on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in grades K-3, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate.”

In today’s politically charged climate, it is not impossible that a teacher, or even some parents, might actually take a comment like my son’s seriously and start taking steps to encourage it, rather than let it ride and see how things play out over time.

Although most parents are not experts in psychology, we know our children’s maturity level and their ability to handle certain conversations better than any teacher could.

This also speaks to another provision in the bill that requires communication between teachers and parents. That partnership plays an important role in our children’s lives.

There is a balance that needs to be struck. Teaching acceptance of all, while allowing children to be children, without the pressure of potentially awkward and age-inappropriate conversions outside of the home, seems more than sensible.

Should questions about such matters arise in K-3 classrooms, they can be gently and adeptly handled without crossing the boundaries set forth in the bill, along with the suggestion to talk with their families about it.

Originally published on Citizen Stringer, February 21, 2022

Some of the most famous words of two former U.S. Presidents come from  speeches they made long before they were elected to the country’s  highest office. Reading them, they seem as relevant now as they did when  they were spoken.

The issues that each of these former Presidents spoke of during their  times are surprisingly some of the very same ones we are struggling  with today.

In recent discussions on the state of the division, or polarization,  of the U.S., I have heard a few prominent media personalities use  phrases like, “We are in a cold civil war,” or they ask, “Is it time for  a national divorce?”

At times, the familiar quote, “America will never be destroyed from  the outside. If we lose our freedoms it will be because we have  destroyed ourselves from within,” has been referenced by those concerned  about the future of these United States.

The search for the accurate origin of the quote led me to some  interesting information, and so it seemed appropriate to bring the  eloquent and relevant words of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan to life  in honor of Presidents’ Day.

But first, some history; Presidents’ Day is a federal holiday held  annually on the third Monday in February. It was originally established  in 1885, in recognition of the birthday of our first president, George  Washington, which is February 22.

After the death of Washington in 1799, his birthday became a  perennial day of remembrance. It was enacted as a federal holiday in  1885, and in 1968 a provision was added to include Abraham Lincoln,  whose birthday is February 12. Since then, the commemorative day has  changed from February 22 to the third Monday in February.

There are four former presidents who were born in February.

George Washington, 1st President (served 1789-1797), February 22, 1732

William Henry Harrison, 9th President, February 9, 1773

Interestingly, Harrison, the oldest President to serve at the time  (age 68), also served the shortest tenure in U.S. Presidential history –  from March 4, 1841-April 4, 1841. After only one month in office, he  caught a cold that turned into pneumonia, also becoming the first  President to die in office.

Abraham Lincoln; 16th President (served 1861-1865), February 12, 1809

Ronald Reagan, 40th President (served 1981-1999), February 6, 1911

There are some interesting parallels between our present divisions  and those that occurred over 150 years ago in Lincoln’s time. The phrase  stating that if America is going to be destroyed, it will be from  within, comes from a speech he made over 20 years before he became  President.

Over time, the original quote has been condensed or abbreviated, but  the meaning or context has not been distorted in the process.

It seems to have evolved and been boiled down from a speech Lincoln  made on January 27, 1838, when he was a 28-years-old attorney and state  legislator in Springfield, Illinois. The speech the quote originates from is known as Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, titled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.”

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean,  and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia, and  Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted)  in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by  force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge,  in a trial of a thousand years.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I  answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot  come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its  author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all  time, or die by suicide.”

Lincoln was referring to his opinions on the state of the political  parties in the country at the time as well as addressing a recent event  in which a pro-slavery mob in his state murdered an abolitionist  newspaper editor. Historians say the murder polarized the nation.  Although the situations are distinctly different, the mention of mob  violence and polarization is an eerie parallel to the summer of 2020.

Reading the following statements from Lincoln, I am struck by the  similarities between the situation he speaks of and the rioting that  took place in 2020 and the recent looting sprees and rising crime rates  we see in cities across the county.

The references he makes could easily have been said today. Lincoln  spoke of an “increasing disregard for the law which pervades the  country,” and that “Accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the  every-day news of the times.”

“Whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to  gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and  rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot  editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with  impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last.”

Lincoln also said that they were in a time when the political  institutions were contributing to the “ends of civil and religious  liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.”

In the opening of the speech, Lincoln speaks about the people being  the “legal inheritors” of “fundamental blessings,” that we owe our  ancestors gratitude for them, that it is our duty to pass these ideals  down, and to defend those rights and freedoms.

“We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them–they are a  legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now  lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly  they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of  this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a  political edifice of liberty and equal rights; ’tis ours only, to  transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the  latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the  latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of  gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and  love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully  to perform.”

Coincidentally, a similar quote from Ronald Reagan that is equally  famous was also made 20 years before he was elected President. It is  from a speech he made at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Phoenix,  Arizona on March 30, 1961 which is titled “Encroaching Control.”

“Our Founding Fathers, here in this country, brought about the only  true revolution that has ever taken place in man’s history. Every other  revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers.  But only here did that little band of men so advanced beyond their time  that the world has never seen their like since, evolve the idea that  you and I have within ourselves the God-given right and the ability to  determine our own destiny. But freedom is never more than one generation  away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the  bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is  if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with  the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.  And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our  sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it  once was like in America when men were free.”

On October 27, 1964, then-actor Ronald Reagan spoke at a campaign  event for Barry Goldwater, the GOP presidential candidate running  against Democrat John F. Kennedy.

Listening to Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing Speech,” you would think  he was the candidate, and you can easily see how he became one later on.

There are so many things worth quoting in this speech that it was tempting to simply post the complete transcript, but thankfully you can watch it. (Viedo below article.)

Many of the things he speaks on are some of the very same issues we are concerned about today.

Taxes are always an issue in an election, but back in 1964 Reagan was  talking about the debt limit being raised “three times in the past  year.” He also mentions vote harvesting, the “Great Society,” socialism,  and how social programs like welfare weren’t working to eliminate  poverty, among other familiar sounding dilemmas.

Addressing the differences in ideology between the “left” and the “right,” Reagan had this to say:

“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or  right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or  right. There’s only an up or down – [up] man’s old-aged dream, the  ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to  the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity,  their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for  security have embarked on this downward course.”

Reagan, like Lincoln, pays homage to our Founding Fathers, and asks a  question close to those I have been wondering about myself; Do we have  that many people in the United States that take their freedoms for  granted? Are there really that many people that don’t understand how  hard-won our freedoms are and how easily they could be taken away?

Reagan says, “As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who  among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son  has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace  that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they  mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while  one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re  at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his  long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose  that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will  record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to  lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we  ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by  the Founding Fathers.”

At some point in the future we may find ourselves at a time when the  price of freedom must be paid for again. I pray that time never comes,  but if it does, we will have to hope there will be enough people who  care enough to pay for it.

Originally published on Citizen Stringer, October 13, 2021.

Quite frequently, I feel like Horton the elephant from Dr. Seuss’s  ‘Horton Hears a Who!’ In fact, I have had a photo of Horton holding his  clover taped to the window of my office for years now.

In my attempts to share the facts I have researched, and in an effort  to fight the narratives and fake news we have been pummeled with over  the last several years, it feels like I am spitting into the wind, as  they say.

In my quest to present the other side of things to those who follow  mainstream media without question, I strongly identify with Horton and  his struggles to get others to hear what he hears, and believe what he  knows to be true.

For those who have never seen it, or need a refresher on the plot,  Horton is an elephant living in the jungle of Nool. One day he hears a  tiny yelp coming from a dust speck as it floats by him. He realizes  there is a town full of Whos inside the tiny speck and places it on a  clover to keep it safe.

Horton hears the voice of Professor Whovy, the only character in  Whoville who believes there is life outside of their little world.

Similarly, no one else in Nool can hear anything coming from the  speck, and the animals, thinking Horton is crazy, capture him and try to  boil the dust speck to put an end to his obsession.

While Horton is trying to convince the others there are living  creatures inside the dust speck, a group of monkeys, known as the  Wickersham Brothers, accuse him of being up to something sinister and  set out to stop him.

Revisiting the original version of the movie made in 1970, I noticed  things I had not before. In addition to my analogy involving Horton, I  found some unexpected similarities between some of the characters and  the current state of division and freedom of speech issues we are  currently experiencing.

I was especially surprised at the adult nature of the accusations in  the song the Wickersham Brothers sing during their capture of Horton,  drawing a comparison between them and the situation in the story, and  events that are happening today with regard to censorship of certain  voices on social media by government and big tech, and the overwhelming  power of the mainstream media.

“We know what you’re up to pal

You’re trying to shatter our morale

You’re trying to stir up discontent

And seize the reins of government

You’re trying to throw sand in our eyes

You’re trying to kill free enterprise

And raise the cost of figs and dates

And wreck our compound interest rates

And shut our schools, and steal our jewels

And even change our football rules

Take away our garden tools

And lock us up in vestibules”

The song ends with the Wickersham Brothers repeating, “There’ll be no  more talking to Whos who are not” many times as they drag Horton and  his clover away.

The struggle creates an earthquake-type scenario in Whoville, and the  Whos finally believe the warnings of Dr. Whovy who gets everyone in  town to make noise in an effort to be heard and save themselves.

They are not heard until one last Who is found sitting silent. It is a  young child who is then held up high and urged to make any noise. Dr.  Whovy tells the child, “This is your town’s darkest hour.”

Just as the speck was about to be snatched from Horton’s trunk and  boiled in a pot of water, the child yells, “Yop!” That one final “yop”  was enough, and the animals in Nool heard the Whos’ chants of “We are  here, We are here, We are here, We are here!”

In this analogy, the Hortons and Whos are those who support  fact-based information, and free speech, and the Wickersham Brothers are  government, big tech, and the mainstream media.

While the Hortons and Whos of the world are gaining in numbers, the Wickersham Brothers are also ramping up their game.

The most recent examples include the DOJ bringing in the FBI to  investigate “threats against school administrators” as parents ask tough  questions to board members about what is being taught to their  children, and are speaking out against mask mandates in the schools. We  are now looking at government mandates regarding vaccinations in the  workplace, big tech takes down opinions not in line with  government-sanctioned ideas on certain topics, and biased fact-checkers  on social media flag everything from articles to memes or jokes on the  basis they “violate their community standards” without giving you a  reason why.

Politicians on the “correct” side of things make statements that are  simply untrue, but they say it with confidence and repeat it over and  over, which, of course, makes it true to those who aren’t concerned with  the lack of facts behind said statements. This is a proven theory  called the illusory truth effect, which is described as the tendency to  believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.  Researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality.

To compound the problem, there are many people who make snap  judgments on issues simply by reading a headline. I have long been  frustrated that people share, comment, and judge things they see online  without actually opening and reading the content.

Frequently, people on social media will ask a question in the  comments section of a post that has already been addressed in the  article. It is obvious they have not read it, some even sharing opinions  that have little to do with the facts presented within the piece.

I get it. People don’t have the time or motivation to read lengthy  things, but most articles are between a three to five-minute read, which  is time well spent, and necessary if you actually want to be informed.

I have also witnessed interactions between people who don’t want to  hear any opposing thought, even if it is done respectfully and they are  presented with facts.

Over the past few years, I have personally seen people become visibly  uncomfortable at the mere mention of politics, and one person  physically produced a shudder, wrinkled up their face, then walked away,  at the mention of a certain former president’s name.

I have also had respectful discussions with people who think  differently, but usually reject my suggestion that they read something  that backs up what I am saying. They simply shut down and we move on.

This is not a one-sided issue. There are echo chambers on both sides  of the political aisle, and confirmation bias is a very powerful thing.

It is a worthy exercise to learn to look at things objectively and  with an open mind. Question things, do your homework, ask people that  disagree with you for facts, and have yours at the ready.

Spend time asking questions, reading, listening, and thinking  critically before you come to conclusions. It is empowering to have  facts that back up your opinions.

Hint: Citizen Stringer has done a lot of the work for you. We work hard to provide our readers with fact-based information.

I’m sure there are many that can relate to the Whos and would say  that this is our country’s darkest hour. We are extremely divided and  are traveling down two separate and parallel information highways. We  can only come together if we find common ground and agree on a set of  facts.

The facts need to be louder than the noise, which is no small feat  these days. The Wickersham Brothers have a very big machine behind them.

In the original story, the Whos were finally heard when they all spoke up and worked together.

To all the Hortons and Whos out there – never give up. Even though it  feels overwhelming and hopeless at times, you never know which one of  you will be the “yop” that finally breaks through and allows others to  hear what you have to say.

You can watch ‘Horton Hears a Who!’ on archive.org.

Originally published on Citizen Stringer May 27, 2021

Memorial Day weekend is fast approaching. Businesses will be displaying signs, and people on social media will be wishing you a “Happy Memorial Day!”

While it is the official start of summer for many, and the long weekend lends itself to barbecues and get-togethers with family and friends, we should remain mindful of the origins, and reflect upon the meaning, of the holiday.

First, let’s clear up the difference between Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Armed Forces Day, as it seems the lines have been blurred over time.

Armed Forces Day is celebrated on the third Saturday in May, and is the day to honor all of the men and women currently serving, as well as those who have served and sacrificed to defend our freedom. President Harry Truman established the holiday in 1950.

Veterans Day is a day to honor those who have served. It is always commemorated on November 11, no matter what day of the week it falls on. It was first celebrated as Armistice Day, marking the end of World War I, which was formally recognized on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918. That’s why many Veterans Day ceremonies are held at 11 a.m.

Memorial Day honors the men and women who have died during military service, particularly those who died in battle or as a result of wounds sustained in battle. It is a day to memorialize those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. This also includes those veterans who have taken their own lives due to the invisible wounds they incurred while serving.

You have probably seen red poppy flowers, which have become a symbol of remembrance associated with Memorial Day. For those unfamiliar with them, here is a quick explanation, but more info can be found here.

In the war-torn battlefields of Europe, the common red field poppy was one of the first plants to reappear. Its seeds scattered in the wind and sat dormant in the ground, only germinating when the ground was disturbed—as it was by the very brutal fighting of World War I.

John McCrae, a Canadian soldier and physician, witnessed the war first hand and was inspired to write the now-famous poem “In Flanders Fields” in 1915 when he saw the poppies scattered throughout the battlefield surrounding his artillery position in Belgium.

In 2000, The National Moment of Remembrance was created by President William Clinton to observe a moment of silence 3:00 p.m. (local time) on each Memorial Day. This is to encourage Americans everywhere, to pause for one minute to remember and honor those who have died in the service to our nation.

If you think about it, using the word “happy” in front of Memorial Day is an oxymoron. We don’t say “Happy 9 11 Day” do we?  It’s easy to see how it happens, it being the official start of the summer season for many, and it’s similar to the commercialization of Christmas; the original meaning having shifted over time for many.

I recently spoke with Gold Star Mother Carol Resh, who is currently serving on the National Executive Board of Gold Star Mothers, Inc., and is President of her local GSM chapter in Pennsylvania. Her son Army Capt. Mark Resh was killed in action when his Apache helicopter crashed during combat operations in Iraq in 2007.

I asked Mrs. Resh what she would want people to know about Memorial Day from her perspective, and she said, “for Gold Star Families Memorial Day is every day.” She said people need to know that we “observe” Memorial Day (as opposed to celebrate) and to “go ahead and have your picnics, but take the time out of that day to think about those who gave their all so that you can have the freedoms that you have.” She added, “Memorial Day is not a happy day for us.”

Personal experiences will obviously affect the way you approach the upcoming holiday. I know far too many Gold Star Family members, as well as family and friends that have lost battle buddies or loved ones, to take the day for granted.

The phrase, “There but for the grace of God go I” is applicable. My son was wounded in Afghanistan in 2011 and, as he says, he was lucky to escape with life, limb and eyesight. Many he served with were not so lucky.

A few years ago he spoke at a Memorial Day ceremony in his hometown, and I think what he said back then is still good advice.

He spoke of the soldiers he fought with that did not come home, saying it was the reason we were there that day, “To honor soldiers that paid the ultimate price and laid down their lives for our country, our freedom. That’s what it’s about; not veterans, barbecues, or a day off from work. It’s about thanking those heroes that gave their lives for everything we have. May we never forget these brave soldiers and keep them, their families and loved ones in our hearts. While you’re barbecuing today and enjoying your time with family and friends, please don’t forget to raise your glasses.”

Whatever your plans are for this coming Monday, please pause, if for a moment, to remember the thousands of brave Americans we have lost in service to our country.

As I attend several events over the weekend, my thoughts will also be with the family and friends of those who are keeping the memory of their loved ones alive.

Have a mindful and meaningful Memorial Day.

“And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free. And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.” — Lee Greenwood

Originally published on Citizen Stringer March 26, 2021

Women’s History Month is celebrated annually during the month of March, and while we celebrate the many achievements of women, the current political climate, being so focused on identity politics, has me thinking about how far we have come, and where we are now.

First, some history; the women’s rights, or suffrage movement, began in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention in upstate NY, organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, abolitionist and a leader of the early women’s rights movement.

Stanton began the convention with a speech stating their goals and purpose:

“We are assembled to protest against a form of government, existing without the consent of the governed—to declare our right to be free as man is free, to be represented in the government which we are taxed to support, to have such disgraceful laws as give man the power to chastise and imprison his wife, to take the wages which she earns, the property which she inherits, and, in case of separation, the children of her love.”

While a few states allowed women to vote by the end of the 19th century, it was not until 1920, 72 years after that first convention, that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, granting the right to vote to more than 8 million women across the country for the first time.

Our country can be slow to make changes, but we make them at least. We have come a long way, and there are many brave, strong, and intelligent women, past and present, who inspire us.

Identity politics focuses on your gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. While I believe no one should be oppressed due to their identity, I do not believe they should get free passes for it either. I believe in meritocracy, earning your positions and successes based on abilities and achievements.

Being given anything without having earned it lacks meaning and deprives someone of the feeling of satisfaction, and pride in a job well done. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a game, a job, an award, or any other event or position. If I were to be given something without earning it, it would feel empty and patronizing. I would be insulted, but that’s me.

Encouragement and empowerment are far better motivators than enablement. Working hard towards a goal, achieving that goal, and being rewarded for your skills, knowledge and talents are important in gaining a sense of self-worth.

These thoughts and philosophies can obviously be extended to other identities, and I understand that each of these has had, or still has, their own fights to fight, but the basic principle is the same.

The use of identity politics as a single qualification for anything is antithetical to Martin Luther King Jr.’s now famous quote:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I have often said that we, as a society, are on a crazy swinging pendulum. If there is an issue, instead of making small corrections to get to a solution, we tend to swing way over to the other side and overcompensate, missing the mark, and creating other problems in the process. Have we gone past the mark and made things worse, and why?

One of the most recent examples of the application of identity politics is the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated commitment to having “the most diverse cabinet in history.”  I am all for diversity, it’s one of the things that makes our country so great. But, diversity for diversity’s sake is not necessarily a wise practice when you are selecting high level cabinet members.

It is a “win-win” if you can combine identity with merit, but some of their choices have been controversial, and I have to wonder if some were chosen simply for the sake of diversity and to appease their progressive base.

As diverse as Biden-Harris’s cabinet choices have been, there were complaints from senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) this week over the lack of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) representation. Duckworth confronted the White House and told them she “will vote against all of President Biden’s nominees who are still outstanding until they rectify the fact that there is no AAPI representation in Biden’s cabinet.” Hirono indicated she would do the same.

There is a fine line between recognizing and celebrating a “first” in any role held, and placing so much focus on making it happen that it’s counterproductive.  

We should absolutely embrace the identities we were born with, but that is only part of what makes us who we are. It’s a wrapping on the outside of a larger package. The greater part is contained inside of us; character, intelligence, skills, emotions. That’s what I want to be judged by.

“Judging a book by its cover” sometimes works out, but it’s a much safer bet to look inside before deciding whether you like it or not.

Originally published on Citizen Stringer March 5, 2021, title edited.

I recently had to do a project for an organization I belong to which involved selecting an historical event from a list of educational resources, which provided a lesson plan for students to learn about the event, as well as instructions on how to examine and discuss certain elements of the story.

For reasons I cannot explain, I chose the one entitled, “The Unhappy Disturbance on King Street (The Boston Massacre 1770).”

The basic goal was to have students learn details about the incident, have them assess the information provided for facts, evidence, and relevance, and learn that propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.”

There are three parts; the telling of the story that sets up the atmosphere which led up to the actual event, details of the “massacre,” and the engraving done by Paul Revere three weeks afterward which is described as “probably the most effective piece of war propaganda in American history.”

The story begins with, “So many people think that the Boston Massacre started with Captain Thomas Preston giving the order to fire…but March 5th 1770 was more than a culmination of Bostonians being tired of paying money for the quartering act, they were also tired of competing for jobs with the British soldiers who were trying to make ends meet since they were underpaid by the crown, and of course people of Boston were just tired of the British occupation. But the unfortunate incident on King Street on that particular day had to do with two boys.”

It goes on to explain that on February 22, 1770, eleven days before the event, a 10-year-old boy by the name of Christopher Seider was killed by a British soldier by the name of Ebenezer Richardson. Richardson was found guilty of murder, but was not hanged, and the colonists were outraged that he did not face immediate consequences.

On March 2 and 3, British troops and a band of Boston rope makers squared off in a series of street brawls that left one infantryman with a fractured skull. According to History.com, “By March 5, the city was awash with rumors that an even bigger confrontation was in the offing. British regulars spoke of their desire to get revenge on the townspeople, and a local minister reported that he heard many Boston men planned on “fighting it out with the soldiers.”

On the evening of March 5, Edward Garrick, a 13-year-old wig maker’s apprentice, began insulting a British soldier who was passing by. The soldier ignored the boy, but another soldier by the name of Private Hugh White, who had been standing guard in front of the State House, came to the other officer’s defense. When Garrick continued with insults, White attacked Garrick, hitting him in the head with the butt of his musket.

The townspeople were outraged and someone rang a fire bell which drew a crowd. Some boys started throwing snowballs at White. The scene escalated, with rope makers working nearby and other townspeople joining in. White was yelling for help, and British Captain Thomas Preston, who was well liked by the colonists, hesitated to send more troops into the fray, but he feared for Private White’s safety.

Seven or eight soldiers came to White’s aid, keeping the crowd, now numbering in the hundreds, at bay with their bayonets. Preston tried to keep the peace, as he did not want the soldiers firing at the people. Verbal attacks continued while the crowd continued to hurl snowballs, ice, rocks, and debris at the British troops.

Someone hurled a wooden club, striking and knocking down Private Hugh Montgomery, who when rising to his feet, raised his weapon and yelled, “Damn you! Fire!” before discharging his musket. The soldiers unleashed a volley of musket fire at that point.

Two bullets struck and killed Crispus Attucks, a former slave, and when all was said and done, a total of five men were dead. From the History.com site, “The city seemed on the brink of a general insurrection. Potential disaster was only averted when acting Governor Thomas Hutchinson addressed the people and gave his word that he would conduct a full investigation into the killings.”

Captain Preston and his men were taken into custody, and Governor Hutchinson withdrew the remaining British troops to Castle Island in Boston Harbor.

In the weeks following, Patriots and loyalists published competing narratives of the shootings, and Paul Revere created his now famous engraving depicting defenseless townspeople being gunned down, or “massacred,” by the soldiers.

Future president John Adams believed the British soldiers deserved a fair trial and represented them in court.  His cousin, Samuel Adams, denounced the soldiers’ acquittals as a grave miscarriage of justice and helped organize “Massacre Day,” an annual day of mourning on March 5, keeping the incident fresh in the minds of the colonists.

The killings became a rallying cry in the early days of the Revolutionary War and “even John Adams would eventually acknowledge that “the foundation of American independence was laid” the night shots rang out in Boston.”

I found the similarities between the events of 1770 and those we are seeing today both fascinating and intriguing. Mainstream media has been accused of “fake news” (propaganda), major differences in political ideologies, unrest in the streets, and things coming to a head during the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

“Fake news” has apparently been around for a long time and it’s probably not going away. We need to be smart enough to recognize it and choose our sources wisely. These days, when it seems like so many want to to erase our country’s rich history, it’s more important than ever not only to remember it, but to learn more.

Many interesting details of the incident have been left out for the sake of brevity.

Learn more about the Boston Massacre:

https://www.history.com/news/the-boston-massacre-245-years-ago

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/paul-revere%E2%80%99s-engraving-boston-massacre-1770

http://www.crispusattucksmuseum.org/crispus-attucks-role-in-the-boston-massacre/

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/townshend-acts

Originally published on Citizen Stringer February 19, 2021.

I am witnessing the reactions to the death of conservative political commentator, Rush Limbaugh, both kind and unkind, and I can’t help thinking about the old proverb, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”  For those not familiar with the phrase, it pertains to hypocrisy and it means judge not, lest you be judged.

I will be honest, being a fairly recent convert to conservatism, I never listened to Rush.   I know he was both revered and reviled.  Not having followed him allows me to be impartial and remove any past words or actions from the equation, focusing on the real topic here, which is civility and objectivity.

Social media platforms are swimming with posts of respectful condolences, but it looks like there are equal amounts that are literally celebrating Limbaugh’s death.  The hashtag #RestInPiss is trending. 

I tried to think of recent examples to compare this with and did some searching to validate my memory.

People were celebrating when the announcement was made that Donald Trump had Covid and they actually wished death upon him.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some Republicans were criticized for quickly posting about her Supreme Court seat vacancy.  Insensitive no doubt, but there were no celebratory posts that I found, or can remember. 

Trump was criticized for disrespectful comments after John McCain’s death, but again, there didn’t appear to be any mass celebration of it.

I am in no way trying to explain away the actions or comments made by anyone on one side or the other.  Wishing death upon people in public life, or celebrating their passing, should be unacceptable to everyone no matter which side of the fence you are on.

In my quest to research this I found an interesting article in the Chicago Tribune from 2014, “Obama faces vile insults like no other president has.”  In it, it states; “But no president in our nation’s history has ever been castigated, condemned, mocked, insulted, derided and degraded on a scale even close to the constantly ugly attacks on Obama. From the day he assumed office — indeed, even before he assumed office — he was subjected to unprecedented insults in often the most hateful terms.”

The article lists some interesting facts and observations of presidents taking abuse over the years as far back as James Madison.  Madison was called “Little Jemmy” because he was short.   

“John Tyler, who assumed the presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison, was ridiculed as “His Accidency.” Congressman Abraham Lincoln castigated President James Polk as a “completely bewildered man.” Opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s reinstitution of the draft in World War I accused him of “committing a sin against humanity.” Critics of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal attacked him as an “un-American radical.””

Looking at the progression, it strikes me that this problem always existed to some degree and it’s an obvious conclusion that the internet and social media have accelerated the pace.  If we don’t put the brakes on somehow, it will continue to worsen, if that’s possible.

Social media has become so volatile that people are deactivating their accounts. Everyone is an expert and they seem to think you need to know what their views are, even though you didn’t ask.

Whether you agree or disagree with any of the policies or ideologies of anyone discussed here is not the point. The point is that over time we have become less civil and less objective.  Anyone from the “other side” is wrong.  When you comment on social media the internet piranhas come out within seconds, harass you for days for voicing your opinion, and you get called some “interesting” names. 

I have a unique perspective of having been on both sides of the fence, and you tend to notice the stones more when they’re coming your way from the other side.  Neither side is completely blameless nor am I making any judgments, only observations and a wish for respect and civility to make a comeback.

We are never all going to agree on everything, but we need to stop throwing stones at each other.  

It is important to acknowledge the fact that Black Lives Matter the concept and Black Lives Matter the organization are two very different things. Without question, every human being should support the concept that black lives matter. We have seen incredible tensions build over this issue since early 2020 and much of it is due to the fact that these two separate and distinct things have been conflated. Supporting the concept is easy; supporting the formal organization is not. The melding of the two has led to criticism of those who don’t support the organization for not supporting the concept. This article focuses on BLM, the organization and the double standards that are being applied to other organizations.

There is much focus on routing out and exposing domestic terror groups lately. The event at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 still leaves a lot of unanswered questions and the FBI is hunting people down and pressing charges against those who entered the building. 

This is not the first time that violence has occurred in the Capitol building. There have been over a half dozen violent incidents at the Capitol since 1915, not to mention protestors taking over the halls of the building on numerous occasions in 2017. One of the most violent instances was on November 7, 1983 when the all-female domestic terror group M19 detonated a bomb in the north wing, leaving at 15-foot hole in the wall, causing $1 million in damage. The details of M19, their history, and story can be found in an article written by Smithsonian Magazine. 

One of M19’s central members was Susan Rosenberg. She was involved in the Capitol bombing as well as bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island and the Navy Yard Officers’ Club in Washington, DC. 

Rosenberg was listed on the 2019 Annual Report as serving on the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a fundraising arm for Black Lives Matter. As of this year, they have made a decision to “sunset” their partnership with Thousand Currents and are formalizing a relationship with TIDES which is described as “a philanthropic partner and nonprofit accelerator dedicated to shared prosperity and social justice.” BLM does not have 501(c) 3 status and must use these fundraising organizations, who then filter the funds to them. It seems the reason for the switch is Thousand Currents was going to lose their tax exempt status due to lack of accountability for millions of dollars taken in.

Rosenberg was arrested in 1984, convicted in 1985, and given a 58-year sentence. According to Wikipedia, “Rosenberg’s sentence was commuted by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, his last day in office, to the more than 16 years’ time served. Her commutation produced a wave of criticism by police and New York elected officials.”

Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors, two of BLM’s founders have stated that they are trained Marxists. Garza has stated that Joanne Chesimard, a convicted cop-killer, is one of her heroes, and Cullors was a protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground, a domestic terror organization. 

A Politifact article from July 2020 explains that because some of its organizers are Marxists, it does not mean that the organization as a whole is. “I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, ‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them,” Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact.” 

“Black Lives Matter “is not an organization, but a fluid movement; it doesn’t actually matter if one of its founders was a liberal, Marxist, socialist or capitalist.” While this is most likely true, the organizers play a large part in the culture of an organization and one has to wonder if such allowances would be made if the backgrounds of the organizers of right-leaning groups had similar histories. 

The effort to designate domestic terror groups that is currently taking place is a highly politicized and unbalanced one. The Proud Boys are being persecuted and are being called a “white supremacist” far-right terror group even though their members are diverse and their president is Latino. They have not committed any violent acts, while groups like Antifa have terrorized many cities across the nation, most notably Portland, Oregon. The media and politicians have never condemned Antifa while maintaining that they are an idea, or philosophy, and a loose collection of individuals, not an organization.

The double standards being applied today are very dangerous. Canada has formally declared the Proud Boys a terror group, and our politicians are calling for the same while looking the other way at groups who are truly doing both physical and cultural damage to our country. 

Originally published on Citizen Stringer February 7, 2021