Archives for 2016

Ask a young person to describe the Fourth of July and you will get answers filled with bbq’s and fireworks. Ask that same youngster to explain why we celebrate the holiday and it gets a little messy.

In a nationwide survey conducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, over 1,000 teen-agers, ages 12 to 17, were asked basic fourth-grade level history questions. The results? Not very pretty.

For 14 percent of U.S. teens, the Fourth of July marks that historic day we declared independence … from France.

Another 5 percent think July 4, 1776 is the day we rose up against our neighbor to the north, Canada.

A whopping one in five American teen-agers doesn’t know from whom their country declared independence during the Revolutionary War!

And it gets worse.

Students also messed up on more general history facts. One in 10 teens didn’t know George Washington was the first president of the United States. Nearly a quarter didn’t know who fought in the Civil War, and nearly a third didn’t know who wrote the “Star Spangled Banner.”

“When you look at these numbers, it means that more than 5 million U.S. teenagers don’t understand the true meaning of Independence Day,” said Colin Campbell, head of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “As our nation is taking a hard look at our education system, these statistics indicate American history is one area we can’t afford to ignore.”

Here are other significant findings from the survey:

* 17 percent didn’t know there were 13 original colonies.

* 15 percent didn’t know the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

* 19 percent couldn’t identify the three branches of government.

We, as a nation, have focused our efforts on improving science and math literacy among our young. Perhaps it is time to give equal time to the humanities.

Let’s start with American history.

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In a presidential election were one candidate is almost as disliked as the other, what is a voter to do? The pat answer, of course, is vote for “the lesser of the two evils.”

But that often used bromide fails us miserably in this most unusual election year. It seems half the country believes the lesser evil is Hillary Clinton, while the other half is sure it’s Donald Trump.

What it all boils down to is one’s definition of “evil.”

To some Trump voters, raking in millions in “speeches” to Wall Street fat cats, and other one percenters, is evil. Believing the Democratic Party nominee is responsible for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi is evil. Using your own “foundation” to legally accept bribes, while in office, from foreign governments, including some hostile regimes, is evil. Compromising our national security by setting up your own email server is evil.

To some Hillary voters, defrauding desperate people out of their hard earned money with talks of riches, through your fake university, is evil. Inciting people to violence is evil. Bringing out, and fanning, people’s latent racist instincts is evil. Being a serial liar is evil.

My belief is the lesser of the two evils can best be identified by the way members of the candidate’s own party are treating them.

No Democratic politician I know of is so disgusted with their party’s nominee as to publicly state he or she will vote for the other party’s candidate.

On the Republican side, however, it is very much the opposite. Many Republican politicians have publicly come out against their party’s nominee (OK, presumptive nominee). Many have said they just can’t find it within their hearts to be party-loyal over doing the right thing for the country. A few notable Republicans have actually gone so far as to state they would be voting for the other party’s candidate! (Brent Scowcroft, Henry Paulson, Mark Slater)

And now we have a group of Republican women coming out for Hillary in a big way. The women kicked off their first steering committee meeting this past Monday for a new organization: “Republican Women for Hillary.”

“It’s really important that Republican leaders, especially Republican women leaders, stand up right now and say we’re not OK with Trump representing our party,” said Jennifer Lim, a group founder who works at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and has spent much of her life volunteering for Republican causes and campaigns. “This is not a position I ever wanted to find myself in. But it’s important that when things like this happen that people speak up.”

Don’t expect a bunch of Democratic women following suit by setting up an organization to support The Donald.

So there you have it, the answer to the dilemma. Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly the lesser of the two evils.

Photos | hollywoodreporter.com | kitodiaries.com

From day one, Trump bragged about his wealth.

When Trump announced his candidacy last year at his gilded Trump Tower, he wanted it to be known he was wealthy, very wealthy. “I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich, I can assure you that.”

Trump’s wealth, which he has estimated to be around $10 billion, has been a big draw for Trump supporters. Here is a mega-rich guy, say followers, who can’t be bought like other politicians. Here is a man who is funding his own campaign.

Thing is, very few people in the know believe Trump’s net worth is remotely close to what he claims it to be. Fortune magazine earlier this month estimated Trump’s net worth at $3.92 billion based on the latest financial disclosure. Some financial analysts, however, are questioning whether Trump is even a billionaire in light of the mountain of debt he carries.

If you want to understand a con man, look to his actions, not his words.

According to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission last week, Trump’s campaign had a total of $1.3 million in the bank as of May 31. This paled in comparison to the Clinton’s reported $42 million. Her super PAC Priorities USA has $52 million.

Wouldn’t a true self-funding multi-billionaire have a little more scratch on hand? Why wouldn’t Trump just sweeten his campaign coffers with, say, a measly $100 million check?

Today we learned the Trump camp is soliciting foreign donations. Why would a self-funding multi-billionaire do this … a clear violation of federal campaign laws?

“Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals — including foreign politicians — in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and Britain,” the nonprofit, nonpartisan group, The Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement.  The group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation.

There is no doubt Donald Trump is a wealthy man. But it appears his much bragged about riches may just be a figment of his very vivid imagination and not the reflection of what some might call reality.

Photo | donaldjtrump.com

The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union … a done deal? Not so fast.

The ballot could not have been simpler or clearer. Should the United Kingdom Remain in or Leave the European Union? The Leave side beat the Remain side, 52% to 48%. Close, but a clear victory for the Leavers. Right?

Well, maybe.

It now seems many of the Leavers are claiming they “mis-voted.” They actually want to remain in the European Union but cast a Leave vote as a form of protest. They are claiming they never believed their vote would matter as the Remain side was sure to carry the day. A new second ballot, some Leavers are suggesting, is in order.

An online petition for a UK revote has been organized, with over 3.5 million signatures collected to date.

While in theory anything is possible, do not expect a do-over vote based on what amounts to sour grapes. For proper Brits, it would be so undemocratic!

There is one plausible complaint, however, which could very well trigger a revote … the ballot was so simple as to be confusing!

Nowhere in the ballot is the word “leave” defined.

The Cambridge English Dictionary gives multiple definitions of “leave.” One is to go away from someone or something, for a short time or permanently.

As one can plainly see, the ballot does not indicate if the leaving is temporary (separation) or permanent (divorce). “Leave” can also mean ” allow to remain,” as in “Lets take out these ingredients but leave the rest in.”

The master of word meanings, Bill Clinton, is an excellent guide here. What can seem so plain on its face can actually be quite difficult to decipher. Everything needs to be properly defined.

Contending that his statement that “there’s nothing going on between us” had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Monica Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

The Brits are sticklers for the proper use of their language. Some who voted to “brexit” can argue with a straight face, and logic on their side, they did not know what the meaning of “leave” was.

After the United Kingdom voted to escape the yoke of the European Union (EU), it didn’t take long for Texas wacko birds to also want to fly the coop.

What had been dubbed “Brexit” (British exit from the EU) has now given rise to “Texit,” the Lone Star State’s long fascination to secede from the United States.

Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, said, “The vast majority of the laws, rules and regulations that affect the people of Texas are created by the political class or unelected bureaucrats in Washington.”

Unfortunately for Miller and his band of secessionists, the UK’s relationship with the EU is not the same as Texas’ status as a state within the United States. When the Confederacy (of which Texas was a part) surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede.

“This is a myth,” insists Miller. “ Texas does not need permission from the federal government to conduct a referendum and exit the union. The United States Constitution is silent on the matter which, through the 10th Amendment, reserves that power to the people of Texas.”

The fact that secession is a non-starter has not stopped Texas Republican Party delegates from recently debating whether or not to add secessionist language to the party’s platform.

The Texas Nationalist Movement has formally called on the Texas governor to support a similar up or down vote for Texans, akin to the UK’s. The office of Gov. Greg Abbott has yet to comment.

While a great number of Americans would be more than happy to give Texas back its independence, it is clear the only way for such a split to happen would be, not through the ballot box, but through armed insurrection.

Ironically, the secessionists would have to resort to “second amendment remedies” granted in a constitution they refuse to be bound by.

Photo| dailymail.co.uk