True Colors

The more I hear about George Romney, the more I think I would have liked him. But I was too young to vote in 1968, so I didn’t pay any attention to politics. What little I know about George Romney is the bits of information I’ve learned from comments made during his son’s current candidacy for President.

When George was a candidate, he released a dozen years of tax returns. He wasn’t required to release that much, but he did it. To me, that says he wanted people to know he had nothing to hide, and was willing to go beyond what was required. A man of enthusiasm.

I don’t see those qualities in his son. I understand his father’s example of releasing a dozen years of taxes has become standard practice with presidential candidates. Surely Mitt knew that, but now that he is a candidate, he has released only 1 years’ tax form, and promised to release 2011’s “as soon as it’s done”.

Wait. It’s July and he hasn’t done last year’s taxes yet? Surely his bookkeeper knows these have to be done every year, right? You would think any bookkeeper working for someone as rich and important as a presidential candidate like Mitt Romney would have everything organized and streamlined so they could get his taxes filed on time.

“You don’t have any need to see any more tax forms,” the Romneys say. How about the need to know as much as possible about the person who may be elected the next president? Aren’t the American people entitled to that?

And now I hear that a group of people who had collected a few thousand signatures on a petition asking that Mr Romney release more tax forms did not find him in his political headquarters. No one in that office would accept the petition on Mr Romney’s behalf, and the people with the petition were escorted from the premises. Yeah, Mitt Romney sure does understand the American people.

There’s a saying that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. But I think Mitt is a whole different kind of apple than his father was.

History Fails Us

No, I think that title is incorrect. I think it’s the History classes that have failed us. They have certainly failed me. All the recent Presidential election craziness got me thinking about past Presidents and what they did or did not accomplish during their tenure in the White House. And I’ve discovered I know very little in that field.

That got me thinking back to all the history classes I had to take in school; Colorado history, Missouri history, US History (in more than 1 grade) and World history. In all of those classes, ‘learning’ consisted of memorizing names, dates and places. I promptly forgot all of those things as soon as the last test was done – they held no interest or perceived value to me.

Another thing I remembered about these classes is that they slogged through the 1600s, 1700s and first half of the 1800s. By the time they got done with the Civil War, we had about 3 or 4 weeks left in the school year, and we raced to get through to 1950. Even as a kid, I figured those years that (almost) reached my birth date might have more bearing on my immediate life than stuff that was 300 years old. But we raced through it so quickly, I can’t say that with any certainty.

Personally, I don’t think making kids memorize names, dates and places really teaches them anything. What do I remember of history? The tiny bits and pieces of humanity that they accidentally let slip into their lectures. Bits like the suffering of Washington’s troops, camped for the winter in Valley Forge, freezing and without supplies.

I have always wanted some information that would help me identify with people in history. What did the average family eat, wear, do for entertainment, and how did this super-important event you want me to remember change or influence their lives? Maybe then I would remember that event; it might mean something to me.

Some teachers have been modifying their math classes to make the problems more personal for individual students. Why can’t history classes be more personal?

Religious Freedom

A lot of politicians seem to look to our ‘Founding Fathers’ for support for their way of thinking about an issue, such as gay marriage, a woman’s place, etc.  While I respect our Founding Fathers for setting up our country, I think of them as people, not as gods incapable of making mistakes. I have three points to make here.

#1 – A lot of modern  politicians seem to have adopted an extreme religious stand, as I see it, and for some reason, they feel they must shove their opinion and beliefs down the throats of the rest of the country. They may say how much they admire our Founding Fathers, but they completely ignore that the Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution. And right in the preamble to the constitution, the Founding Fathers asserted they wanted to ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’. Have you looked up the meaning of ‘liberty’? The very first meaning given in my source is, “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” Of course, I don’t imagine any despot actually sees themselves as one. And how can a religious belief be despotic? When people who don’t hold that same belief are forced to act as if they do. If that isn’t religious persecution, I don’t know what is.

#2 – It also seems like these politicians have forgotten – or chose to ignore – that our Founding Fathers lived in a different time period. Not only has the date changed, but technology has changed, our language has changed, and our social morals have changed. These people want to pretend that times were much better when our Founding Fathers were putting together our nation. Really? I’ve used outhouses, sweated through summer camping trips, cooked over open fires and wood-burning stoves. That’s enough to convince me that I don’t want to go back. I’ve also been inoculated against small pox and polio, suffered through gall bladder attacks and have friends who have had a knee replaced, allowing them to walk again. Do I want to forego modern medicine to be crippled or die in agony? No thanks. The present is where I want to be, at least until the future gets here.

#3 - How would the Founding Fathers feel about being used to support a particular religious belief as a political stand? I don’t think very many would like it. The Founding Fathers were a varied lot; Roman Catholics, Episcopalian, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, anti-clerical Christians and deists. If they were trying to incorporate a particular religious bent to their plans for a nation, how could they possibly have agreed what that bent would be?

Our Founding Fathers were capable of thinking for themselves, did not cater to their religious beliefs while trying to formulate a plan for a new nation. I can only hope that modern Americans can think for themselves enough not to mix oppressive religious beliefs with political issues.

History Lesson

Way back in school, I heard someone say, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." I thought it meant that those students who could not manage to memorize dates and names would have to repeat the class. So I diligently memorized names, dates and places, even though the part of history that really interested me was the people – What did people of that time period eat, drink, wear, own, think?

But for the most part, nobody seems to care about the people of any given period. Students might be given a dozen names to remember, but what they wind up knowing about those chosen individuals (long enough to take the test) is that this one was the general on Side A of this battle, that one was a political leader whose main policy was...

After school, I sometimes would pick up a book, an article, or some other form of knowledge about a particular era, looking for the 'social' history information I never really got in history classes. Still, I really don't consider myself as any more knowledgeable about history than the average person. And yet, even I can see a second meaning to that old saying, a way that history is now repeating itself, because the people 'in charge' have not realized they were ignoring important history lessons.

Let's take a quick look at 4 events throughout history; the Magna Carta, the French Revolution, the Great Irish Famine & Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. In all these cases, it's my understanding that the great majority of the population had been severely oppressed by their rulers for so long that, out of desperation, the masses rose up and declared that they'd had enough. Most of these were successful; the Irish probably waited too long. After several years of being left to starve, they wouldn't have had enough strength to effectively revolt.

Now let's look at 4 more recent events; the Egyptian Revolution, the Lybian Revolution, the Syrian Revolt and the Occupy America movement. Again, the great majority of the population has been oppressed for years. Again, they've had enough.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.