Abigail Adams is my hero

I think Abigail Adams got it right when she wrote to her husband, John, about the plight of women in this nascent nation back in 1776.

John, of course, was busy trying to put a country together. She was running their farm in Braintree, MA, while he was irritating his fellow delegates in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia about something as revolutionary as independence from England.

Abigail Adams

 Between the two of them, they wrote more than 1,000 letters to each other. But none seems more relevant now than the one she wrote John dated March 31,1776. In it, she pleaded with John and his cohorts to famously "remember the Ladies" as they give birth to the Declaration of Independence.

Here is the excerpt:

 "I long to hear that you have declared an independency—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

"That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that power only for our happiness."

On the surface, it's not a particularly easy document to read. It is, after all, written in the King's English, complete with typos and phonetic misspellings. Proper English tends to throw a lot of people off, which explains why the language is now dotted with colloquialisms and Southern idioms. It's doubtful even the King would recognize his own speech these days.

But the content was dead serious.

John, being "naturally tyrannical", thought Abigail was joking. He probably never shared Abby's sentiments with the rest of the guys in Congress, which goes a long way in explaining why women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, 131 shameful years after the Constitution was adopted. Fully half the nation could only stand on the sidelines and watch rich white men screw things up (think Dred Scott, for one).

Abby might have been this country's original feminist, predating the likes of Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Amelia Bloomer, among others, up to modern contemporaries like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.

Imagine, if you will, the trajectory American history could have taken if John and his buddies had remembered the ladies and given them the right to vote. If women were given the vote in 1789 perhaps the logic of giving other minorities the vote could have taken hold. Perhaps there would have been no Civil War, but Civil Rights instead. Healthcare might be universal and abortion rights might be codified. The Supreme Court might actually be the viable third branch of government instead of a rogue panel of lifetime appointments out of step with women's rights – no, everybody's rights.

But that's not the road the nation followed, so here we are in a male dominated right-wing miasma where women are still second stringers all these years removed from Abigail's now seemingly empty plea. In the end, it's all about control. And who owns that control.

So here we are, in post Roe v. Wade world, stripped of a Constitutional right for the first time in 246 years. Worse, there is a threat, if not a promise, of more rights to fall from a check-and-balance branch of government that desperately needs a check and balance of its own.

If only...

 

Elvis

Right off the top, you need to know that I've never been much of an Elvis Presley fan.

I guess part of that is because I was just so young when Elvis first hit the scene. My first memory of anything Elvis probably came around 1956 when, as a 5-year-old, I heard "Hound Dog" on the radio. I suppose I ought to add here, in full disclosure, that Mom was the one listening to the radio that day. I can't say with any certainty that she was caught up in the burgeoning Elvis phenomenon because her taste in music, as I recall, was wide-ranging, from Broadway to popular to the classics. She didn't swoon when Elvis sang.

I think for me, I was just too young for anything musical to stick. That didn't happen until the Beatles arrived about a half-decade later.

Ironically, the Beatles turned out to be the motivation I needed to appreciate other artists – including Elvis, simply because the Lads regarded him as one of their primary influences.

Anyway, I did eventually come to appreciate Elvis's contribution to rock and roll, especially in his early years. While I never became a serious fan, he lingered ghost-like in the periphery.

Fast forward to Monday. Kim and I went to see "Elvis," the current movie biopic starring Austin Butler as Elvis and Tom Hanks as Col. Tom Parker, Elvis's controversial manager.

Because of Covid, this was our first theater experience in more than two years. We went to the 9 a.m. showing of the flick at Tinseltown in Salisbury, which meant we were just two of only 10 people in the entire room. I didn't know anybody showed movies that early in the morning. Plus, it was senior discount day, which was an added surprise. We didn't buy popcorn or Pepsi at that hour, but I have to say that some coffee would have been nice.

Anyway, the movie was engrossing. Although it's nearly three hours long (2:40), director Baz Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge! and The Great Gatsby, to name a couple of his films) typically moves it along at mostly a racehorse tempo. Time and sequences both fly.

Butler pretty much nails his performance as Elvis, especially the early years. He does most of his own singing and you appreciate the physicality he needed to play such a high octane stage performer like Elvis. Several times in the flick, Butler nearly breaks his ankles standing on his toes in a signature Elvis move. It occurred to me then that Elvis might have been Michael Jackson long before there was a Michael Jackson. What goes around comes around, I guess.

But the best performance in the film belongs to Hanks who, fitted in body and facial prostheses to make him appear as the overweight and double chinned Col. Parker, is almost unrecognizable. The Dutch accent he assumes (Parker was born in the Netherlands Andreas Cornelis van Kujik) also tends to throw you off. But Hanks is compelling. We expect nothing less from this versatile icon. He is our endearing Jimmy Stewart, capable of almost any role.

The film takes Parker's point of view as he tries to explain his management – or mismanagement – of Elvis's life and career. And that means, ultimately, this is a sad tale.

As the movie winds down, the last few minutes flip to actual Elvis footage in one of the last performances of his career. Elvis is overweight. He can hardly walk. His breathing is labored. Then he sits down at the piano and belts out "Unchained Melody" in a voice filled with a familiar power and passion that reminds us of his youth. You can Google it.

He was dead just a few weeks later. It's a touching and emotional moment.

And it made me a fan.

It's MY blog

Apparently, my blog last Sunday decrying the horrific Supreme Court decision to revoke Roe v. Wade ruffled a few conservative feathers, as I suspected that it would.

In my opposition to the ruling, which overturned a Constitutional right for the first time ever in this nation's history, I wrote "What is this country?" It seems at least one reader obliquely questioned my patriotism, then gave me a civics lesson on the First Amendment of this "beautiful country" that allows me the freedom of speech to "cheerlead" for my "team."

This reader also stated that I was too dramatic, too emotional and not factual enough.

Another reader defended the Justices who, during their confirmation hearings, promised to abide by stare decisis (long-standing legal precedent), then seemingly perjured themselves as they voted to rescind the nearly 50-year-old Roe decision anyway. This reader suggested that last Sunday's blog was "an opinion piece and not a peer reviewed article" and also claimed there was too much emotion and not enough facts.

Say what?

Okay, here we go. It seems I need to write yet another clarification on exactly what a blog is, how I resource my material, why I write it in the first place.

The easiest way to explain the purpose of my blog is to compare it to a letter to the editor. In my 30-plus-year career as a journalist, I've seen enough such letters to know that they are often emotional, sometimes flawed, but almost always legitimate in bringing a different or new perspective to the argument.

My blog is my opinion. It can be emotional. Some blogs that I've written have brought tears to my eyes as I type, others have released the steam out of my ears. So what? Thomas Paine was pretty emotional when he wrote Common Sense. Thomas Jefferson got emotional writing The Declaration of Independence. And while I hardly compare myself to their greatness, as a writer, I can appreciate their emotion. 

My blogs are not "articles" in the journalistic sense of the word. They are hardly ever breaking news. They are hardly ever in-depth investigations. But they are opinion pieces.

My blogs don't need peer review. I am not writing for a medical journal or a law society. I'm writing for myself. In last Sunday's blog, I consider my "peer review" to be the 50 years of precedent set by Roe; the polling that shows 65-70 percent of Americans wanted to keep Roe, and, most importantly, my readers who support my views in my blog. I get peer reviewed by my readers every time I publish my blog – even from those who disagree with me.

My sources are the mainstream media, including NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone and several others. Those institutions are where I gather my facts, because they are in whom I trust. I consider anything that is not mainstream to be either propaganda or, worse, conspiracy theory. But that's me. Believe what you will.

I write my blog for free. It is not monetized. There are no ads. I make no money from it. I am beholden to no one.

•   •   •

Now that you are acquainted with what my blog is, let's try this little exercise:

I believe the current Supreme Court is illegitimate (opinion) and radically extremist (opinion). Five of its members are leaning to the right, with four of them – Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – having been nominated to the bench by Republican presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) who lost the popular vote (fact). Another, Clarence Thomas, was nominated by George H. W. Bush (fact).

The Electoral College is responsible for this injustice (opinion and fact) because this antiquated system erodes our democracy, allowing for minority rule (fact). The voting system needs to become one man, one vote (opinion) for it to be truly a democratic form of government (fact). Judges also need staggered term limits (opinion) to eliminate super majorities on the bench and render opinions that reflect the will of the people (opinion).

Or we can expand the Court, as Lincoln did during the Civil War (fact).

I could go on. The current conservative lean by the court results in a strict interpretation of the Constitution (fact). That's how we get opinions based on the founders 240 years ago that have no relevance in a modern world of AR-15s and, well, abortion rights (opinion). We need a Court that interprets a living, breathing Constitution (opinion).

There is it. If you disagree with me, that's fine. That's what America is all about. If you don't agree, then write your own damn blog (emotional fact and opinion).

One giant leap backwards

Do you get the feeling that the United States Supreme Court, politically crafted and thus dominated by a super majority of six conservative judges, hasn't really thought through the implications of Friday's flawed decision to overturn the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade?

Because of their actions, abortions in at least 13 states are immediately illegal, or soon will be. Trigger laws could add another 13 more in less than a month, meaning it will be illegal to seek an abortion in half the country. That goes against 65 to 70 percent of the country, which favored keeping Roe.  

The Court is so out of step.

No abortions, no exceptions. Women will be criminals for having an abortion; doctors will be criminals for aiding in abortions.

Women will have to travel vast distances to seek procedures in states other than the one they live in that bans abortions. That means travel expenses, gas and lodging. Who's going to help the economically disadvantaged through that? Who's going to help the homeless teenage girl who was abandoned by her partner? Who?

It's medieval. It's dangerous. It's about class separation. It's about control. Specifically, it's about a way to control women (this forced birth ruling gives us the 2022 version of keeping women barefoot and pregnant. Well, pregnant at least). And women will die.

What is this country?

No exceptions means if 12-year-old Sally is impregnated by Uncle Jethro, she will be forced to carry that child to term. Or if Carol was raped and impregnated in a grocery store parking lot in a crime of violence, she will be forced to carry that child to term. Or if Matilda had an ectopic pregnancy, she has no choice but to take her chances and hope that she doesn't hemorrhage to death waiting for nature to take its course. Downs Syndrome. Tay Sachs. Poverty level. Single parent. An unplanned pregnancy because the contraceptive failed. A miscarriage could be viewed as a cause for investigation and thus as a potential crime. It goes on and on.

Forced births could mean babies showing up on doorsteps, or police stations, or, even worse, in dumpsters.

What we haven't heard from the Court – or the Conservative Right, as they do their celebratory dancing in the streets – is what happens to the children women are now forced, by law, to bear. These children will be born in a country with no universal health care; no universal childcare; and no paid family and medical leave.

But even beyond the issue of abortion itself, the Court's ruling has ignominiously revoked a fundamental Constitutional right found in the 14th Amendment, which also includes the right to privacy under the amendment's wide-ranging Due Process Clause.

Think about what's just happened. We, the People, in the United States of America, have lost a constitutional right for the first time ever in our history – for now, it was the right to safe abortions that was guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

What is this country?

And it could be getting worse. Justice (suddenly, the word "Justice" appears to be indelibly corrupted) Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion, has suggested that other constitutional guarantees, such as access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights (same sex marriage, for one) are also in jeopardy, which he wrote do not fall under Due Process consideration and thus can not be substantive law.

Yikes.

If Thomas has his way, there goes your right to privacy. So basically, what it all comes down to is that abortion is a private and highly personal decision made by the woman who supposedly has autonomous control of her body in the same way that a man supposedly has autonomous control over his. If that's not true, then a woman has no equal justice under man's law. In fact, why not overturn the 19th Amendment and keep women from voting? It's a lot easier to do now. We have precedent.

The Court is also dangerously close to telling you who you can and can not love. It's nobody else's damn business. Certainly not the Supreme Court's. This case should never have come to the bench in the first place, but then, that was the plan all along. That was the plan for the last 50 years.

And if it's that easy to lose one constitutional right, how easy will it be to lose others? Apparently, easy enough for at least three conservative members – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – who apparently perjured themselves during their Congressional hearings when they told us they respected the legal principle of stare decisis – established precedent. They were voted onto the bench by the Senate, and then promptly ignored the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade. Imagine that. Supreme Court Justices who lied to get on the bench.

No wonder the Court has a 25 percent approval rating.

What is this country?

Why we bring down trees

Four years ago, my neighbor, Perry Leonard, absolutely thrilled me with a memorable ride in his classic 1952 Willeys CJ-3A Jeep.

I had so much fun that I couldn't stand myself. We rode through the streets of Lexington, drawing glances, feeling the wind in our faces. I even wrote a blog about it (see here).

Farewell to a fun ride.

 Well, that will never happen again.

Two weeks ago on a Wednesday morning, his neighbor's 100-foot tree decided that it had had enough of standing tall and simply fell over. No wind. No storm. No earth tremors. No reason other than being perhaps 100 years old.

It fell on top of Perry's CJ-3A Jeep. It fell on top of Perry's 30-year-old Jeep Cherokee. It took out a portion of the Leonards' Air B&B located behind their house.

The damage was significant. It actually looked like a hurricane had come through. I can say that because I remember when Hugo came through in 1989 and created swaths of tree damage in town.

Interestingly enough, Perry didn't seem to mind losing the CJ-3A. It was his fun ride, and not really anything more than that. It was the loss of the Cherokee that really bothered him. He was the vehicle's only owner, buying it brand new 30 years ago.

So, for Perry, there was a lot of sentimental attachment to the Cherokee.

Farewell to another old friend.

 But for me, even though my ride lasted only 30 minutes or so, I had sentimental attachment to the CJ-3A. It made me feel military. I liked seeing Perry grind the gears while tooling down the street, wondering if he'd ever get it out of second and into third.

Perry is thoughtful about his personal disaster, however. Yeah, he lost two vehicles in a single moment, but the hidden miracle here is that nobody was booked for the popular Air B&B that night. That could have been horrendous. 

Or the tree could have randomly fallen a couple more feet to the right and taken out their house. If it had fallen more to the left, it could have taken out several offices. So there was incredible luck in play on their unlucky day.

And the entire incident is a reminder that we have to be watchful of Mother Nature. The tree that fell was being choked to death by the ivy that was climbing its trunk and strangling the life from it. Nobody wants to cut down historic 100-year-old trees, but the fact of the matter is that they're 100-year-old trees. Sometimes they'll give you a clue when it's time for the chain saw. And sometimes, you just have to make that decision on your own.

If you plant it, they will come

Kim and I had no idea what to expect about participating in the 16th annual Master Gardener Tour, being held this weekend in the Grimes School and Park Place Historic District.

I mean, after all, we'd never even been on the tour, much less participated in one.

So we held our collective breaths. When we first agreed to do this about seven weeks ago, we did it with the understanding that we weren't going to do much more than we already did with our gardens. We weren't going to throw tons of money at it, and we weren't going to buy anything extra for the yard that we didn't need or already have.

We partially succeeded in that. Our biggest expense, as it turned out, was grass seed. We've never had great lawns in our yards because of all the shade trees on the property, but this year, we gave it our best shot. I guess I spent close to $300 on 100 pounds of Kentucky 31 seed, and presto! We had a decent lawn.

A platoon of tourists fill our driveway.

 Kim, for her part, cultivated her English Cottage garden for the front of the house and the existing multi-variety garden in the back, giving us bee balm, a beauty berry bush, helianthus maximilians, spirea, sunflowers, zinnias, petunias, shasta daisies and any number of other plants. There's also a kitchen herb garden and a smallish vegetable garden.

But as the deadline approached, she became more wired than a Moog synthesizer. Weeds kept popping up without relief; the hibiscus weren't in bloom, and are we over-watering the peonies? In her eyes, nothing ever seemed like it was going to be ready in time. It had to be perfect, she reasoned, because people were paying $20 per ticket to take the tour. We can't disappoint them.

Pressure.

Then yesterday finally arrived. The sun was shining; the skies were clear and blue; the oppressive temperatures of the week before now hovered in the bearable low 80s. Our greeter, Frankie Sisk, and docent, Peggy Walser, arrived, and we were ready to go.

Almost from the start, tour customers started arriving. And kept coming. At one point, I noticed people were walking from Breeden Insurance, where they could purchase tickets, then cross Center Street, march across the field at Mountcastle Insurance, climb up a small but challenging slope and walk directly into our driveway. There was at least a platoon of them. They looked like the Marines assaulting Iwo Jima. They just kept coming and coming. I couldn't believe it.

I have no idea how many people showed up for the tour, but I reckon it was in the hundreds. And why not? It was a beautiful day.

And the best part for Kim and myself was seeing some old friends we haven't seen in a while: former colleagues from The Dispatch, where I worked, and former colleagues from LSB/Newbridge Bank, where both Kim and I worked.

We especially enjoyed overhearing some of the conversations from the tourists who whispered to each other how beautiful our yard looked. That was satisfying, especially after all the work we put into it.

More importantly, Kim and I hope the Master Gardeners make lots of money. This is their annual fundraiser, and one of the things they do is offer two $1000 college scholarships. Other money raised goes back into the community.

So there's still today to go. The weather forecast is identical to yesterday. It seems to me that this is going to be a good day to stop and smell the roses.

 

'What are we doing?'

After the slaughter of innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, 10 years ago, I really, really, really thought we had a chance to nudge Congress over the tipping point and into some common sense gun control in this country.

Surely, the murder of 20 elementary school students – 5 and 6 year olds – in December of 2012 was heinous enough to dropkick our representatives into legislative action. Perhaps a ban on semiautomatic assault rifles. Maybe a ban on multi-round magazines. Or universal background checks. Or red flag laws, at the very least.

I felt the momentum building. It's what 80 percent of the nation wanted then...and still wants.

But there was both a hypocritical and an immoral resistance within nearly all of the Republican caucus, which eternally appears to be beholden to gun lobbyists as well as to the astonishingly corrupt National Rifle Association. So instead of legislation, we got crickets along with their thoughts and prayers.

Now, almost 10 years and 900 mass shootings later, there's Uvalde TX. Another elementary school. Nineteen dead third and fourth graders. Two teachers.

And, so far, the Republican crickets are still chirping. It's sickening.

I am so tired of this. According to The New York Times, there have been 101 mass shootings in this country (A mass shooting is usually defined by various agencies as at least four persons killed or wounded in a single episode) in the years between 1998 and 2019 among developed nations. The next country on the list, France, had eight mass shootings in that span. Eight mass shootings in 21 years. Eight.

That unbelievable disparity between the United States and the rest of the world automatically eliminates mental illness and first-person shooter video games as underlying causes for this carnage. Mental illness and video games clearly exist outside the borders of the United States, yet the slaughter does not. Mental illness is a bullshit Republican talking point and nothing more as the bodies of dead children pile up around those GOP feet.

Mental illness is not the problem. The ease of gun availability is. What do you think is going to happen when 330 million people are armed with 400 million guns? What do you think is going to happen when an 18-year-old can purchase an AR-15 and over a 1,000 rounds of ammunition?

Time and again gun control and gun safety legislation brought to the floor of Congress has been obstructed by Republicans. There is currently pending a bipartisan bill, HR8, that passed the House of Representatives in 2019 and again in 2021, that will expand background checks. It has yet to be voted upon by the Senate, which needs 60 votes – and perhaps at least 10 Republican senators – to pass. So what's the problem here, Mitch? Not enough dead kids yet? This is how you represent the will of 80 percent of the voters? Shame on you. Please explain your obstruction, because right now, this is rule by the minority as our democracy wobbles.

Another example is the Federal Assault Weapons ban, ratified in 1994 but which expired after 10 years in 2004 (because of a sunset clause) as attempts to renew or replace the bill never got out of committee. Consequently, mass shootings have increased threefold since it expired – a time span that includes Sandy Hook and Parkland. We had it in our hands, it worked, and we let it go.

You can also follow the money to help decipher this reluctance to save ourselves from semiautomatic weapons fire. Many politicians (think Republicans) don't want to jeopardize losing the millions of dollars in contributions they receive from the NRA, gun lobbyists and their constituents, so there's that.

And, in a capitalistic society, gun manufacturers don't want to jeopardize their incredible profit margins by supporting gun control measures. Gun purchases seem to increase after every mass shooting because gun buyers think (incorrectly) they will lose their Second Amendment right to bear arms (which is also a misinterpretation of the original intent of the Founders, who never envisioned semiautomatic weapons in the first place. If you can figure out why the words "well-regulated Militia" are in that 1791 Bill of Rights amendment, then you're on your way). You can thank the NRA for its powerful moves of misdirection to influence our continuing gun culture.

Meanwhile, crickets chirp and children die. The Uvalde tragedy is the eighth mass shooting in Texas alone since 2009. More than 550 children have been killed in school shootings nationwide since Columbine (1999). How hard is it to connect those dots?

I personally don't have an issue with the Second Amendment, but I don't understand the need for a civilian to own a military-style AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that has one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill human beings. The AR-15 was designed as a weapon of war.

I am just so tired of this. I'm tired of teachers having to use their bodies to shield students from the spray of high velocity bullets; I'm tired of kids calling 911 for help while their lives pass before them; I'm tired of children pretending they're shot by smearing the blood of their dead classmates on themselves to deceive the shooter in the room; I'm tired that we can't figure out our national catastrophe when common sense legislation is within our reach.

I'm tired of Republican excuses that don't seriously address the issue. Hardening our schools only turns them into prisons and fire traps; the NRA-inspired idea of good men with guns certainly didn't work out in Uvalde as those good men – those law enforcement officers – hesitated for 40 minutes at the point of breach while babies bled out; and the idea of arming teachers in the classroom is so obviously insane that it needs no comment.

I especially don't want to hear from pro-lifers screaming about abortion as children killed from gunfire lie bleeding on schoolroom floors. That argument just doesn't fly anymore. If Roe v. Wade is reversed in the next month or so, women's bodies will be more regulated than guns, and guns will have more protections than women – or children.

As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) passionately asked his colleagues on the floor of the Senate on the day of the shootings, "What are we doing?"

Right now, I'm sensing a feeling in this country that most people are seriously pissed off and have had enough, especially as it comes just days after the racially-motivated mass shooting of grandmothers in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY. I sense a growing groundswell to the outrage, and I really, really, really think this time that we have a chance for passing sensible gun control.

Or not. We've been here before. We've been here too many times.