Inexplicable!

By Patrick F. Cannon

The other day, I had breakfast with a friend at a popular diner, the kind typically run by Greek-Americans and only open for breakfast and lunch. The breakfast menu is copious and the food reliable and hearty. I ordered my usual eggs over medium, link sausage and rye toast. I didn’t feel like the classic hash browns and the waitress suggested tomatoes instead. Seemed like a good idea, but I’d forgotten that, regardless of the season, these places only serve rock-hard and mealy hot-house tomatoes, despite the fact that the fresh product was in season. Inexplicable to me, but my companion had a ready explanation: they’re cheaper.

            (By the way, I have been eating tomatoes from my son-in-law Boyd’s fruitful garden recently. He has a bumper crop this year of various toothsome varieties. I also bought two beauties at the local farmer’s market. What could be better in the Summer than homegrown tomatoes and fresh sweet corn?)

            I have been a fan of thoroughbred horse racing for more than 60 years. At the same time, I’m not really a gambler; it’s the horses and the races that interest me. I do think that having a couple of bucks on the horse you think (or rather hope) will win, makes it a bit more interesting, so I have an account with an on-line betting site. Although I’m a bit ahead at the moment (but just for this year), I do not expect to ever actually make a profit. To begin with, the track grabs (in Illinois) 17-percent off the top, and even more for exotic bets. Inexplicably, some people think they can get rich being on the ponies.

            Perhaps sadder, and just as inexplicable, are the low-income folks who play the lottery every day, hoping to hit the big one. The State of Illinois doesn’t mention this, but only 65-percent of the total lottery income is returned as prizes. If you spend $5 a day on the lottery – and many spend that and more – you would need to win nearly $2,000 a year to break even.  Put in an IRA or mutual fund instead, that same amount would add up eventually to a more comfortable retirement, or perhaps the down payment on a house. Easy for me to say, though, when many low-income people see winning the lottery as the only way out of a dead-end life.

            Excuse me for piling on, but “inexplicable” is the only word I can think of that applies to the millions of eligible Americans who refuse to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and its many variants.  I’m reminded of the New Hampshire state motto, “Live Free or Die.” For the vaccine deniers, perhaps it should read “Live Free and Die.” I’ve seen various percentages of the numbers of people newly diagnosed who have not been vaccinated – none is lower than 90.

            One hears various reasons or not being vaccinated. One of the loonier ones posits that they (whoever “they” are) are implanting some kind of chip along with the vaccine that will enable the evil cabal to gain control of their alleged minds. Other folks, including former Chicago Cub Anthony Rizzo, say it’s a matter of personal choice and that the vaccine needs further study before he’s convinced it’s effective and safe. Could it be that Rizzo is just afraid of needles? Or is he just an idiot?

            I see most health-care organizations, corporations and others are now mandating that employees get vaccinated or lose their jobs. A stark choice, to be sure, but entirely legal, as the courts have consistently upheld their right to make such demands as a condition of employment.  These initiatives, and the rising number of cases (and deaths) are finally convincing some of the holdouts, but by no means all. By the way, “religious” reasons are mostly phony. And while I support conscientious objection to serving as a soldier during wartime, I do not support religious reasons for refusing vaccinations. When you find an anti-vaccination quote in the Bible, please let me know.

            Finally, most of my friends and relatives find my dislike of the avocado (the “green slime” as I call it), well, just inexplicable

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Keep Your Pants On!

By Patrick F. Cannon

If you’re as fascinated by history as I am, you will have no doubt been puzzled by the undoubted fact that belts appear to have existed before pants were invented in the 15^th Century by the Chevalier de Pantaloon. I have therefore taken it upon myself to remedy this shameful lapse in the historical record.

            First of all, it would be well to define just what is meant by the word belt. As with so many English words, multiple meanings are available. As you know, one can belt out a song, or belt a fellow in the snout, or even belt a home run into the bleachers at Wrigley Field. These uses do not interest us. What we are after is a length of some material long enough to span ones waist.

            Astonishingly, little was available in the historical record until Cicero, in his famous Commentaries Upon the Domestic Habits of the Noblest Romans, mentioned in what should have been a more noticed aside, that aristocratic Romans had taken to putting golden cords around their waists on windy days to prevent their skirts from flying up and exposing their less noble parts. You see, underwear had yet to be invented.

            Well, as you may have already guessed, what started as necessity soon became fashion.  When Plebeians began emulating their betters, the Roman Senate passed a law specifying from which materials these cords could be made. Only Senators were permitted to don golden cords, while the Plebs had to make due with hemp. The ladies, for obvious reasons, were forbidden to cinch their skirts.

            As usual, there’s a dark side to the story. It seems to have occurred to a few aristocrats that the cord could be adapted to hold a knife. Thus, on those fateful Ides of March, Brutus, Cassius and their pals had their knives ready to hand when Julius Caesar unwittingly paused to greet his soon to be former friends.

            It is to the Romans that we also owe the transition of the waist cord into what we now call a belt. It seems that the first Roman to spot the trend and cash in by making and selling ever more elaborate cords was the canny tailor, Flavius Beltus. As happened later with products like Kodak and Xerox, the company name became synonymous with the product, and so the waist cord became the belt.

            Taking a leaf from Brutus and his crowd, the Roman Legions decided that the new belt could be adapted to hold any number of weapons in addition to knives. Hanging from their sturdy belts were not only knives, but swords, axes, maces, finger snips, eye gougers and even a flagon of Chiantus. The barbarians initially had no answer to this, but soon were emulating the Romans with weapons belts of their own, except their flagons contained Burgandus or Rhinelandus.

            Belts changed little over the centuries. But when the Dark Ages subsided, newly wealthy nobles and merchants began to adorn their belts with rare fabrics and jewels. Women, for the first time, were permitted to belt themselves. They soon abandoned its practical uses, and the belt became purely a fashion statement, which it has remained to this day.

            (I see I’ve neglected to mention the infamous chastity belt, designed to prevent wives from straying when hubby was away at the Crusades. I have often wondered how the poor women were able to go to the bathroom if the key was in far off Jerusalem, but decided there were some things one is better off not knowing.)  

            One suspects that belts were common during the Renaissance, but men’s waists were typically covered by short jackets, so visual evidence is lacking. It was only when the cutaway coat became fashionable in the 17^th Century that the belt reappears in all its glory. As a man, I’m rather ashamed to say that the men of the period wore even fancier clothes than the women. In addition to belts, paintings by Van Dyke and others even show that the upper classes took to wearing garters. A Knighthood of the Garter was even created, still bestowed by the British monarch. Strangely, Winston Churchill refused a peerage, but did become a Knight of the Garter. When I saw a photograph of Sir Winston with his Garter regalia, I couldn’t help asking myself if he’d taken leave of his senses.

            As to the present, I’ll leave it up to you to observe the current state of this once practical accessory. You’ll find that some people even persist in using one to hold up their pants.

Copyright 2017, 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Hats Off!

By Patrick F. Cannon

Although it’s impossible to know for certain, there seems to be no evidence that cave men wore hats. I suspect that their simple tools were unequal to the task of cutting hair, so there was a sufficient mop on top to keep away the cold.

            Ruins scattered about the Middle East provide evidence that ancient civilizations like the Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians liked to have a hat or headdress to complete their outfits. I suspect the lower orders had to make do with a bit of cloth to keep the Sun at bay. I understand the modern version is called a bullmoose.

            If one is to believe later artists, Jesus favored a hatless page boy, as did his disciples. His Roman overlords also seemed to favor the hatless look, although for formal occasions a simple laurel wreath was deemed de rigueur. The wreath also tends to adorn the numerous portrait busts of Romans one sees in the antiquities collections of biggish museums.

            By the Middle Ages, however, hats were fairly common. Kings, of course, wore crowns, which were considered the top hats of the time. The court jester (see Danny Kaye’s movie of the same name) wore the first of the silly hats, which featured multiple pom poms. The lower nobility were allowed to wear lesser crowns called cornets as a way of blowing their own horns. The serfs had to make do with hats made from the local grasses, thus the term “serf and turf.”

            With the Renaissance came new prosperity and the first recorded hat craze. Fine wool and silk were used and jaunty feathers began sprouting. Initially, all were a bit on the floppy side, but the invention of the blockhead permitted shaping and stiffening. The famed Three Musketeers brought hat fashion to new heights, making France the center of the chapeau industry. By the middle of the 18^th Century, a gentleman could choose between the bicorn, tricorn or unicorn. The bicorn could be worn fore and aft or side to side, depending upon the whim of the owner. Women’s hats became fantastical creations, and were often topped with birdcages (real birds included) or model ships at full sail.  

            This excess came to a halt with the American and French revolutions. In France in particular, fancy hats went away with the heads of their owners. As the 19^th Century progressed, hat rationalization proceeded apace, and men everywhere were adorned with the Derby (called a Bowler in England, for reasons that seem sensible to them), the Homburg, the Top Hat, the Trilby and the classic Fedora, all made of felt in the blockhead technique.

As a young lad starting out in the business world in the mid 1960s, these styles were still au currant. After Memorial Day, they were replaced with straw hats, including the stiff brimmed Boater. But woe betides the heedless chap who wore them after Labor Day! But had I just been a bit more alert, I would have noticed that change was afoot. John F. Kennedy, a hero to the young, had taken to going bare headed! Although I had myself bought a fedora, eventually I felt empowered enough to consign it to the top of the closet.

(I must pause here to pay tribute to the French beret. After some 500 years, it still has its adherents. It’s particularly popular in military circles, since it provides a certain jauntiness that the old caps lacked. They are still worn by civilians, of course, and their effect is heightened by a burning cigarette hanging from ones lip, in the manner of Jean Paul Belmondo, or his spiritual father, Jean Gabin.)

Fashions, of course, come and go. For example, the fedora seems to have made a comeback, albeit in a miniature form, atop the heads of slight young men called hipsters. No one had ever adequately explained just what a hipster is, but it seems to have something to do with wearing black and displaying copious tattoos.

But for the last several years, it is the cap, not the hat, which has gained the most favor. Its rise has been insidious. Perhaps you recall Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds? Early on, we see a few birds here and there, just as we might on a normal day. Then, slowly but inexorably the number of winged creatures increases until their numbers become ominous. Just so with the ubiquitous baseball cap. When returning from Florida recently by air, I counted 16 heads with caps upon them in the seats in front of me, including on three women. They didn’t attack me, but I was fearful.

As a young lad, I played some baseball and proudly wore the game’s signature cap. I remember you had to shape the bill to fit the current fashion. When I stopped playing (curses on the hated curve ball), I stopped wearing its caps. I confess that I now wear similar caps when I play golf. When I leave the course, they return to their rightful place in the trunk of my car.

There was a time when wearing any kind of hat indoors was considered boorish. I can recall when gentlemen took their hats off even when they entered an elevator, much less a restaurant. Now, one sees baseball caps on the heads on men and women of all ages in even the best restaurants. And though the bill was meant to keep the sun out of ones eyes, the most fashion forward of cap wearers reverse it, presumably to keep it off the backs of their necks. I haven’t checked, but perhaps artificial light has unseen rays that addle the brain. There must be some reason why caps never leave heads.

The lack of dress codes generally gives us freedoms we should all embrace. Artfully torn jeans, liberal sentiments or obscene epithets on our T-shirts, $300 sneakers, copious tattoos – all let us advertise a new kind of individualistic uniformity, one that lets us relax as we escape the shackles of a more restrictive if more elegant and decorous past.  

Copyright 2017, 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Step Right Up, Sucker!

By Patrick F. Cannon

Illinois has both an official slogan – Land of Lincoln – and nickname – The Prairie State. It also has much to recommend it. Chicago is one of the country’s great cities, despite its problems. Illinois is bordered by two great bodies of water – Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. It has many fine state parks and a National Forest. Two of America’s top universities are in the state, the University of Chicago and Northwestern. And if you like corn, Illinois is heaven on earth.

            It also, I’m sad to say, has perhaps the most dysfunctional politics in the country. Just the other day, yet another Chicago alderperson was indicted by the Feds for taking bribes. She joined literally dozens of her fellow legislators in being caught with a greedy hand in the till, including one whose wife is the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court (which, strangely enough, has prevented any number of citizen’s initiatives to improve things from getting on the ballot).  And need you be reminded that in my lifetime, no less than four former Illinois governors have gone to jail?

            Lincoln, who was after all born in Kentucky, might well agree with me that it’s high time we changed the state’s motto back to one that was in common use early in its history, when Illinois was commonly known as the “Sucker State.” Other than the obvious reason, why was this so?

            Various derivations were explored in a 2004 article by Dave Kulton in Springfield’s Illinois Times. One posits that it came from the practice of early inhabitants of the prairie of thrusting hollow reeds into crawfish holes to get water (I can’t recall ever being that thirsty). A just slightly more plausible explanation says that many of the early settlers were from the tobacco growing states of Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee.  It seems that the sprouts around the main stem of the tobacco plant are called suckers. Bear with me here. The sprouts were stripped off and discarded lest they sap the plant of its nutrients. As we know, immigrants have always been looked down on as somehow inferior, and the more established Illinoisans assumed they would fail and perish, much as the suckers on the plant did.

            The most accepted explanation involves the discovery in 1824 of lead in the northwest corner of the state near Galena. Much like the later California Gold Rush, hordes of men rushed to the area in search of work. Most were from Missouri and Southern Illinois. They would arrive in the Spring, work through the Fall and return home. Most travelled to Galena (which now mines tourist dollars instead of lead) up the Mississippi River. Missourians took to calling them “suckers” after a fish of that name that also migrated upstream each Spring.

            Revival of the “Sucker State” motto would recognize the millions of Illinoisans who, despite the dismal record of the Democratic Party that has governed the state since 2003, continue to cast their votes for Democrats, both those who have  gone to jail and those who may or may not be honest, but who all go along with a leadership that has spent the state into near bankruptcy. Perhaps you noticed that the state’s Inspector General, Carol Pope, resigned on July 14 in frustration with her lack of power to actually investigate legislators. Anyway,  you gullible Illinois voters, thanks for continuing to vote the rascals back in.  They’re amusing, if nothing else.

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

(This is the latest installment in my ongoing History of the World. Truth-seekers need not bother to go elsewhere.)

Chapter 10

The Age of Revolution

By Patrick F. Cannon

While many revolting things have happened throughout history, big time revolutions only began to occur in the 18^th Century.  The French, being French, have tried to convince the world that their revolt against King Louis XVI in 1789 – when they stormed the Bastille (I tried without success to find it during a recent trip to Paris) – was the grandpere of all revolutions. In actuality, it was the prodigal son. As every sensible person who can do the math knows, the 1775 revolt by the Americans against the British was numero uno.

            Sticklers may remind us that Spartacus led a slave revolt against Rome in 73 BC, and got crucified for his temerity. And who can forget the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when the British got rid of the Popish King James II, thus ending the need for altar boys to learn Latin.. But these events were only named Revolutions later, while in 1776, Thomas Jefferson was clearly heard to yell: “let’s Revolt!” Or did he actually say: “That King George, he’s revolting!” In any event, in 1789, Robespierre was clearly heard to yell: “Je me Revolte!”  

            The American Revolution was all about tea and stamps. Once the British had gotten the colonists hooked on tea by making sure all the coffee was shipped to Turkey or Arabia, they hatched a plot to pay for King George’s plan to redecorate all his palaces by slapping a new tax on tea; and requiring them to buy stamps to lick and stick on newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and toilet paper (this last was an inspiration of the hated Lord North).

            Being British, they thought they knew best, so didn’t think it was necessary to check with their North American subjects first. The Adams Family – John and Sam – huddled in the Back Bay of Boston, did some brainstorming, and came up with the catchy slogan: “No Taxation Without Representation!” They then printed it on a flag and ran it up a flagpole to see if anyone saluted. Hands went to foreheads in the thousands, and soon the new slogan was on the lips of patriots from Maine to Georgia.

            Some of the bolder lads, dressed as indigenous Native Americans, boarded a ship in Boston’s harbor, and tossed chests of tea into the murky depths. As they danced, whooped and hollered, folks ashore were heard to say” Look, they’re having a party!” Funny how great events get their names. I’ve often wondered what would have happened if the be-feathered patriots had tossed dried peas into the harbor. I doubt if something called the “Boston Pea Party” would have changed the course of history.

            It’s hard to fathom now, but tea was an expensive commodity in those days – think Beelooga Caviar today – so the loss of the cargo got the British stiff upper lips to quivering.  They dispatched Lord Howe and an army of hundreds to Boston, bent on teaching the cheapskate colonists a lesson. Suffering from the gout himself, he dispatched one of his minions to Lexington and Concord to teach the upstarts who was boss.

            How was Howe to know that church sexton Robert Newman and Captain John Pulling were keeping watch in the belfry of the Old North Church (not to be confused with the New North Church, which was several blocks away)? Each had a lantern at the ready. In the meantime, silversmith Paul Revere had gone across the river and into the trees to await the signal that would tell him whether the British were planning to travel by land or sea. He was passing the time by brushing old Dobbin’s mane when he saw one lantern suddenly appear in the belfry. “One if by land,” he remembered, so lept upon his trusty steed and rode into dawn’s early light to warn the Minutemen along the road that “The British are coming, the British are coming!”  Soon enough, one of the Minutemen took aim at an advancing Redcoats and squeezed off the “shot heard around the world.” It’s unlikely that it was heard in Concord, but even then politicians were inclined to exaggerate. Soon enough, the famous Battle of Bunker’s Hill took place. We now know that it actually took place on Breed’s Hill, but the local Puritans didn’t like the sound of it, so Bunker’s Hill it became (and, of course, old Mr. Bunker was of their persuasion).

              The rest of the Revolutionary War is quickly disposed of. The British won most of the battles, but ended up losing the war, much as the USA later did in Viet Nam. The British commander, General Charles Cornwallis, was trapped between the American and French armies on one side and the French fleet on the other. Knowing the jig was up, he surrendered on October 17, 1781.

As was the custom with the British, he was rewarded for losing by being ennobled as First Marquess Cornwallis. He was also made a Knight of the Garter and named a Privy Councilor (“a man’s privy is his castle” was his motto). Unfortunately, he couldn’t manage to lose another battle, so never became a Duke. As a footnote, he had a younger brother, William, who became an Admiral of the Red (don’t ask). Because he never lost a battle, he was never ennobled, but had to settle for a knighthood, as Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. I didn’t bother to check to see if his Bath had a privy.

Communication being desultory in those days, it took two more years for a peace treaty to be signed.  In the meantime, things were starting to fester in La Belle France!

(Sometime soon, when I get around to it, you’ll find out the real truth about the French Revolution in “The Frog Eaters Revolt!”)

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Tax Those Fat Cats!

By Patrick F. Cannon

I’m on record as saying a modest increase in the top income tax rate would not be the end of the world for our highest earners. At 37.9 percent, the rate is historically low. I also think the earnings limit on the payroll tax (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) could also be raised.

            The tax code is complicated, which has little effect on taxpayers such as yours truly, but often enables folks like Jeff Bezos to pay at a rate much lower than that 37.9. Were I Mr. Bezos, I would pay as little as I had to. In his case and others (Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and their ilk), people confuse taxable income with wealth. The fact that Bezos may have a total fortune of some $180 billion or so has little to do with taxable income.

I don’t know what his taxable income was last year, but most of his  wealth is tied up in Amazon stock. Were he forced to sell it all, his capital gains tax would be $36 billion (it’s much more complicated than that, but let’s make it simple). President Biden’s proposed budget is $6 trillion. Let’s look at the zeros: 36,000,000,000 vs. 6,000,000,000,000. For the record, the current national debt is 28,500,000,000,000, and will climb to at least 30,000,000,000,000 if President Biden’s 2022 budget is approved.

By the way, Amazon employs approximately 1.3 million people. Because of job market pressures, starting wages for entry level warehouse workers are now about $15/hour, depending on the area of the country and market forces. It’s hard work, but those who persevere can expect to get raises and promotions. Benefits for full time employees include health care, disability and life insurance, education reimbursement, and a 50% match IRA program. Bezos, who is not the kind of man I’d like to play a round of golf with, doesn’t do any of this out of the goodness of his heart. He does it because he has to. He is responding to market pressures. It’s how capitalism works. (For how Socialism works, see Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, USSR, Nicaragua, etc.).

We hear a good deal about income disparity, and it’s true that the gap between the highest and lowest paid has widened. However, those high earners pay more than 70 percent of the income taxes; the lowest earners not only do not pay any income taxes, but actually get cash from the Federal government; not to mention food, rent and medical subsidies, among other benefit programs. Before the pandemic hit, the poverty rate was the lowest in our history, and will almost certainly go down again as the economy continues to recover.

By the way, the average hourly wage for Americans in June is not $15, but $25.68. And you won’t hear this from our left-wing friends, but real wages for Americans – adjusted for inflation – have risen by 32% in the last 30 years.

Hatred and envy of the rich is as American as apple pie and baseball. Who can forget those rapacious “Robber Barons!” But while we’re remembering them, and their contemporary descendants, let us also remember their contributions to the common good. While I am a member and financial supporter of several cultural and social service agencies, I am under no illusions about who founded and  continues to provide the bulk of their support. Some of them no doubt did so out of a guilty conscience. Whatever works!

Like Andrew Carnegie before him, Warren Buffett is on record as committed to giving away most of his (currently) $90 billion fortune to worthy causes. All without a Federal bureaucracy taking its usurious share. And should I mention that the folks I’ve cited actually succeeded because they had better ideas and worked hard to make them pay?  And that the  stock prices that have made them super rich have been known to tumble?

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon .    

Let’s All Move to Shangri-La!

By Patrick F. Cannon

If the immediate past president of these United States could be said to have a  theme song, it might be one from the 1951 film, Royal Wedding, which starred Fred Astaire and Jane Powell as brother and sister musical performers. Music was by Burton Lane, with lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner. One of the songs began:

            “How could you believe me when I said I love you

             When you know I’ve been a liar all my life?

             I’ve had that reputation since I was a youth

             You must have been insane to think I’d tell you the truth.

Yet, against all evidence, a credulous audience in Ohio cheered Trump on as he peddled the same lies he’s been selling since November of last year.

            Now, Ohio is considered a “battleground” state. Unlike my own Illinois, it seems to be divided between liberals and conservatives (we true conservatives are thin on the ground everywhere). As with most states, it has its share of white supremacists, neo-nazis, gun toting militia members, and other far right malcontents. These form Trump’s core constituency in most states.

            To these folks, add a sizeable number of Republicans who should know better. To them, Trump can lie all he wants as long as he either raises his middle finger at the established order or heaps abuse on any Democrat, but especially at “sleepy Joe, or the “gang of four,” or is it “The Squad?”

            Many of my cynical friends would claim that all politicians lie, or at least shade the truth to conform to their perceived constituents wishes. True enough, but in his four seemingly endless years in office, Trump has retired the “Liars Club” all time trophy.  Even if the Washington Post was guilty of counting the same lie every time he told it in their total, the final number of 30,573 probably exceeded the total for all of Congress during the same period. Surely, a breathtaking achievement! Knowing Trump, he’s probably proud of it.

            There are times when politicians are required to lie, during war time for example. Winston Churchill said about World War II: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” After the 1942 bombing of Tokyo by Jimmy Doolittle, which was launched from an aircraft carrier, President Franklin Roosevelt, when asked by reporters from whence the attack was launched, replied “Shangri-La,” a mythical kingdom from James Hilton’s bestseller of the time, Lost Horizons. (By the way, a later aircraft carrier was named USS Shangri-La.)

            While Trump inherited wars form previous administrations, for which he cannot be blamed, he can be blamed for initiating his own war on the truth and on democracy itself. The thought that there are still people who would vote for him again is one of the great mysteries of the age. Maybe they should all move to Shangri-La.

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Just the Facts, Mam

By Patrick F. Cannon

Based on my own education – which began 77 years ago and continues – I can tell you that there was just a smattering of African-American history taught until I got to college. I can’t pretend to know what kids in the South were taught, but even in grammar school in Pittsburgh and Chicago, we were made aware that slavery was an evil and that the Emancipation Proclamation and Civil War ended it, and that was pretty much it.

            By the time I graduated from college, I had a much better appreciation for the appalling effects of slavery; and I grew up with the civil rights movement of the 1960s and later. The problem with Americans is not that they are ignorant of African-American history; rather it is their abysmal ignorance of American – much less world – history in general. Here’s a depressing fact: only one in three Americans were able to pass the citizenship test, which requires only that you answer 60 percent of the questions correctly.

            To me, the answer to this is not teaching more African-American history, but actually mandating that children be taught, in appropriate stages, the entire history of their country, warts and all. Frankly, I don’t think it’s healthy for the kids involved to single out any particular racial or ethnic group for special attention. On Monday, I was informed by the Chicago Tribune (or what’s left of it) that Illinois schools would be required to teach Asian-American history. What next? Native American history? Armenian-American history? Where does this end?

            I won’t go into the subject of “critical race theory” except to say that if factual history were taught at all levels, then an intelligent person would discover on his or her own that it has mostly been better to be white in this country than black. At certain times, it has also been better to be from Western Europe than Eastern; and Protestant rather than Roman Catholic; and anything rather than Jewish. Similarly, courses in world history should not exclude any part of the world. Then, if you’re interested in further exploring your own racial or ethnic background, there are plenty of sources available.

            Although one should be careful about making blanket statements, it seems to me that these mandatory courses are more indoctrination than anything else. How else can you explain little white kids being made to feel guilty for their skin color, as if the mere fact of it means they are tainted by systemic racism at birth. Is racism really genetic?  Some people seem to believe it is.

            And just who teaches our kids history? Or is it “social studies?”  I would be interested to see how many primary grade teachers could pass that citizenship test. In high schools, no one should teach history who was not a history major in college, and who can’t pass a test on the subject he or she is teaching. Not a test on theory, but on subject knowledge. And no teacher should go into a classroom with a political bias. And no teacher should be taught that they are part of a social experiment. As Joe Friday (a legendary TV detective on Dragnet; look him up) was fond of saying: “just the facts, mam.”

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Voting Simplified

By Patrick F. Cannon

Because of the pandemic, last November many people chose to vote by mail, if that choice were offered in their state. Because of this, the former president cried foul and said this resulted in the election being swiped from him. No substantial evidence has been found to support his claims (yet numerous goofballs in Congress and some of their constituents continue to rail on).

            Absent a good reason – and the pandemic was certainly one – I personally believe people should vote in person. In Illinois, where I vote, it has always been possible to cast an absentee ballot if needed for health or when out of state on election day. I doubt the state is very strict on investigating ones reasons for requesting such a ballot, other than requiring you be registered to vote, which you can do in person or online.

As far as I can recall, I have been registered to vote in Illinois since 1960, except for stints in the Army and in Minnesota. My registration has been continuous since 1970, and I have voted in every election since then. As I understand it, you only need to prove citizenship and residence to register in Illinois. It can even be done on election day. Actually showing up in person is symbolic and insures that you are casting a secret ballot – a hallmark of real democracies. It’s also possible to vote in-person early, also in a private booth.

Proof of citizenship is strangely not required in some local elections, but is required by Federal law. Illinois requires presentation of a valid driver’s license or a Social Security number. Absent one of these, I suppose you could supply a birth certificate or a valid passpoort. On election day, you need only sign your name.  

No state should require more, particularly if their intent is to restrict certain kinds of voters (i.e., members of the other party). But in this, as in so many things, states can go their own merry way. The pandemic is only one example of “state’s rights” run amok.

In case you think otherwise, it’s not really possible to eliminate election fraud completely. But it’s also naïve to think it’s the province of only one of our political parties. In  this regard, let me tell you a story.

I once had a couple of years of interesting employment as director of public information for Chicago’s Department of Public Works. I left after discovering that Mayor Richard J. Daley wasn’t particularly interested in the public getting too much information. One of my associates was an old campaigner who had worked many elections for the Democratic party. He told me they used to buy cases of half pints of cheap whiskey to pass out to the denizens of Skid Row in exchange for their (Democratic) votes. It was also well known that cash also changed hands to insure a high turnout.

When I questioned the legality of this, he pooh poohed my concerns by saying these tactics were only necessary because they knew that downstate Republicans were stealing an equal number of votes! In his mind, it was only good defense!

Anyway, going to the polling place – usually within walking distance – is the best way to both exercise your democratic rights and of getting your vote properly counted.

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon

Does it Really Always Get Through?

By Patrick F. Cannon

In 1775, Benjamin Franklin became our hopeful republic’s first Postmaster General. He was a logical choice, since he had held essentially the same job for the former colonies. In those days, most mail within the colonies and the young country moved by horsepower – either by horseback or coaches. As I recall, you could count on a letter from Boston to New York taking just a few days. Transatlantic mail – there was much between America and England – was subject to the vagaries of wind and weather. Air mail was unknown, since it hadn’t yet occurred to anyone to train pigeons.

Until 1950, American homes got two deliveries a day; businesses as many as four. Now, if we’re lucky, we get one, and Saturday deliveries may soon go away. Many of you will recall going days without getting mail during the last winter. In 1999, the Postal Service had 787,538 employees; in 2020, 495,941. Mr. Louis De Joy, the current Postmaster General and CEO, is not a fan of overtime, so is unconcerned if the mail sits around for an extra day or two. And I don’t imagine he spends much time in line at his local Post Office, waiting to be served by the single clerk on duty. He did rouse himself when it became clear that he would be blamed if mail-in ballots didn’t arrive in time for last November’s election.

The Postmaster General was once appointed by the president, and the Postal Service was a government department, just like the State and Defense departments. This changed in 1971, when it became a quasi-government “business,” expected to be run as such and even turn a profit. Vain hope. More often than not, it loses money. Its package business now has stiff competition from the likes of UPS and Fed-Ex, whose stockholders expect them to turn a profit, which  they do. With the possible exception of Christmas and other holiday cards, few people use the mails to correspond with relatives and friends. Like most other folks, I use e-mail and the occasional text to keep in touch.  The Postal Services only response to this is to raise the cost of First Class Mail, which might just further discourage its use.

I think it was a mistake to “privatize” the mail. It should be a service government provides to its citizens. Is the Department of Agriculture expected to make a profit? The Defense Department? The Department of State? While we might think we spend too much money on them, we don’t suggest they be run as businesses. Why the Post Office?

After World War II, many governments – notably the British Labor party – decided to nationalize important industries (steel, rail, coal, power, etc.). The total failure of this trend caused later governments to reverse it, as the government-run industries not only lost money, but market share and reputation. This trend toward privatization no doubt caught the Postal Service in its tide.

Most Americans frankly don’t care what happens. But as someone who still pays a few bills by mail, I do. A case in point: a couple of months ago, I sent a mortgage payment about two weeks before it was due, and three weeks before a late fee could be charged. The check arrived a day after the late fee became effective. So, it took three weeks and a day for a First-Class letter to travel from Chicago to Iowa, which you may know is right next to Illinois.

And just a couple of weeks ago, my wife got a card that was postmarked more than a month before we received it. And finally, let me mention that law-abiding citizens who live in high-crime areas in many cities are forced to go the post office to pick up their mail because letter carriers refuse to deliver it. Would any of this happen if the Postmaster General had to report directly to the president instead of some commission? Hell, the taxpayers are on the hook for deficits anyway!

Copyright 2021, Patrick F. Cannon