Part 6: A New U.S. Constitution

Posted on June 21, 2023 by Professor Taboo

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
— 17th amendment to u.s. Constitution, ratified april 8, 1913

The main issue and problem for what the 17^th Amendment attempted to correct for Congress, specifically for the Senate, was that Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the 1787 Constitution dictated that each state legislature appointed its own two state Senators for an initial six-year term. Regardless of the state’s population size, each state was entitled to two senators with two “equal” votes in the federal Congress. This helped reassure anti-federalists of the time, and previously covered in Part 5 of this series, that an overly centralized power-base like the federal government would not devour state’s powers but instead provide an oversight to the House of Representatives whose members were elected by popular vote by their state’s citizens.

Across the aisle, opponents countered the anti-federalist argument that within such a circle of powerful state legislatures, there existed two primary problems: 1) legislative corruption influenced by monetary gains and interests, and 2) electoral deadlocks paralyzing necessary legislations for all the people’s interests. And since the Amendments’ 1913 ratification another major problem now persists: no reelection term-limits for Senators (see Table below)—essentially an identical chronic problem today with Supreme Court Justices’ lifetime terms. Notice the lengths of service for these 25 Senators:

25 Longest Serving U.S. Senators To-Date*

senators	dates of service	length of service
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)	Jan 3, 1959–Jun 28, 2010	51 years, 5 months, 26 days
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)	Jan 3, 1963–Dec 17, 2012	49 years, 11 months, 15 days
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)	Jan 3, 1975–Jan 3, 2023	48 years
Strom Thurmond (D, R-SC)	Dec 14, 1954–Apr 4, 1956 and Nov 7, 1956–Jan 3, 2003	47 years, 5 months, 8 days
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)	Nov 7, 1962–Aug 25, 2009	46 years, 9 months, 19 days
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)	Jan 3, 1981-present	42 years, 1 month, 7 days
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)	Jan 3, 1977–Jan 3, 2019	42 years
Carl T. Hayden (D-AZ)	Mar 4, 1927–Jan 3, 1969	41 years, 10 months
John C. Stennis (D-MS)	Nov 5, 1947–Jan 3, 1989	41 years, 1 month, 29 days
Ted Stevens (R-AK)	Dec 24, 1968–Jan 3, 2009	40 years, 10 days
Thad Cochran (R-MS)	Dec 27, 1978–Apr 1, 2018	39 years, 3 months, 6 days
Fritz Hollings (D-SC)	Nov 9, 1966–Jan 3, 2005	38 years, 1 month, 25 days
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	Jan 3, 1985–present	38 years, 1 month, 7 days
Richard B. Russell, Jr. (D-GA)	Jan 12, 1933–Jan 21, 1971	38 years, 10 days
Russell B. Long (D-LA)	Dec 31, 1948–Jan 3, 1987	38 years, 3 days
Francis E. Warren (R-WY)	Nov 18, 1890–Mar 3, 1893 and Mar 4, 1895-Nov 24, 1929	37 years, 4 days
James O. Eastland (D-MS)	Jun 30, 1941–Sep 28, 1941 and Jan 3, 1943–Dec 27, 1978	36 years, 2 months, 24 days
Warren G. Magnuson (D-WA)	Dec 14, 1944–Jan 3,1981	36 years, 20 days
Joe Biden (D-DE)	Jan 3, 1973–Jan 15, 2009	36 years, 13 days
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)	Jan 3, 1973–Jan 3, 2009	36 years
Carl Levin (D-MI)	Jan 3, 1979–Jan 3, 2015	36 years
Richard G. Lugar (R-IN)	Jan 3, 1977–Jan 3, 2013	36 years
Claiborne Pell (D-RI)	Jan 3, 1961–Jan 3, 1997	36 years
Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)	Jan 3, 1987–Jan 3, 2023	36 years
Kenneth D. McKellar (D-TN)	Mar 4, 1917–Jan 3, 1953	35 years, 10 months

* As of 6/17/2023 — from: https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm

As with the transgenerational power-hold Supreme Court Justices currently possess over the American people, the Senate and Senator votes today have an even more detrimental, anti-democratic effect than they did in 1788 to 1913. With modern and recent service-lengths averaging between 35–47 total years; about 45-years of one political (partisan?) ideology or covering about two generations of Americans. Consequentially, the U.S. Senate has become a major roadblock to effective, efficient, critical governing to protect the American people during times of economic and/or public safety and general health, even sometimes life or death, e.g. COVID-19. The Senate simply does not move fast enough for modern forms of crises management. Furthermore, the lethargic 21^st-century Senatorial condition confers spurious political advantages to small tiny states, their senators, and their 18^th-century Constitutional, economic-corporate and political dominance which is gifted in gratis by two equal votes regardless of state size.

During the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and the drafting of our Constitution, many of the Founders recognized what the Connecticut Compromise would do, at least over a period of time. They could not have been more correct. As the overall population of the U.S. has reached nearly 337-million today, it means the smaller, tinier states have gained more federal money and more authority in the Senate as well as more weight in the Electoral College over the last 235-years. Both James Madison and James Wilson ardently opposed the Connecticut Compromise, and Wilson specifically spelled out that ‘equal state Senate votes would mean that a minority of voters could block the will of the majority,’ or of the American people. And this is exactly what has happened in today’s Congress.

The twenty-eight smallest states of the Union today, representing 20% of the American population, have 56% of the votes in the Senate. This disparity and distortion over two centuries now is precisely why the increased voting strength between states with wealth and population versus those without and much smaller populations has occurred, and as a result, the majority receives less and less federal representation. This is also reflected in many state governments as well. With each passing decade the Constitution’s 18^th-century “minoritarian” equal state-voting principle impacts national policies and allocation of funds more and more, too often at the expense of the greater American good.

A “New” Senate: Reflecting the Popular Will

The better welfare of the greater national good and a more truer Republic democracy by a new Senate-voting system significantly outweighs the aforementioned flaws, disparity, and distortions of keeping the 18^th-century system. If this New Senate were structured primarily on the state’s population, and to a lesser extent say the smaller-sized states’ X-quotient of wealth and resources toward the national well-being, surely this would offer a more equitable system assuring the overall national popular will was more realized. To demonstrate this reform, the following two slideshows illustrate just how a reimagined, past Senate voting would’ve substantially changed our last twenty-plus years of national policies, some of which our “Old Senate” system has had (very?) harmful consequences.

No Senate filibustering after John Calhoun (1840’s) or Ted Cruz (2013) stopping the Senate vote!

Moreover, several different variances in domestic and foreign policies (see following slides) would have certainly been enacted or rejected had a “New” 20^th– or 21^st-century Senate voting system been put in place in 1970:

Under the “New” Senate voting system, recently appointed and confirmed 53-year old Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have never been voted in. He would have lost by a sizable margin—approximately by 20% or more—by the twenty-two larger states (and Senators) that makeup about 80% of the American population. Justice Kavanaugh only received his confirmation because of the 28 smallest states and their (ultra) Conservative Senators’ votes. In a new Senate voting system reflective of Americans and their interests, Kavanaugh would’ve been easily rejected. To put it a different way, Judge Kavanaugh’s lifetime appointment to our highest court in the land—that will affect 2-4 generations of Americans—was accomplished purely by a fossilized relic of our 18^th-century Constitution’s “equal state Senate voting rule.” No debate.

Proof the Electoral College is Undemocratic

In 2024 Americans will elect the next President and Vice-President using the antiquated Electoral College system created by the 18^th-century mindsets held in the Constitution. By that system, all actual votes will be cast by “electors,” not the American people. This may come as a shock to some American voters. Despite their dismay, it is completely true; the U.S. is not a comprehensive democratic Republic.

The key justifications for the invention of our Electoral College imparted by Convention delegates in 1787 no longer exist today. One must remember the historical context of what the Philadelphia delegates were negotiating and fiercely debating at the time. Many of those delegates felt average American voters would not sufficiently know the candidates governing experience, educational level obtained, and much less their personal backgrounds. These conditions were further exacerbated by transportation and communication limitations for most all American voters, thus making well-informed decisions difficult at best. That scared the Ba-jebus out of nearly everyone of them—they could not risk a narcissistic demagogue President or administration getting naïvely elected, then worse become a tyrannical king or American Caligula/Caesar. Thus, the Electoral College was created for an 18^th-century nationwide citizen-conundrum.

None of these problems exist today, nor is the modern Originalist argument for the Constitution’s (divine?) integrity a persuasive argument against a purely popular vote by the people. And here is the most damaging function of today’s Electoral College: the Underrepresentation of States and their Electors. (see following Table)

state	population 2023	% of total population	electoral now	proportionate electoral	disc
1. California	40,223,504	11.92%	54	64	-10
2. Texas	30,345,480	8.99%	40	48	-8
3. Florida	22,359,250	6.62%	30	36	-6
4. New York	20,448,194	6.06%	28	33	-5
5. Pennsylvania	13,092,796	3.88%	19	21	-2
6. Illinois	12,807,072	3.79%	19	20	-1
7. Ohio	11,878,330	3.52%	17	19	+2
8. Georgia	11,019,186	3.26%	16	17	+1
9. N. Carolina	10,710,558	3.17%	16	17	+1
10. Michigan	10,135,438	3.00%	15	16	+1
11. New Jersey	9,438,124	2.80%	14	15	+1
12. Virginia	8,820,504	2.61%	13	14	-1
13. Washington	7,999,503	2.37%	12	13	-1
14. Arizona	7,379,346	2.19%	11	12	-1
15. Massachusetts	7,174,604	2.13%	11	11	0
16. Tennessee	7,080,262	2.10%	11	11	0
17. Indiana	6,876,047	2.04%	11	11	0
18. Maryland	6,298,325	1.87%	11	10	+1
19. Missouri	6,204,710	1.84%	10	10	0
20. Colorado	5,997,070	1.78%	10	10	0
21. Wisconsin	5,955,737	1.76%	10	9	+1
22. Minnesota	5,827,265	1.73%	10	9	+1
23. S. Carolina	5,266,343	1.56%	9	8	+1
24. Alabama	5,097,641	1.51%	9	8	+1
25. Louisiana	4,695,071	1.39%	8	7	+1
26. Kentucky	4,555,777	1.35%	8	7	+1
27. Oregon	4,359,110	1.29%	8	7	+1
28. Oklahoma	4,021,753	1.19%	7	6	+1
29. Connecticut	3,615,499	1.07%	7	6	+1
30. Utah	3,423,935	1.01%	6	5	+1
31. Iowa	3,233,572	0.96%	6	5	+1
32. Nevada	3,225,832	0.96%	6	5	+1
33. Arkansas	3,040,207	0.90%	6	5	+1
34. Kansas	2,963,308	0.88%	6	5	+1
35. Mississippi	2,959,473	0.88%	6	5	+1
36. New Mexico	2,135,024	0.63%	5	3	+2
37. Nebraska	2,002,052	0.59%	3	3	0
38. Idaho	1,920,562	0.57%	4	3	+1
39. W. Virginia	1,775,932	0.53%	4	3	+1
40. Hawaii	1,483,762	0.44%	4	2	+2
41. New Hampshire	1,395,847	0.41%	4	2	+2
42. Maine	1,372,559	0.41%	2	2	0
43. Montana	1,112,668	0.33%	4	2	+2
44. Rhode Island	1,110,822	0.33%	4	2	+2
45. Delaware	1,017,551	0.30%	3	1	+2
46. S. Dakota	908,414	0.27%	3	1	+2
47. N. Dakota	811,044	0.24%	3	1	+2
48. Alaska	740,339	0.22%	3	1	+2
50. D.C.	715,891	0.21%	3	1	+2
51. Vermont	647,156	0.19%	3	1	+2
52. Wyoming	583,279	0.17%	3	1	+2

Reviewing the Table above, did you note how many states are under-represented and how many are (grossly) over-represented? Nine (9) states are (very?) under-representative of their people’s votes, and thirty-five (35) states are (very?) over-representative of fewer people’s votes! Even worse, those nine under-represented states are this nation’s most populous states, with real people, yet unreal Electoral votes! In a sense, the twelve (12) overly-represented states are/have been ghosting, or inventing unreal Electoral votes since at least 1960 and the Twenty-third Amendment.

Finally, the Electoral College promotes harmful, sometimes disastrously dueling, hyper-divisive politics or duopoly partisanship between the two major parties. This deadens civic-political discourse and impedes policy reforms and/or creation as we’ve seen over the last 2-3 decades with the chasm widening more and more every four-to-eight years. If that persists, it will be catastrophic for this country as well as democracy as a whole around the world.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

In the Conclusion of this 7-part series, I want to cover more extensively Gerrymandering and the 2019 Supreme Court decision Rucho v. Common Cause and how that ruling has had very adverse affects on our Republic democracy and today badly distorts election outcomes. I will also get into HOW we must approach and construct a proportional representation system that actually DOES reflect a true democracy.

I hope those who are still following this series will find it helpful for your own civic benefits for yourself, your state, and our country. Thank you again everyone for your patience with me and my often slow writing and posting. Please feel free to leave your thoughts and comments below.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

Part 5: A New U.S. Constitution

Posted on May 27, 2023 by Professor Taboo

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to W.C. Jarvis, 1820

The higher the education obtained by all American youth and young adults—in some cases, students in their 40’s or 50’s even—university studies have shown the more likely those citizens will be civically engaged and as a result regularly vote in national, state, and local elections with needed intellectual prudence.

*the University of Texas – Austin Clock Tower*

We now continue from Part 4. My hope in writing this series is to assemble or reassemble the vital links between civic virtues and privileges, initiate adequate literacy, and most importantly clarify and restore some historical and U.S. Constitutional literacy. In doing so, my vision and hope is that any who might read this series will find some tools and/or ideas that inspire them to become more civically understanding, thoughtful, tactful, more civically wise, respectful, and inclusively tolerant, engaged American citizens. This is truly my hope. And I am certain that our nation’s six core Founding Fathers would agree with and support this objective. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt eloquently and profoundly put this mission into pristine focus:

“Our children [and adults alike] should learn the framework of their government and then they should know where they come in contact with the government, where it touches their daily lives, and where their influence is exerted on the government. [This] must not be a distant thing, someone else’s business, but they must see how every cog in the wheel of a democracy is important and bears its share of responsibility for the smooth running of the entire machine.”
Emphasis mine

Another hope and reason I am writing this in-depth series is really quite simple. It has already been summed up brilliantly by one of our country’s most famous prolific Presidents:

“The ballot is stronger than the bullet.”
Abraham lincoln

There is no debate whatsoever that since August of 1966, at the University of Texas Clock Tower and the random murder of 17 people, 33 wounded, gun-violence and mass shootings in the U.S. has only skyrocketed and today has become almost normal and expected. As of May 23, 2023, fifty-seven years later, domestic violence or homicide by guns in the U.S. resulting in death has already reached 16,652, of which 236 were mass shootings or mass murders. A staggering and appalling increase just in the last ten years; mindboggling really.

Obviously, during the last 20-30+ years Americans and their (representative?) Congress members are not comprehending the alarming, epidemic rise of gun-violence in their own country and townships, much less comprehending Lincoln’s famous, prophetic statement above. What has to be done? What must be done?

We have been doing NOTHING all this time,
and why is it STILL not working!?
A very dear friend of mine

One of my strong recommendations or reply to those profound quotes are 1) do precisely what Eleanor Roosevelt lays out above, 2) once gaining an above-average or higher understanding of how your own government is legally bound by/to the U.S. Constitution, get engaged with it and assure your/our government officials perform their sworn duties strictly within the U.S. Constitution’s legal boundaries. Yes, I am saying become an aficionado or Constitutional para-legal. If all of us don’t do this, we see over the last 57-years the dire consequences! And finally 3) find inspiration and initial steps or action-plans from this series to implement #1 and #2.

Let’s pickup where we left off in Part 4.

We Are Not An Athenian-styled Direct Democracy!

We were never originally designed to be or become an Athenian-styled government! Though the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 had fire-branded arguments over how the president should be elected and exactly how much voting power individual states should have in Congress, in the end they had constructed a near satisfactory balance—that is, for 1787 and the foreseeable future. They had not, however, satisfactorily resolved the glaring issue of elites, specifically the wealthy, controlling or heavily influencing government policy at the demise of equal influence by the ordinary, “surviving” citizens. This fervent, often nasty battle both then and today is/was really about elitism and populism. It still very much matters right now in the 21^st-century and foreseeable future.

*ancient Athenian government – fresco by Cesare Maccari (1889)*

Many of us today might consider the importance of elitism vs. populism as critical to individual, political human rights. On the contrary, it was not so simple as that in 1787 during the convention in Philadelphia. The fact is that even though the original Founding Fathers believed in general civil equality, they were quite opposed to full political equality to the masses, yes, even lowly white-caucasian men, let alone non-whites or non-elites. Why?

Simple answer: pedigree and socio-educational status and merit.

Let me point out again: socio-educational achievements. That is exactly what Eleanor Roosevelt was also endorsing over 160-years later, perhaps on several levels in opposition to the original Founding Fathers’ concepts. Most of the Philadelphia delegates also felt gerrymandering was perfectly acceptable in gaining or maintaining one’s political party’s government control and interests. Believe it or not, most of the Founding Fathers felt it was quite normal to posses and to widely allow racist views/opinions, employ methods of wealth discrimination, exhibit (privately and publicly) prejudice toward non-heterosexuals, and freely show or verbalize misogynistic prejudices and behaviors. Yes, believe it or not this was indeed our lauded Founders and their well-known 18^th-century mindsets. However, after one or two generations and by the 19^th– and 20^th-centuries this began to change. A much more inclusive view of truer political equality and representation for all Americans began to emerge.

For example, popular pressure pushed into legal adoption for the 17^th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for [a term of] six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislators. […]
Amendment Xvii, ratified April 8, 1913

Sadly, in 2020 New York elected Republican House Representative, George Santos, somehow completely bypassed, undermined, and invalidated the entire 17^th Amendment protocols and legal enforcement of our Constitution, including my emphasis of it above. How was this possible? This is the deteriorating distorted condition of our very own Constitution by our own (Republican?) elected officials not doing their proper, oath-avowed jobs. Period. No debate.

*Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., speaks to reporters outside after an effort to expel him from the House, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, May 17, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)*

Nevertheless, the popular movements of the early 20^th-century were instrumental in increasing political equality for Americans. There has been a growing confidence and fact for the long-term effects of a truer representative government that can and will make better decisions when there is much less “elite” control of our institutions, specifically by the wealthiest that far too often govern or manipulate government to serve their own personal interests. The 19^th-century progressive democratization of equal political rights in America improved the performance and duties of our representative government demanding its leaders to at least consider or truthfully represent its constituent’s broader interests and viewpoints in making legislative decisions. And more importantly, holding those government representatives accountable to their avowed office’s duties! This popular 20^th-century movement had massively profound effects for the nation and its people.

For example, the public pressure directly induced our anti-trust laws that rightly control or manage massive concentrations of economic-political power such as the Rockefeller-founded Standard Oil Trust, that is now today known as ExxonMobil, the LARGEST investor-owned oil company in the entire world. Yet, this is to be expected. Truth be known of this uniquely American tradition: history has shown our government institutions often bow to controlling groups to change government policies to favor super wealthy mega-corporations.

Our Constitution’s Flaws and Failures

Contrary to these excellent 20^th-century popular federal reforms, our antiquated 18^th-century Constitution has two different, but equally fatal flaws written into it:

They undermine and consequently violate modern standards and definitions of republican political equality.
They also repeatedly have more anti-democratic effects than when they did when they were created.

What do I mean exactly by these two flaws? For one, Supreme Court justices receive lifetime tenures when appointed, an 18^th-century mindset due to average lifespans then. Second, each state in the Union receives equal voting rights in the Senate and in the Electoral College, despite those with miniscule populations. Third, the Supreme Court’s 2019 landmark decisions stating the Constitution permits perpetual, partisan manipulations of upcoming elections via gerrymandering. Fourth, the incredibly obdurate Article V procedures for Constitutional amendments, which will be further addressed later in this series. Fifth, the Presidential powers of judicial review and veto being not just controversial, but anti-democratic as well.

The U.S. Supreme Court is often considered to reside outside of American politics, that it was originally designed to be the final arbiter of equal justice according to the Constitution and its laws. Hence, it should also act as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution and laws of the land. Though this impression of the nation’s highest court is correct in theory, it is not true in practice; never has been since 1787. Why is this? The quick simple answer is that it was never designed to be “outside” of civil or congressional-executive politics.

As mentioned earlier, justices are not elected by the general public. Justices, as also mentioned, are appointed by the standing President then confirmed by the current Senate. Justices serve on the Court for their lifetimes unless impeached by the House of Representatives, which requires a supermajority vote—i.e. 290 votes from 435 representatives—then followed by a conviction in the Senate. Obviously, impeachment is near impossible when Party-line favoritism and bias is rampant, as it is in today’s politics. Due to these 1787 design flaws, justices are literally unaccountable for their decisions by the very officials who are indeed very political!

From the very beginning, at the Philadelphia Convention, delegates imagined and drafted our Constitution for a Supreme Court composed of men chosen by a political leader, the President. And most often those personal political viewpoints of those selected men/justices aligned with that current President’s and his political party’s viewpoints. This has certainly been demonstrated since the late 1990’s but unequivocally began with President George W. Bush’s two terms.

Going back to the early 1800’s, partisan court rulings and appointments were already raging. Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson exchanged heated arguments over the Supreme Court’s judicial independence, or lack of, and its final authority. Their battle started with the last minute appointments, or “midnight appointments” of strictly Federalist judges by President John Adams, himself a Federalist. Knowing full well that Marshall despised Jefferson and his Republicans, John Adam’s very last act as President and perhaps in defiance to his once closest colleague, he appointed John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Marshall swore in Jefferson as the nation’s third president surely under degrees of resentment by both men.

The campaigns and election of 1799–1800 went down in history as one of the most divisive, partisan campaign rancor and nastiest infighting between all three Branches of Washington D.C. in American history. However, the bitterness and power-struggles between Jefferson and Marshall did not end there.

*Political cartoons of 1800 American Presidential campaigns – (left) First Amendment issues, (right) Separation of Church & State issues*

Over the coming years legislative, executive, and judicial wars between opposed political ideologies—primarily Jefferson vs. Marshall—culminated in at least two paramount Supreme Court decisions:

Stuart v Laird — In this case, 5 U.S. 299 (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, enacted by outgoing President John Adams and his Federalist Congress, which effectively abolished the existing circuit courts. The decision also affirmed the constitutionality of requiring Supreme Court justices to ride circuit.
Marbury v Madison — In case, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

What did these two rulings mean and do exactly? In Stuart v Laird, Jefferson was able to purge all the Federalist circuit court “midnight” judges quickly appointed by former President Adams. In doing this Adams had hoped it would maintain some residual political control for his party as he departed—instead it was a win for Jefferson. In Marbury v Madison, by asserting the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional (which the court would not exercise again for over fifty years), Marshall (and the Federalists) claimed for the court an enormous authoritative position as interpreter of the Constitution independent of Congress and the White House—a win for Marshall and Adams.

As a result of these early 19^th-century power-authority battles, today we see the same heated, divisive political wars continue over Supreme Court Justice appointments and those justices political backgrounds and affiliations, begging the question: are modern SCOTUS justices truly “independent” of Washington D.C.’s political hostility and influences?

As the Constitution now stands and has been practiced and/or protected for the last two-plus centuries, exactly how impactful and for how long are lifetime SC justice appointments affecting this nation’s governing? Furthermore, does the Supreme Court today adequately respond to the country’s popular will? Do lifetime appointments offer frequent decisions in favor of a minority party or group?

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

In Part 6: A New U.S. Constitution, I will address the problem of our modern Anti-democratic Senate and explore how we might restructure it into a more functional, civically responsive new Senate. I also plan in the next portion of the series to tackle the Electoral College, what it was designed for then, in 1804, and what it has become today. I hope all of you can join and share any thoughts or comments and feedback. Thank you as well for your continued patience with this drawn out series and understanding my daily, personal family-living situation while writing this series. My sincere gratitude to you all.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always

The Fred Rogers Test

Posted on March 7, 2022 by Professor Taboo

This past February and finally on March 1st, 2022, Texas, like many states across the nation, had its 2022 Primaries. Several key offices were on the ballots, including Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and district-based Congressional and Legislative seats. In my mind, these primaries are just as critical as the following general elections. Why? Because if you are a voter of only one political party, a staunch party-liner as it is sometimes labelled, then naturally you should want the absolute best candidate to run against your opposing party (or enemy?). Simple, right?

But I am not a strictly party-line voter who has no serious opinion or does no research into each individual candidate, their campaign platform, or their background and government experience. Though millions of Americans forfeit their votes and voices with no regret (unless their demi-god candidate or incumbent loses?), I can’t do that. I know many of my family members and a few friends who enjoy being a strict party-line voter because it’s easy, brainless, and they don’t waste any of their own precious time or personal priorities during primary or election years. And tragically they are not alone, as you’ll soon read about most Texas registered or unregistered voters.

My conscience nor my civil virtue, duty, and privilege to be an active part of my democracy, my state’s and country’s future, will not allow me, and refuses to let me be so lazy or irresponsible. So, I have been an Independent voter for near 30-years, for many reasons I won’t go into detail today. However, I’ve never been a fan of strict party-line voting—it enables and nurtures bad democratic, civil habits, naivete, and closed-mindedness.

Ahh… but “Que Será, Será.”

*Texas turnout this past February and March 1st for Primaries*

The prevailing attitude among many Texans, in the happy pleasing song of Doris Day and Frank De Vol is that everything always works out best and beautifully in the end for everyone. Timeout! I am raining on that parade. No, that’s Hollywood fiction, a la la dreamland manufactured in the movies and like sugar-candy fed into people’s own heads. It won’t reflect reality around them, at least not for the decent, rational, typically kind people when it comes to how they’re governed and their following descendants are governed or protected. Nevertheless, this is remarkably a very prevalent attitude and mindset among too many Texans for far too long, as The Texas Tribune has (below) shown yet again.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

“Historically, voter participation in midterm primary elections is dismal in Texas, with less than a quarter of registered voters casting ballots most years. This means that a majority of registered voters don’t participate. These figures also do not account for the eligible voters in the state that have not registered.”
— Mandy Cai & Sneha Day, The Texas Tribune, accessed March 7, 2022 at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/14/texas-primary-voting-turnout/

Many new voting restrictions on non-white Texans and constant “redistricting” or redrawing of district maps by GOP lawmakers for both Congressional state chambers, delegations, and our State Board of Education—to rewrite Texas history, among many other curriculum subjects—will impact voter turnout in Texas, making what was already historically dismal even worse for at least the next decade.

As you might imagine, this cycle of repetition I’ve seen and witnessed in Texas-voting, lawmaking, and quite literally segregating of citizens, of voters and would-be voters over the last 30-years has nauseated my stomach so much that I’ve probably developed ulcers and/or Crohn’s Disease. It is so very depressing and frustrating how a shrinking political demographic the last two decades, a near minority if not already one, is still maintaining (legally? Constitutionally?) its stranglehold and power over the entire state! How? How is this possible in a supposedly freely elected democracy?

It seems Ross Ramsey, also of The Texas Tribune, has a prescription of relief for me and other progressive, open-minded, diversity-advocate Freethinkers and typically non- or anti-Conservatives of Texas. He calls it The Fred Rogers Test. It is intended for Texas public officials who by principle and by vow, are elected and sworn into office to SERVE us Texans. Give a listen, please. It’s worth the 4.5-minutes of your time.

If you’d rather read the column, go here.

*Fred Rogers, of PBS’ Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood*

Here is one paragraph I found particularly profound, poignant, and accurate by Mr. Ramsey:

“Candidates are good at describing problems. They’re great at sweeping phrases, too, like “if elected, I’ll fix that.” But they speak in generalities, and what happens when they’re elected — or more to the point, what doesn’t happen — somehow slips past voters when it’s time to put people in office.”
— Ross ramsey, The Texas Tribune, accessed March 7, 2022 at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/07/texas-elections-problems/

Mr. Ramsey goes on to list many key, critical problems Texas is facing and has been facing for at least two-decades, probably more like four-decades. One I liked and which resonated with me:

“Teachers in Texas are overworked, underpaid, micromanaged and asked to do a lot more than teach children. Everybody says that, everybody knows that, and the lawmakers who are now talking about it on the campaign trail are often the same people who didn’t do much to fix it in the last legislative session, or the one before that.”

In an October 2013 blog-post, then Texas Governor candidate Wendy Davis, who I supported fully, asked me personally, one-on-one as a Special Ed teacher for Wards (kids) of the State in Leakey, TX: “Tell me your story? What challenges do you and your family face? What issues should be addressed to strengthen our families?” I was honestly shocked by this personal touch. Never had I received any type of correspondence like that from any Texas politician since I became a legal voter in 1981, not ever! You can read “My Story” blog-post here.

∼ ∼ ∼ § ∼ ∼ ∼

Perhaps this Fred Rogers Test can be a very simple guideline for lazy Texas voters and unregistered voters. I really do hope so. It’s a start. If not an embraced, motivating voter’s guide for lazy Texans, then the alternatives WILL be disturbing, possibly irreparable if they keep their residence here continuing their personal bubbles of denial. Problems, especially chronic problems, will not simply vanish in time or go away or be ignored as Doris Day and Frank De Vol sing you into a dreamy trance. Progressive, evolving democracy is not a toy soldier or monkey you wind-up, let it go, and expect it to run indefinitely. Democracy was never designed to be a type of nuclear power-plant that runs in and of its self, indefinitely with no input or maintenance. It is so much more, much to precious and fragile. It can die if one ignores its lifeblood or turns one’s back on her at the polls, PTA meetings, and town forums to name just three civil virtues and privileges we Texans and Americans are gifted and honorably endowed.

Consider this in light of what you are now seeing in Ukraine and to peaceful, non-violent protestors inside Russia being arrested and hauled away to prisons and jails for an indefinite period. That might be you and your own country some day.

Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Listen Closer – Learn Always

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Chiefs, Indians, Slavery & Tocqueville

Posted on April 30, 2018 by Professor Taboo

Leonard R. Rogers was the subject of a 1954 article called “Boss Of Million Dollar Firm At Age Of 21 Is No Pipe Dream.” Rogers, whose company was responsible for 75 per cent of America’s business in tobacco pouches, was radically revamping the mega-corporation. When Rogers took over the company founded 50 years earlier by his grandfather he quickly realized that some of the long time company executives knew nothing about anything that was happening outside their department (bubble). Thus, he made the decision to re-organize the company by rolling heads and dissolving positions, i.e. Too many chiefs and not enough indians.

Human towers in the traditional Catalan Festival

“Too many chiefs and not enough Indians” was also the phrase my father liked to use. When we were down in Brazoria County, Texas, working my paternal grandparents cattle and land during one or two of the 3-4 holidays of the year, every one of my cousins, myself, and all my uncles and one aunt of the family had/wanted to accomplish all the needed and necessary work and never-ending repairs as efficiently as possible given the usually short few days everyone had while there. With so many cousins running around wanting to play or do our own “work tasks,” that was when he’d often use the phrase on us. I have to note here, however, that with his family the chief-indian concept reflected more the later 1996 concept “It Takes A Village” by Hillary Clinton. His family had rotating or periodic leadership and supporting roles. Everyone had to do and know all positions and their functions. Dad said it many times during my school and select-league soccer games he’d attend when we’d play bad or lose.

In the exceptional 2008 animated film WALL-E, Earth has become a trashed garbage planet due to unfettered free-enterprise which led to human hyper-consumption of everything corporate manufacturers and retailers convinced and sold the poorly educated masses they HAD to have to be “truly happy.” The upper-echelon executives left Earth on giant starliners and charged lower-echelon humans the same type of prices they charged for all their earthly GNP goods. As a result of the never-ending, rising land-fills from impulsive, Keeping Up with The Jones consumers they ironically created, Earth was no longer inhabitable. The starliner Axiom returns to Earth to retrieve another garbage compactor EVE that is not functioning. WALL-E becomes a stow-away onboard the Axiom and when he finally sees his predecessors/creators, humans. Every single one of them are grossly obese, immobile, and totally dependent on automation to do everything for them — the consequence of widespread chief-dome and no one wanting to rotate into the support roles, the blue-collar roles, the farmer roles, the plumber and garbage roles, or janitor roles. The ‘indians‘ roles.

All the chieftain-humans on the starliners had become slaves to convenience, leisure and having anyone or everything robotic perform all the daily, humdrum labor they themselves were too lazy to do. It was below them and their pay-grade.

Slavery. Oh the irony. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian and political scientist, wrote a book about the young United States of America while examining a spreading trend of democracy and equality in Europe as well as North America. The book was Democracy in America and Tocqueville was intrigued by America’s system of governing and its nurturing of individualism. He thought the U.S. was a leading example of liberty, equality, a stable economy, and governing in action. He noted too how popular its churches were to social life. Yet, with all those “good marks,” he couldn’t help but notice how a freedom-loving nation despicably treated Native American Indians and African slaves. With all the theoretical perks of democracy, capitalism, and individualism, Tocqueville warned that too much equality would or could lead to intellectual dilution and a mediocrity of majority rule. Regarding independent, provocative thought, theory, and debate he wrote:

The majority has enclosed thought within a formidable fence. A writer is free inside that area, but woe to the man who goes beyond it, not that he stands in fear of an inquisition, but he must face all kinds of unpleasantness in every day persecution. A career in politics is closed to him for he has offended the only power that holds the keys.

On the other hand, the pendulum can swing too far the other way to plutarchy and oligarchy if there is an insufficient, low-quality public education system and lack of economic opportunities/mobility to hedge against such tyrannies. If or when that occurs, some “individualized” Americans independently wealthy and above a struggling majority — what is currently the case in America today — often have the delayed pragmatic realization that looking after the welfare of others is not only good for the soul, but actually is equally good for their business and wealth. Those individualized elite who never realize this profound truth, eventually watch their empire and ivory towers crumble. Just ask the Roman Empire’s aristocracy, ask the 18th century opulent French monarchs such as Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, or ask those executive heads of Leonard R. Rogers’ mega-tobacco corporation, or let’s ask a modern, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this has been something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Often, however, they learn it too late.

Tocqueville had a lot to say about the bright and dark sides of “democracy” in 1835. I think he still has a lot to say about it today, along with WALL-E, Leonard Rogers, and my Dad. Everyone deserves the right to be well-educated, helped and prepared by a team/village for their rotation as a chief and as an indian. When you stand-in and walk in someone else’s shoes, that is when understanding begins. That is when appreciation begins. That is when compassion and empathy begins. That is when true empowerment with humility begins.

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

2017: Our Past, Present, & Forecast

Posted on January 6, 2017 by Professor Taboo

Surprise! I am not a fan of horse-blinders, headless ostriches, or one-tree forests. I am not a fan of shallow, baseless rhetoric or opinion unless it is cleverly woven with satire and parody. Nor am I a fan of closed systems and strong-armed boxing in. Are you asking “What on Earth is he going on about?” Fair question.

What 2017 will become for Americans, and hopefully to a minimal extent the world, will be or has been partly determined by 2015-16, the state-of-the-Union and its unionists today, and what will result in 2018 and 2019 based on the past and present. This is the final post from the previous: 2016: Cries for Mutiny.

* * * * * * * * * *
(line break)

The Past Two Years

2015 and 2016 in America saw many economic, political, social, and scientific headlines, many good as there were bad. Following are some of the biggest and in my opinion most impactful relative to the well-being of all U.S. citizens and citizens to be.

Racism, lethal violence, and gun-control, and so by default our nation’s outrageous incarceration rate, seems to never go away. The mass shootings at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC and the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, a popular LGBT club, were two of the deadliest shootings in recent history. The Charleston Church shooting was reportedly motivated by a 21-year old white supremacist charged with 33 counts including murder, firearms charges, and federal hate-crime charges. The murderer’s beliefs prompted continued debate over the state’s long history of flying the 19th century Confederate Battle Flag atop the state capitol building. This shooting and other similar shootings in the U.S. including the Pulse nightclub—and Roseburg, Lafayette, Chattanooga, Planned Parenthood, San Bernardino—ignited again the still never-ending controversy of racism and gun-control.

The phrase Black Lives Matter became a common trending 2015 hashtag on social media following events such as the death of 25-year old Freddie Gray while in custody. Increased police violence and killing continued throughout 2016, primarily toward or effecting African-Americans, shockingly suggesting that the end of the American Civil War in 1865, the ratification of the 13th Amendment also in 1865, then decades later historical victories by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s and 70’s never happened! It seriously begs the question whether basic human rights in America have really taken firm roots after 151 years!

On a high note, in 2015 June 26th, the White House vowed its support for the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples. President Obama remarked:

“In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.”

But American history has shown that simple moral, ethical equality for all is still far from established, practiced, and protected within our national borders, e.g. Texas Rep. Andrew Murr in my previous post. And America is not always so embracing when it comes to foreigners and foreign affairs, despite what Lady Liberty is supposed to symbolize to the world.

The European refugee crisis from war-torn nations like Syria have been an embarrassing blemish across Lady Liberty and all Americans. Tens of thousands of people fleeing from the Middle East and Africa learned harshly just how paranoid and apathetic the United States has become. Germany, Sweden, and the U.K. on the other hand opened up their arms wide taking in far more than President Obama’s plan to allow 10,000. Other foreign aid into those warring nations reached all-time highs and lows for the international community despite U.S. peace and refusal talks. Yet, these refugee figures come out of European and American sources — the numbers are anywhere between 1.1 to 4.4 million refugees in African nations, ironically where some of the poorest nations in the world are located. Hmmmm.

The U.S. economy made several headlines as well, no surprise given the upcoming Presidential primaries and election in 2016. The federal deficit indeed shrunk over 2015. The final figures came in at $439 billion, about $45 billion less than in 2014. Employment rose, unemployment fell, and for the first time in the past 7-years, 2015’s real hourly pay climbed faster than 2%. Good news, yes. However, America’s widening zip code inequality continued to rise as poverty and a lack of upward mobility became not just social and economic problems, they became bigger geographical ones too. American living standards only saw limited gains creating a false illusion of recovery. This was reflected by a contraction of aggregate supply rather than a strong expansion of demand, all according to the Brookings Institute. Therefore, now is an easy segway into America’s federal politics and “Election 2016″… a campaign year that would go down in history as infamous, to put it mildly.

In an April 2015 two-minute video, Democrat Hillary Clinton announced her anticipated second run for president. With Democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton set, the race for the Republican nomination became a wild free-for-all. Another Bush from Florida entered the race, Jeb Bush, along with no less than 15 others, including the TV-reality star and business mogul Donald Trump. From that point on, the fiery “You’re Fired!” TV personality turned the campaigns into polarizing, even comical, reality shows. Soon after, as if to get in line for the next blockbuster show, rapper Kanye West proclaimed he would run in the 2020 presidential election. Why not! Come one, come all. No experience necessary.

In November 2016, what can only be described as a stunning outcome, Trump won not the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote to become the 45th President of the United States. Yes, the rest of the world was shocked, not shocked, and Vladimir Putin and Russia loved it.

In late 2016 the Brookings Institute spoke about Trump’s economic team forecasting doubled long-term GDP as “unrealistic.”

“Labor force growth is slowing to a crawl. The population is aging, the dramatic advance of women into the labor market is waning, and male participation has been declining for decades. We will be lucky if the labor force grows by 0.5 percent a year. That means labor productivity growth would have to grow by 3 percent a year. Over the past decade, it grew by just over 1 percent. So the Trump administration seems to be assuming that they can more than double productivity growth. So, is a near-doubling of the GDP growth rate realistic? No. But even if it were, it would be less important than ensuring that whatever growth we have is more equally distributed. But let’s assume we can bump up the growth rate. Even then, unless something is done to ensure that growth is more broadly distributed, the average American is unlikely to benefit very much. This lesson was reinforced recently by the release of new data showing that, on average, if you were born in 1940, you had a 90 percent chance of being better off than your parents, but the odds fell to 50 percent if you were born in the 1980s. Both lower growth and rising inequality contributed to this depressing story for today’s younger generations. In addition, the study—by Raj Chetty and colleagues—found that more equally distributing growth would be more effective at improving the average person’s life chances than simply restoring GDP growth to its golden years’ rate. In fact, in today’s lopsided economy, it would take a growth rate of more than 6 percent to revive the income trajectories experienced by middle class children in 1940.”

But don’t fret too much America. There are some very bright spots from 2015-16!

A shattered chromosome cured a woman of her immune disease then reassembled. This is known as chromothripsis, possibly paving the way for therapies against a variety of human diseases. 2015 saw the dawn of gene editing, the rise of immunotherapy and the first hints of a drug to slow the pace of Alzheimer’s disease. NASA’s Kepler telescope found 1,284 new planets of which nine could plausibly support human life. About 800-million years ago a slight genetic mutation lead to multicellular life on Earth. An ancient molecule known as GK-PID was discovered to be the reason single-celled organisms on Earth started evolving into multicellular organisms we have today. In mathematics a new prime number was discovered, further expanding and enhancing encryption programming: the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search. Then perhaps one of the biggest headline for medical science in 2016 was made by the Stanford University School of Medicine! Stem cells injected into stroke patients re-enabled patients to walk again.

Finally and on the faith vs. science debate, cavefish were found that could walk up walls. This showed similarities to four-limbed vertebrates. The New Jersey Institute of Technology discovered a Taiwanese Cavefish that is capable of walking up walls with the same anatomical movement as any present-day amphibian or reptile. And in the state of Utah, the Black Dragon Canyon rock-art debate was finally solved! Due to pterosaur fossils being found in the area, young-Earth creationists — who believe our planet to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old — have relentlessly cited the rock-painting as proof that humans and the winged reptiles had walked the region together. Archaeological chemist Dr. Marvin Rowe using “a photographic enhancement program known as DStretch and a technique called x-ray fluorescence,” completely debunked the creationist’s claim of the art.

There were many, many more major breakthroughs in medicine, history, and science for 2015-16 that simply could not all be listed here. Apologies.

The Present

The reviews are mixed about 2017. No surprise, right? It’s only January.

However, from a U.S. economic standpoint, the fiscal outlook for America’s “new POTUS” plans are not promising, says the Brookings Institute, and “it is likely to get worse soon.“

“The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Trump’s tax and spending proposals – the latter including replacing the Affordable Care Act, modifying Medicaid, boosting military spending, and enacting savings in non-defense programs – imply that the debt will rise to 105 percent of GDP by 2026. The CRFB report leaves out any estimate of increased infrastructure spending, which Trump has said he would like to increase by roughly $1 trillion over a decade. Including that would add further to the debt figures.”

From a political standpoint, never before has the spirit of true, pure equality for ALL Americans been so threatened (e.g. 2016: Cries for Mutiny), arguably weakened the last 2-3 decades. Racism and hate-crimes littered our nation’s news media and if 2015-16 is any barometer, it isn’t going away anytime soon in 2017. For here and now and the sake of time, I am going to focus on sex-gender identities only.

Notwithstanding the obvious growing social trend of sex-gender equality across many states, the political-Conservative representation and processes, for various reasons, progressed at snail-paces. It took the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, after four pivotal landmark decisions—Lawrence v. Texas (2003), United States v. Windsor (2013), Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)—to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Can you say it took not an act of Congress, but the gavel of the Supreme Court to finally follow its majority of people!?

From the social and scientific standpoints then, the future in America has wider glimmers of hope. Since 1991 the work of doctors and scientists — like Dr. Simon LeVay and medical/university colleagues across Massachusetts and New York with their supporting universities and clinics through 2001 — has led to the progression and evolution of tangible better understandings of sex-gender dynamics. For example, in 2006 the Council for Responsible Genetics reported:

“We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are.
…Yet a narrow focus on the variability of sexual expression threatens to cloud the issue altogether. Without giving proper attention to the mutability of human sexual expression, questions regarding its origins and character cannot be answered. Without giving proper attention to the mutability of human sexual expression, questions regarding its origins and character cannot be answered.”
—Brief on Sexual Orientation and Genetic Determinism, May 2006, citation Jan. 5, 2017 at http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=66

Then by 2015 more results were in…

“For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.”
In individuals, said [UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C.] Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.
Researchers working in the young science of epigenetics acknowledge they are unsure just how an individual’s epigenome is formed. But they increasingly suspect it is forged, in part, by the stresses and demands of external influences. A set of chemical marks that lies between the genes, the epigenome changes the function of genetic material, turning the human body’s roughly 20,000 protein-coding genes on or off in response to the needs of the moment.
“Our best guess is that there are genes” that affect a man’s sexual orientation “because that’s what twin studies suggest,” said Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey, who has explored a range of physiological markers that point to homosexuality’s origins in the womb. But the existence of identical twin pairs in which only one is homosexual “conclusively suggest that genes don’t explain everything,” Bailey added.”
—Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers, by Melissa Healy – LA Times, October 2015

Stepping back from any one tree and examining the genetic or epigenetic forest strongly suggests that ancient and long-standing social-theological traditions of strictly an unbending binary paradigm in post-modern Europe and modern America are fast fading into fallacy. For the future growth of higher human virtues and education, this is great news!

This very month one of the most iconic American magazines, National Geographic, released their double-issues on the gender revolution. Since I can remember over the last 25+ years, this bold highly controversial step by a world-renown organization is long overdue in the U.S.! It paints the reality of the changing social stigma of sex-gender identity bringing it to our public squares to define the correct precise terms so misunderstood, and looks closely at the cultural, political, social, and most importantly the biological aspects! These are must copies for your personal library.

Topics the magazines cover include Helping Families Talk About Gender, Girls, Boys, and Gendered Toys, the power and influence of our society’s binary Color Code on American children, a deeper look into children’s animated films of popular characters: Who’s the Fairest?, a detailed graph of Where In the World Are Women and Men Most-and Least-Equal, candid first-hand reports from 9-year olds around the globe of How (in their countries) Gender Affects Their Lives, Rethinking Gender: Can Science Help Us Navigate?, and then the lengthy article, Making A Man: How Does A 21st-century Boy Reach Manhood? that I found astonishing. And those articles and graphs are merely the first-half of the first magazine!

“Enveloped by the men of his family and Hasidic faith, Levi Tiechtel celebrates his 13th birthday at his bar mitzvah in Queens, New York. For millenia, Jews have been performing this ritual, which commemorates the [supposed] age when a male becomes accountable for his own actions and sins.”
—Making A Man: How Does A 21st-century Boy Reach Manhood?, January 2017 National Geographic, pp 86-87.

From 800 BCE Sparta to 1930 Italy and United States, “cultures have devised [not genetics or epigenetics necessarily] myriad practices and rituals to make boys into men. The methods — often secret and sacred — vary widely and continually evolve, says cultural anthropologist Gilbert Herdt. But they also share some universal themes that broadly reflect a community’s values and the roles its men are expected to play.” At such a young malleable age, in several cultures around the world, America included, it makes the decision to conform or not conform daunting or near impossible until perhaps an older age of increased independence and exposure to the world’s endless variety.

The Possible-Probable Forecast

Based on what I’ve written in this post and previous posts, my life experiences as an 8th-generation Texan as well as American, my 28-year futebol-soccer career across 4-of-the-6 inhabitable continents exposed and engrossed to a multitude of native cultures, the copiousness and curse of the internet, and my unconventional journey from young agnostic, to evangelical-fundamental Reformed theology with church leadership and practice, back toward a Freethinking Humanist today… and now an evolving, learning, and hopefully teaching social-sciences from basic chemistry to Quantum Physics, I would say the next 2-6 years in the United States looks promising through several lenses on the social and scientific fronts, but ominous on the economic and political battlefields. Why?

After 241-years as a nation and about 182 for Texas, we have nurtured the freedom to continually push the envelope of social refinement and scientific exploration, granted in pockets of the country, while also nurturing the fear of change and the consumer rewards of self-reliance and exclusion. When we examine the entire American forest over the lifetime of our nation, we stand at a pivotal ridge on our future’s horizon. Either we embrace a bigger global community, reverse the return or nuisance of old uncivilized ideologies which have crept or will creep back in, and instead keep pushing the scientific thresholds… else we risk increased fragmentation, polarization, and socioeconomic collapse in a few more generations, if not sooner.

I hope my seat behind this windshield and the view through my/our rearview mirror is different or temporarily malfunctioning! (half laughing, half nervous)

Tell me your thoughts and suggestions below. Whether you are American or not, I’d like to read them.

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always