Border Wall Construction and Immigration: A View on What the U.S. Ought to Do

Ideally, it might be great to enter and leave the United States as easily as one travels from one of the 50 states to another. But, that’s not practical now. Therefore, we have border security.

Persons seeking to enter the United States from other countries often may:

·        have diseases that pose risks for United States citizens or face risks themselves from diseases  due to lack of immunizations that U.S. citizens get. Many Native American Indians died from diseases brought to America by European colonists.

·         lack English skills, putting them at risk due to inability to read warning signs, understand verbal instructions from others, or to communicate effectively, overall. English as a Second Language classes are great. And, I’d love to see more teachers of them and more students. Similarly, it would be great if more persons in the United States learned a foreign language. But, that all takes much time. What would be done in the meantime? It is expensive and time consuming to put signs in multiple languages or communicate instructions in multiple languages. It’s far better if all (or most) persons in our country share at least one common language, which is English now in the United States. 

·       pose security risks. Even if they are not terrorists, thieves, rapists, or some other type of bad criminal when they arrive, illegal immigrants who are unskilled and can’t speak English may be led to steal or commit other crimes to meet their basic needs of food, shelter, etc. Churches, synagogues, mosques, other nonprofit organizations, and the government likely would provide some aid. But, the massive needs of huge numbers of immigrants could overwhelm the aid system. Immigrants can acquire skills and learn English. But, it's easier for this to occur when the number of immigrants is limited, and a system is in place to teach them. I discuss skills and education more in the next point.     

·         lack job skills or education that would benefit the United States. Allowing a huge number (potentially millions or tens of millions?) of refugees or other immigrants into the country would be detrimental to our nation and to them if we couldn’t meet their needs. Would many join the welfare rolls? Would many end up in prisons and jails? Would many live in poverty in slums? Would they segregate themselves in areas with others sharing their culture and language, isolating themselves from mainstream life in the United States? Due to technological advances, there are fewer unskilled jobs than in the past, especially outside of the agriculture sector that attracts huge numbers of migrant workers.

For the above reasons and others, it seems wrong to allow uncontrolled immigration of a huge number of people. Therefore, we need to screen those entering the country and provide border security to prevent unauthorized access.

Improve Conditions Internationally

Over the long term, we need to improve the standard of living and overall conditions worldwide so that fewer persons seek to migrate long distances under difficult conditions. It is terrible that so many persons face such desperate conditions in their own nations that they are willing to abandon their homes and walk hundreds or thousands of miles with only what they can carry, in an effort to reach a better place to live. But, it would be far better to fix the problems in those countries than to run away from them and allow conditions there to deteriorate further.   

It would be great if all persons in all nations enjoyed abundant quality food, good housing, safe drinking water, excellent health, and freedom from war and terrorism. If national governments, religious and other nonprofit organizations, the United Nations, and international corporations work together, progress can occur toward this. But, this takes much time, as well as commitment and cooperation that is not easy to attain.

Good things are happening in some ways. International trade agreements, international aid organizations like CARE and Doctors Without Borders, the United Nations, missionaries, etc., are making progress in some ways. Still, much remains to be done. And, sadly in some ways things seem to be getting worse.

Solving these international issues is beyond the ability of the United States unilaterally or even in cooperation with other nations in the short term.

Is a Border Wall Necessary?

It’s best to avoid a border wall between countries if reasonably possible. The longest border between two countries in the world is the one between the United States and Canada. This border is relatively unguarded. Wonderful! It would be great if all international borders could be like this.

But, in the short term that is not practical. As illegal immigration soared in European countries in recent years, some of those countries took measures to secure their borders, constructing fences, walls, etc. Numerous articles have been written about this, including a June 15, 2018 Guardian article titled "What Is the current state of the migration crisis in Europe?"? written by Jon Henley.

The United States has oceans on its east and west, and a relatively unguarded northern border with Canada. The southern border of the U.S. is the focus of border security.

This southern border has a large number of illegal immigrants coming in. Though estimates of the number exist, we don't have a true count. Constructing a high, strong wall, fence, or some other type of barrier to greatly reduce the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States from Mexico seems to be the most economic short term solution to limit illegal immigration to the United States.

Even with a fence or wall, some might seek to dig under it, climb over it, tear through it, or seek to enter the United States via ship or boat along the coast. But, a fence or wall would make it more difficult to enter the country, as well as make it easier for the U.S. Border Patrol and other government agencies to monitor the border.

In addition to reducing the number of illegal immigrants, such a border barrier could reduce the inflow of illegal drugs. Huge quantities (no one knows exactly how much) of illegal drugs enter from our southern border.

Increasing the Number of Legal Immigrants

Building a border wall is just part of the solution, as is seeking to improve conditions in other countries so fewer will seek to immigrate to the United States. The United States can and should increase the number of persons allowed to legally come into the country.

Our nation’s greatness came partially from our success at assimilating a wide variety of people from various nations into a cohesive whole. Large numbers of immigrants willing and able to work hard to better themselves and to perform useful services can make our nation better. But, allowing large numbers of immigrants does not mean allowing unlimited numbers. And, these immigrants need to come in legally, not just to limit their quantity, but also so our government can do background checks, immunizations, etc., on them.  

Closing Thoughts

Solving the illegal immigration problem won’t be easy. But, part of the solution is to offer more sympathy and empathy to the immigrants and would-be immigrants while also seeking to take steps to limit the number of illegal immigrants entering.

NOTE: This article was last revised on October 27, 2018. It is partially adapted from an article the author posted on the now defunct website Craft Reports in April 2006. That website was operated by a friend of the author.

Halloween: One Christian's View on How to Treat All Hallows' Eve

As a young child I enjoyed dressing in a costume and going trick-or-treating, as well as seeing the other trick-or-treaters in their costumes. As an older child I enjoyed being at our family’s door giving out candy to the visitors and seeing their costumes.

I still enjoy certain aspects of Halloween. But I think it is better to replace traditional trick-or-treating with fun alternatives, as I discuss below.  

My current view is that going door-to-door seeking candy is not a good idea for the reasons listed below:

·         Candy typically has little nutritional value and its sugar content is harmful to teeth.

·         It seems wrong to impose on people by going door-to-door asking for treats. For example, many people either can’t afford candy, are busy with other activities, or just don’t desire to devote an hour or two to giving it out.

·         Some (much?) of the candy goes to waste as children only like certain types of it.

·         Walking the streets in darkness wearing costumes that may limit visibility and make it difficult to walk adds another risk to trick-or-treating.

·         There is also the risk of injury from dog bites, allergic reactions to candies containing certain things, dangerous objects added to candies, etc.

Brief History of Halloween

According to numerous sources, Halloween originated from an ancient Celtic festival, Samhain. Centuries later Christian denominations established All Saints’ Day on a particular day, which the Catholic Church and some other denominations changed to November 1. The day before All Saints' Day (October 31) became known as All Hallows’ Eve, which evolved into Halloween. More about the history of Halloween can be found in numerous online articles, including a piece on History.com titled “Halloween 2018,1” a LiveScience piece titled “History of Halloween,2” and a Britannica.com article titled “Halloween.3”

Trick-or-Treat?

Trick-or-treat? The concept seems unchristian and unethical by secular standards, too. Why? As noted earlier, it encourages seeking free candy and doing “tricks” to those who refuse to oblige with the junk food “treats.” Furthermore, it is dangerous for children to walk in the dark in uncomfortable costumes that may limit visibility to receive candy from strangers or casual acquaintances.

Thankfully, in actual practice the tricks are seldom done today, not even the soaping of windows that sometimes happened in my neighborhood during my childhood in the 1960s and early 1970s, nor the more dangerous deeds that sometimes happened then (turning over school bus stop shelters, placing tree limbs or other dangerous objects in roadways, etc.). Still, the name trick-or-treat does not conjure up great images if taken literally.

An Alternative to Trick-or-Treating

The alternative? Thank God for a bountiful harvest season. Celebrate autumn harvest with enjoyable games, tasty but nutritious food, and good fellowship with friends. Even for kids the best part of this autumn harvest celebration can and should be godly fellowship with friends, neighbors, and relatives. 

This fellowship can take place in homes, churches, or even community centers. Indeed, many churches, other organizations, and towns offer organized alternatives to door-to-door trick-or-treating. Traditional Halloween trick-or-treating seems unnecessary and wrong, as I see it.

Everyone enjoy a safe, fun Halloween or All Hallows’ Eve. Furthermore, on November 1, All Saints' Day, maybe it would be great to dedicate or rededicate oneself to seeking to live a righteous life. Many "saints" of the past certainly set examples that could help inspire us.    

1 “Halloween 2018;” History.com; last updated October 5, 2018, originally published November 18, 2009; webpage accessed October 21, 2018.

https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/history-of-halloween

2 “History of Halloween;” Benjamin Radford; LiveScience.com; September 18, 2017; webpage accessed October 21, 2018.

https://www.livescience.com/40596-history-of-halloween.html

3 “History of Halloween;” The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica; Britannica.com; last updated October 9, 2018; webpage accessed October 21, 2018.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Halloween

NOTE: This article was last updated on October 23, 2018. It is partially adapted from an article I wrote that was published on the now defunct website Craft Reports in October 2006. That website was operated by a friend of mine.

Raise the Minimum Wage in the United States? Yes

Raise the minimum wage in the United States again. The majority of states already have set minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, as noted on a United States Department of Labor webpage.¹ And some local areas have set higher rates than either their states or the federal law.  

The federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009 for most jobs. The history of the minimum wage is displayed on another United States Department of Labor webpage.² Of course some persons are exempt from the minimum wage law. But the majority of workers are covered by it.

The United States flag sometimes is used to symbolize the United States government and its legal system. A higher minimum wage might make many citizens prouder of it. This photograph was taken October 23, 2016 of a flag near the courthouses in Lexington, Kentucky.

Subsidies of Low Paid Workers

Many (most?) workers who work for minimum wage or even a few dollars more than minimum age get help from relatives, friends, charities, and/or the government. Indeed, many workers who work fulltime at the minimum wage remain eligible for various federal government benefits such as food stamps (SNAP), subsidized housing, Medicaid, etc.

Such workers may get more income from various government agencies than they do from their fulltime jobs. This is often even truer for many part-time workers. Raising the minimum wage could reduce government expenditures on aid programs, while giving these workers more control over their lives by being less dependent on government assistance.

Other low wage workers are teenagers whose parents pay their basic living costs. Current laws allow employees under age 20 to be paid a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for their first 90 days of work, $3 per hour lower than the normal minimum wage, as noted on a United States Department of Labor YouthRules webpage.³ I support keeping this $3 per hour gap for those first 90 days of work for those under age 20.

Volunteer Work and Unpaid Internships

There is a place for low-paid workers. Indeed, doing volunteer work for no pay at all for nonprofit organizations is a good way for young people to learn skills and for retirees to remain active. Unpaid internships at corporations are good for many people, too, and when such interns must be considered employees and be paid a minimum wage is discussed in a United States Department of Labor Factsheet.⁴ Indeed, devoting some time regularly to doing unpaid volunteer work, can be a blessing for most people.
    

The United States Minimum Wage and Jobs Outside the Country

I feel that employees deserve to be paid a fair living wage worldwide. Workers in several other countries may work harder, longer hours, under more unsafe conditions, and for much lower pay than workers in the United States. Such problems even contribute to some of the violence around the world. These nations need reforms, too—and international companies can help by raising wages they pay workers in those nations.

But, this article focuses on conditions in the United States. For those who feel jobs might be exported, I want to note that many jobs can’t be easily exported overseas—and a lot of those that can be already have been. Furthermore, gradually, progress is being made toward improved labor conditions worldwide via trade agreements, etc.

Does Raising the Minimum Wage Cost Jobs?

The argument can be made that raising the minimum wage costs jobs as employers lay people off or cut back on their hiring. Also, some minimum wage jobs require minimum skills and in some cases relatively little work. However, many such jobs require specific skills. And, often, even entry level, low wage jobs attract well-qualified persons, willing and able to work hard. Even if the minimum wage is increased, employers will still hire persons for jobs that need done. Often, in cases where jobs are eliminated due to technology, etc., new jobs seem to develop that offset the losses. 

Specific Recommendation

It has been over nine years since the U.S. minimum wage increased. I recommend a $1.00 per hour raise to $8.25 per hour effective either January 1, 2019 or 60 days after passage of the law increasing the minimum wage, whichever is later. I also advocate additional $1.00 per hour raises at one year intervals to raise the rate to $10.25 two years after the increase to $8.25.

These amounts and dates are open to negotiation by persons more skilled and knowledgeable than I. But a pay raise for low paid workers might stimulate the economy by increasing purchasing more than many other proposed economic stimulus measures. Do you agree that raising the United States minimum wage will be beneficial?      

Endnotes:

¹ “Minimum Wage Laws in the States”; United States Department of Labor; updated July 1, 2018. Webpage accessed October 9, 2018. https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

² “History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 – 2009"; United States Department of Labor. Webpage accessed October 9, 2018. https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

³ “Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?”; Frequently Asked Questions; YouthRules: Preparing the 21^st Century Workforce; United States Department of Labor. Webpage accessed October 9, 2018. https://www.youthrules.gov/know-the-limits/faq/index.htm

⁴ “Factsheet #71: Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act”; United States Department of Labor; updated January 2018. Webpage accessed October 9, 2018. https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm

Disclosure: My current part-time second job that keeps the bills paid while I do my freelance writing is as a store clerk at a retailer. While my hourly wage at the retail store is more than the minimum wage and God enables me to keep my budget balanced, I feel both sympathy for and
empathy with those earning at or near minimum wage. I anticipate being one of the beneficiaries if the minimum wage is increased by the amounts advocated in this article.

NOTE: This article, which was last revised on October 13, 2018 is adapted from one the author published in 2012 on another website (Newsvine) that is no longer in existence.

Only One Nation Has Used Atomic Weapons in War

A Question and Responses
"Multiple nations possess atomic weapons. But only one nation has ever used them in war against another nation. Do you know which country it was?" Those are probably not the exact words my American History teacher, J.C. Young, used in class one day during the early part of my junior year at Phelps High School in Phelps, Kentucky back in 1974. But I think I just accurately paraphrased what he said.

In response, several of my classmates shook their heads that they didn't know, or remained silent. But quite a few persons responded that it was Russia. My best friend, seated in front of me, turned to me and said "It was Russia, wasn't it?" I replied to him, no, that it was the United States.

At an early age, I began reading newspapers, magazines, and books regularly. I knew it was the United States that dropped such bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 to help end World War II. It shocked me that so many others did not know. None of my classmates had replied that it was the United States.

After some of my classmates had responded Russia to the teacher, I spoke up clearly and said it was the United States. I think a few other people nodded or spoke quietly that I was right. Perhaps they already knew, but had kept silent.

But, on the other side of the room, a girl spoke up very loudly, saying something like, "That's stupid. You all are stupid. It wasn't Russia, and it certainly wasn't the United States. It was Japan. Everyone in this country ought to remember the day the Japanese dropped the atomic bomb on Pearl Harbor." I think a few of her friends nearby quietly corrected her, and she was embarrassed, realizing her mistake.

Indeed, if they had taken time to think about it, I think most of my classmates would have remembered reading or hearing somewhere that it was the United States that dropped those weapons. But, often we speak without thinking clearly, or our views are distorted by misleading information or "fake news." Though it wasn't me that day, several other times I've misspoken myself.

When Mr. Young asked that question, the Cold War between the United States and Russia (the Soviet Union) was going on. The nuclear weapons both nations possessed in 1974 (and those the two nations currently possess) were far more powerful than the atomic bombs used against Japan back in 1945. The nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR was one of the key focuses of news reports in the United States in 1974.

Freedom of the Press and Helping Others
If in the United States, where freedom of the press is much greater than in much (maybe most?) of the world, so many people in a high school American History class could make the mistake my classmates did, what about in countries where freedom of the press is much more limited?

For example, is it likely that citizens in North Korea have a very distorted world view? I've never been to North Korea or anywhere else outside the United States, so I can't say for sure. But, I'm guessing the North Koreans have a much more distorted view of world history than those of us in the United States.

Many credit the United States military for our nation's success. But maybe freedom of the press and a commitment to helping others are more important. We get a wide variety of information presenting numerous viewpoints from our media, including from the Internet. Furthermore, through the Peace Corps, CARE, and numerous other organizations, our country helps around the world.

And I am grateful that a significant amount of our military efforts overseas are humanitarian aid helping out after natural disasters, etc. I am proud that after World War II our nation did so much to help rebuild other nations, even former enemies. Persons in the United States helped turn even Japan, where we dropped those bombs, into our friends.

The World Peace Bell in Newport, Kentucky is supposedly the world's largest free-swinging bell. Maybe someday it will ring to announce world peace. I took this photograph of the bell on November 16, 2016. 

Naturally, we need to take care of our own needs and those of our neighborhood, state, and country. But establishing and maintaining world peace requires being fair to others and helping them when needed, too. And part of putting our own needs first includes holding ourselves accountable first before seeking to hold other countries accountable. We need to do it, and other nations need to as well. I hope and pray that we all exhibit love for one another now and in the future.

Closing Thoughts
Scholars still debate whether dropping those bombs ended the war, thus saving many lives, or whether the bombs were an unnecessary tragedy. But, regardless of whether or not dropping the bombs was the right decision, it is a fact that those bombs dropped. And, I hope and pray that neither the United States nor any other nation ever uses nuclear weapons in the future.

My family moved from Phelps later in 1974 during my junior year of high school, and I graduated from another high school. But, I still remember Mr. Young's question from that day over four decades ago. And I firmly hope I learned a lesson from it.

NOTE: This post was last revised on July 31, 2019.

Patriotism and Freedom of Speech

I am a strong proponent of patriotism, but I also strongly support freedom of speech. When persons angrily advocate for the expulsion from the country of individuals who refuse to salute the United States flag or who refuse to stand at attention for the pledge of allegiance, they are overreacting.

What about Native American Indians? After all their ancestors went through, I think they can be excused from respecting the flag. How would their feelings be much different from the animosity toward the Confederate flag that many opponents of slavery show?

Also, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to salute the flag. I am not a Jehovah’s Witness, but I know several of them who are devout, hard-working persons who seek to obey God. I respect their right to stand for their principles. And that includes not saluting the U.S. flag or any other flag.

In Nazi Germany when many Christians were supporting Hitler, serving in his military, and saluting the government’s flag, the Jehovah’s Witnesses courageously passed out literature opposing unfair policies. And these Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the Nazi flag, considering doing so idol worship.

Personally, I respect the United States flag. I consider it a symbol of many fabulous achievements that this nation has attained through the grace and guidance of the highest righteous authority, which I call God.

But even I think it is unnecessary to pledge allegiance to the flag itself, which is a piece of cloth. Instead, let’s pledge allegiance to the high ideals that the flag at its best symbolizes.

I took this photo of a flag near the courthouses in Lexington, Kentucky on October 23, 2016.

Last year I wrote a Blogger post about creating a new pledge of allegiance. I still think that’s a great idea.

Here is a reprint of my suggested pledge: "I pledge allegiance to seek to always do right, to seek to always be obedient to the highest righteous authority, to seek to always be truthful in a loving way, to seek appropriate liberty and justice for all, and to help make myself, my family, my friends, my neighborhood, my country, and my world better by improving my own behavior."

Folks, blind allegiance to a flag is not true patriotism. Patriotism means standing up for our country when it is right and seeking to change it for the better when it is wrong. And if freedom of speech is to be a main principle of our nation, we need to allow persons the freedom not to salute our flag, the freedom not to say the pledge of allegiance, and the freedom not to stand at attention for the pledge.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I support children (and adults) learning respect. But, if children learn basic human values from parents, teachers, community leaders, religious leaders, etc., then proper respect for authority will come.

NOTE: This piece was last revised on June 5, 2017.

The United States Civil War Could Have Been Avoided

Yes, the United States Civil War could have been avoided if things had been handled differently. Many nations around the world ended slavery without wars, and our nation could have, too. The U.S. could have done some things differently.

In an interview scheduled to air today, Monday, May 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump states that the Civil War could have been avoided, as noted in a CNN piece and others. He is right. Though I disagree with Trump on many things, and even the specifics on this issue, I strongly feel that the Civil War was avoidable.

A Few of the Many Ways the War Could Have Been Avoided
Perhaps the simplest solution would have been to outlaw slavery from the beginning. But Thomas Jefferson's words criticizing slavery were edited out of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The United States did take a step in the right direction in 1807. President Jefferson signed a law in March 1807 banning the importation of slaves into the United States. The law became effective January 1, 1808, and is discussed in a 2008 NPR piece that featured Columbia University history professor Eric Foner.

Even some southern Congressmen voted in favor of that law, probably partially due to the fact that it allowed existing slaves and their future descendants to remain in slavery. If that law had been followed by laws requiring slaves to be taught skills to be self sufficient and then later by laws freeing the slaves after a certain period of time, maybe slavery would have ended peacefully before the Civil War.

Making gradual changes would have been easier to do peacefully than totally abolishing all slavery instantly. And, even before the Civil War, there were many free African-Americans in the southern states, in addition to the slaves. A significant minority of slaves had received freedom for various reasons.

But, even many of those in the early 1800s who opposed all slavery felt that typical slaves could not survive on their own. As they saw it, slaves often lacked the education, training, etc., needed to be self sufficient. Passing laws requiring all slaves to be taught basic skills and to be treated humanely, accompanied by enforcement of such laws, would have been a major step in the right direction.

Indeed, after the Civil War ended in 1865, many slaves who moved north still experienced major problems due to lack of basic skills, etc. Unfortunately, due to their limited education and opportunities, they often ended up in slums. Some of their descendants remain in slums in 2017.

Though they had their freedom, these former slaves who traveled north after the war were in many respects worse off than the best treated slaves. The best treated slaves (who possessed more education, nicer homes, better food, and higher quality clothing compared to typical slaves) often remained in the south, working for wages for their former owners.

Would it have been better to have a gradual emancipation that included quality training and education, teaching these slaves and former slaves how to be self sufficient? Maybe. It definitely would have been better to provide more support for the former slaves after their freedom.

The Civil War
Unfortunately, some states committed to withdraw from the country if Abraham Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860. They followed through on that decision. Lincoln, committed to keeping the United States together even if necessary by military force, followed through on that decision as well. War came.

Electing a different President in 1860 could have prevented the war. A President more acceptable to the south might still have taken steps to improve conditions for slaves and for their future freedom.

This, sadly, would have delayed the end of slavery. But, even President Lincoln was willing to delay the end of slavery to preserve the union. Lincoln, in speeches before he became President, apparently stated this. In his first Presidential inaugural address on March 4, 1861 he quoted from one of his earlier speeches, stating "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists."

Many southerners perhaps questioned the sincerity of his statement about allowing slavery to continue where it existed. The Republican Party Platform included strong language on slavery. But, if the southerners had believed him to be sincere and he was sincere, maybe secession and war would have been avoided.

Even during his Presidency when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation effective on January 1, 1863, Lincoln's proclamation only promised freedom for slaves in areas that were part of the Confederacy. It did not offer freedom for slaves in states that did not secede (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri). It did not even offer freedom for slaves in parts of Confederate states that were under Union control.

Concluding Thoughts
The Civil War created deep divisions within the United States that still have not completely healed, over 150 years since the war ended.

Avoiding the Civil War likely would have delayed the end of slavery in the United States. But, it also could have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths, a huge number of injuries, and an enormous amount of property damage. Finally, even the slaves and their descendants could have been better off with a better emancipation plan produced during peacetime.

NOTE: This article was last revised on May 1, 2017.

Freedom of Speech: Even for KKK and Black Lives Matter

Freedom of speech is one of the basic rights we claim to possess in the United States. If it exists, it needs to apply to white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and to groups for African-Americans like Black Lives Matter.

Two Different Speeches

Some years ago, in Lexington, Kentucky where I live, I heard the Reverend Jesse Jackson speak on the campus of Transylvania University. I considered some of his speech propaganda, but I felt he made some excellent points, too.

On another occasion, also some years ago here in Lexington, Kentucky, I heard a speaker from a white supremacist group speak outside the old courthouse. I considered some of his speech propaganda, but I felt he made some excellent points, too.

Two speakers with far different viewpoints, but both spoke some words worth listening to, as I saw it. Both speeches were delivered peacefully, too.

Saturday, April 29, 2017 in Pikeville, Kentucky

The main reason I wrote this article at this time is that on Saturday, April 29, 2017, in Pikeville, Kentucky a group called the National Socialist Movement was scheduled to assemble at the Pike County Courthouse Plaza according to a public notice from the city of Pikeville. The notice stated that other organizations and counterprotesters were expected.

A Kentucky.com article written after the event, as well as other news articles, discussed how the event went. Based on the news reports, it seemed to proceed reasonably peacefully, thanks to preparations that included the presence of many law enforcement personnel. I was in Lexington and did not attend the event, so my opinion is based on these news reports.

Listening With an Open Mind, Memorable Quote

Ideally, we would all seek to listen with an open mind to everyone, seek to understand each individual’s point of view, and seek a fair solution to all conflicts without resorting to arguments and violence. We may not reach this ideal anytime soon, but I think we can come much closer to it.

Let’s seek to preserve freedom of speech. Better yet, let’s seek to use this freedom wisely to learn from one another and to make this wonderful nation better.

Too often, speakers use hyperbole (which I consider a fancy word for lying) or bald-faced lies in sensationalistic speeches, seeking to attract an audience and media attention. As I see it, popular media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh (conservative) and Rachel Maddow (liberal) are guilty of this. Their audiences consists largely of their fervent supporters, in my opinion.

Limbaugh and Maddow both make some good points. But I can only listen to them in small doses. I prefer a different approach.

I prefer hearing the truth, the facts, presented in a caring, compassionate way. As one who enjoys attending seminars, lectures, and discussions that offer various viewpoints, I’ve enjoyed hearing many persons speak over the years. But, perhaps the most memorable speech for me is one from my childhood that I did not hear in person. Below I quote a marvelous passage from the speech.

 “. . . .I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. . . . I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream. . . ."

Those memorable words from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, August 28, 1963 speech in Washington, D.C. are often quoted today. He accomplished a great deal during his lifetime. And he did it through nonviolent protests.

I remember as a child seeing on television his peaceful protesters being attacked and not resisting, wondering why this occurred. As millions of persons watched those scenes, questions were raised, and changes followed. Gradually maybe. Not always for the best. But many positive changes came.

And if we judge not on the basis of skin color, etc., maybe both affirmative action and discrimination can end, at least as they are often practiced today.  

Current Groups and Affirmative Action Programs

Currently, groups focused on African-American rights (like Black Lives Matter) and white supremacist groups (like the Ku Klux Klan) continue to seek what they call fairness. Both types of groups can partially justify their complaints.

Hard-working, honest African-Americans stereotyped and targeted for the color of their skin deserve their complaints to be addressed in some way. Hard-working, honest Caucasians denied jobs or school admissions due to affirmative action programs that admit arguably less qualified minority candidates also deserve to have their complaints addressed in some way.

Furthermore, historically, some affirmative action programs at companies sought to satisfy requirements to hire more African-Americans and more women by hiring African-American females. This arguably made it even harder for African-American males to find jobs. Therefore, African-American males may have an even more legitimate gripe about some affirmative action programs than whites do.

Closing Thoughts
We need more love for others.

My article oversimplifies the complexities of this situation. But I hope that I at least convinced readers to try to listen to and consider the views of those who look differently than they do. I think that one thing (there are others) that separates the United States from countries mired in civil wars is the fact that our nation allows more freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 

Let’s seek to listen and learn. Let’s seek to make ourselves, our nation, and our world better.

NOTE: This piece was last revised on April 30, 2017.