A GREAT QUESTION

Khizr Khan's memorable speech at the Democratic National Convention continues to resonate in my mind and heart. In response to Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims, Mr. Khan asked if Mr. Trump had read the U.S. Constitution.
Many if asked the same question might answer: "Of course, in school." But do you remember any of it? Constitutional lawyers and the Supreme Court justices certainly, but I'd bet that most people wouldn't be able to recite any portion, with the exception of the preamble and/or the first five amendments, not necessarily in order.

"I plead the fifth," has been used in television shows and movies so many times, but would the average voter to explain the fifth amendment's details?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

U.S. Constitution, Amendment V

Extrapolate, maybe, but state verbatim, doubtful, unless they have applied for citizenship in this country. That is correct: immigrants need to know at least the implied meaning if not the words themselves of the fifth amendment to pass a citizenship test. 

How much do I remember? I took an elective class in high school on Constitutional Law, though I never applied what I learned in any position. I could blame age, chronic illnesses and so on. No, I feel a need to refresh my memory to honor my past and contribute to the future. 

To those who proclaim ties to the Founding Fathers or to their relatives who disembarked from the Mayflower, a common proclamation made among a smattering of Cape Codders and residents, these braggarts may want to rethink their vitriolic comments about immigrants of whatever race or creed coming to or living in this country. How quickly people forget that how often immigrants productively contribute to the workforce of this country. Also like Mr. and Mrs. Khan and other families, first generations share the too often, tragic sacrifice made by parents whose son or daughter served in the military.

Men and women that have emigrated to the United States from around the world like the Khans have also pledged their allegiance as citizens. Important as these relatively new Americans remind us how learning the fundamentals of government should be obligatory not only in a high school class but as adults who run for any state or federal office.

No, I'm not advocating that lawyers be the forerunners in an election, though it has been the trend for better or worse; however, if asked, once again I'd bet few Republican stalwarts know that Hillary Clinton went to Yale Law School, practiced law and taught law (one of two female professors) at the University of Arkansas. 

Now some readers may argue that those who run for president often know little about the plight of the average American worker, hence the desire to elect outsiders instead of lawyers, e.g. Do you think Donald Trump understands? Did you know he attended a private school whereas Hillary Rodham Clinton went to a public school? Why should a candidate be expected to know so much about constitutional law? 

My wish would be that anyone, no matter what your party affiliation is, voting for our next president be mandated to do a "president for the day" simulation and see why knowing at least how the executive branch works, along with the day-day-pressures and quick, informed decisions challenge a working president. Very few have the credentials and wherewithal to be president--and voters don't always elect the most qualified candidate. 

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

  

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sect. 2

Of course, the above requisite has changed. When all children have an equal right to learn maybe we be able to return to the above requirement. And only then will voters be better informed about what to expect from a politician.

When Khizr Khan questioned Donald Trump's knowledge of the constitution, Mr. Khan not only confronted Mr. Trump about his eligibility to be this nation's leader, he also reminded us what it means to be a targeted immigrant because of faith or culture. I say instead of feeling threatened, we should applaud these individuals' hard work to become citizens and participate in the electoral process.

Mr. & Mrs. Khan
with picture of Captain Humayun Khan,their son.
He served in the U.S. military in Iraq and died protecting his fellow soldiers.

Finally, the word "trust" has been tossed about like a wayward football. I'll argue few voters get all the facts about any nominee's platform or alleged misconduct. Why? Because voters assume they know the answers via soundbites or emotional (quick) judgments. Unlike some first generation citizens, they don't ask the right questions. 

By the way,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Sect. I

NAME THAT TUNE!

From childhood, I've loved classical music. Among many other music genres, my parents played Medieval, Baroque, Renaissance, Classical, Romantic and so on, on LPs, 8-track, cassette, c.d.s as the formats evolved, and often WQXR radio (New York). We go to local and New York City concerts: sometimes, I'd balk about going or get bored during concerts; however, I became enamored, so that I could at least name the composer as the music played on the radio.

Being open-minded, my family listened to most forms of music. Not until much later, however, did I begin to appreciate funk or hip-hop. Present boyfriend also enjoys variety. He has the ability to name several classical composers and almost all blues, soul, rap performers and songs without hesitation, genres where I'm lacking. So, when in the car together we often do our own version of the iconic game show (which launched Kathy Lee Johnson Gifford, for better or worse), "Name That Tune," trying to identify classical and more current composers and titles. Let me iterate that when watching the above game show I have disturbing memories of contestants naming popular hits, most of which were by white performers, the latest incarnation I recall ran during the 1970s and early 80s, with disco emerging as a front-runner alongside pop and soft rock and a sprinkle of funk and soul. 

Arguably, because of its Western roots, many have dismissed the music of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, e.g., for being too "white." I argue that with any art form, people often gravitate to the music they heard as children and more likely, teenagers, for peer pressure sways many to admit to following the latest band or performers.

When an adult, we have the choice to welcome listening to alternate forms of music or not. I do try and have succeeded in part: I ask those readers who shake off classical music as passe or irritating if they have listened to all of the greats, I'd bet not. Here' a sampling of one of my favorites, Mahler's Symphony No. 5, 4th movement, "Adagietto": https://youtu.be/CFQQsu6VBYA

Stacks of c.d.s sit in a cupboard waiting to be played, but they can't replace live performances or the joy of remembrance when the Cape's classical station plays a piece that I can identify, as my love and I listen to the radio. For nostalgia brings re-connection with a family since lost or gone, and sharing with my soul-mate, and the world, priceless.

CLOSE THE CURTAIN ON THEATER TICKET PRICES!

A love of the theatre is so general,

the itch for acting so strong among young people.

Jane Austen, Mansfield Park

I wrote the blog “Why the One Percent Must Read (or Re-read) Austen’s Mansfield Park” (April 24, 2014,  www.shadowwaterwriter.blogspot.com ) responding to the blinder-wearing elite who have not learned that the class system continues to wield its ugly head. To become an actor during Austen’s day meant little income, grudging recognition and ostracism outside of the theater by society. Yet, as seen in the above quote, Jane Austen understood the pressing need for all to have access to the theatre as performers or audiences.

As a child, I loved everything about theatre and often play-acted with friends, saw summer stock, regional and Broadway performances and performed in school-plays. Later, I interned and worked behind-the-scenes at various theaters including New York’s Public Theater, The Vivian Beaumont, Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival and the Cape Playhouse in Dennis, MA. I share Austen’s passion for the stage.

After hearing about the outrageous ticket prices, a genuine example of exploitive capitalism, for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s final performance in “Hamilton” (as much as @ $6,000 with the lowest being @$1,700) I yelled at Charlie Rose’s devil-may-care attitude when he reported his experience on CBS This Morning. He blithely accepted the inevitable high prices and reveled in his good fortune, albeit with modesty. Ironic, the word “fortune,” with its denotations, e.g. good luck or large amounts of money, has become commonplace in our vernacular.

My anger regarding Broadway prices simmered for a week until I recalled Jane Austen’s life. She observed going to the theatre in Bath and occasionally London, as a privilege Austen humbly appreciated, knowing how few could afford such a treat. Indeed, she often went as a guest, for richer friends understood Austen’s hardship. (For more on Jane Austen’s life, read Claire Tomilan’s superlative biography, Jane Austen, A Life, 1999, Vintage)

Though there have been periods since where the American populous, at least, have been able to afford to attend Broadway or even regional productions, history has since come full circle. Present day, New York’s average ticket price for orchestra seats, musicals, is $150. Tickets which are sold from the TKTS’ booth (via the Theater Development Fund) at discounted rates start @$49, rear mezzanine seats, for popular musicals to $109 for the best seats.

Regionally and locally, ticket prices have also increased: the non-profit theater down the street from me charges $25 for most productions performed by non-professionals. Professional/semi-professional theaters here charge as much as $75 for the best seats. Disheartening for those on Cape Cod who are either on a fixed income or disability or for the average worker who can barely support their families’ basic needs. Theaters, here, have depended more on second homeowners or tourists for box office revenue. Some have been forced to stay open year-round to grab theater-goers who could become loyal subscribers and donors. As history suggests in the U.S. and England, any available government subsidies often award large or city-based non-profit institutions, leaving regional arts organizations in a lurch.

True, production costs have markedly increased in the for-profit and not-for-profit theaters since the seventies and eighties. Then, discounted tickets meant “significantly reduced.” Today, in the commercial theatre where ticket brokers grab blocks of seats via computer algorithms, much like the stock market scenario portrayed in the film, The Big Short (2015), only the upper-middle class or rich will be able to afford to attend the theatre regularly. And middle class attendees will be forced to go once a year, at best.

During the twenties, my mother’s childhood, theater-lovers from various strata could afford the theater, but little else. The situation worsened with the onset of the Great Depression. After World War II however, the general populous had more access, particularly with radio and later television where people could listen to or watch live performances.

Yes, economies are cyclical but in our modern age generations who could once afford to attend the theater can no longer do so. Moreover, with competition from movies, in-home entertainment, portable technology, potential theater-goers will be lost, and deprived of live drama or musicals; deprived of becoming captured by theater magic as Jane Austen did.

“No man dies of love but on the stage.” Fanny tells Mr. Crawford she has realized his love isn’t real; he is only pretending as he acts in a fateful play on a makeshift stage. Fascinating that Austen uses the scene to illuminate the climax of the story. Mr. Crawford is unmasked and Fanny sees the truth. Jane Austen knew first-hand how theater could serve as a form of escape from the drudgeries of everyday life. All should have that opportunity.

THE FREEDOM TO DREAM

What happens to a dream deferred? 

Does is dry up like a raisin in the sun? 

Or does it explode?

                               --Langston Hughes

Can we all agree that those who have the freedom to dream often get discouraged? Millions who share the American Dream, a smaller number who wish to get a job which pays a sustainable wage, or fewer who hope to find a better life when they return from fighting overseas have become discouraged. The disappointment--when these people can't make enough money to buy a car, home or better life can gnaw at their souls, induce melancholy.

If we were to include those who because of their skin color can't live life without dread that they will be overlooked, beaten or killed when they step out their door, the disillusionment would rise exponentially. 

In contrast, take your average law enforcer who from the late seventies until 9/11, in particular, left their home expecting to return--though the possibility of death hung over them like Damocles's Sword. Some adhered to honor and duty while some did not. Inured officers and ill-trained, first-year recruits became more and more trigger happy. Overlooked for too long in this country, police brutality wielded its ugly head. 

Then after 9/11, the responsibility of protecting the public increased significantly. Terror threats; justifiable vocal backlash against those who abused their power; every move thrust in the public eye via the Internet, cell phones, dashboard cameras, etc. added to an already overstretched police force and each cops daily stress. They at least have the right to dream of a better life for their families, but has that dream died, too? 

The tragedies we've seen in Orlando, the killings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, and this week's murder of five police officers in Dallas must be on the minds of those who want to serve in law enforcement. Will the pressure to do what they must to protect and do what is right to serve dissuade would-be-rookies from entering the field? 

Men and women representing the diversity of the community should continue to be recruited to protect the public. However, with the understanding that those who serve, no matter their income-level, race or creed, need to have a semblance of humanity to perform their duties. Also, these recruits need mental health support and community involvement to help ease the ever-increasing pressures put on the police. More so, stopping easy access to assault weapons would help protect law officers.

Let's think before we act, put ourselves in others' shoes, unite to end gun violence in communities and from law enforcers. For in the end, we all have the right to dream. 

All we are saying...is give peace a chance.

                                          --John Lennon

INDEPENDENCE DAY: REASON TO CELEBRATE

The Fourth of July--fireworks, cookouts, parades, pageants--lest we forget that the holiday celebrates this country's declaration of independence from British colonialism.

Americans should be rejoicing after Brexit. For I believe we have been given a gift by those who voted for the U.K. (United Kingdom) to leave the E.U. (European Union). American diplomats have an opportunity to strengthen the U.S. bonds with the E.U. while diplomatically retreating from a weakened foreign policy relationship with England.

"England" because Scotland's majority, those pragmatic realists for whom I have an even greater respect, and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the E.U. And since the U.K. comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I must mention the Welsh did vote for separation (for more on a Welsh dissenter's point-of-view, read Richard Wyn Jones' article in The Guardian ).

I will address American Colonialism in a future article; however, we have patterned our foreign policy in part on the British model. When policy critics decry the United States' skewed support in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, do critics remember that the British in partnership with its allies led the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel? Or that after World War I, the British military and leadership marked the boundaries between Middle Eastern countries, once part of the Ottoman Empire or German possessions then "awarded" to French and British during the Treaty of Versailles (1916)? And where were American diplomats in all this? Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the League of Nations with full cooperation among Western nations which supported the Treaty (including promises made and quickly broken; the United Nations has not been much better).

Rest assured I'm not advocating a divorce from our staunch ally rather a separation from England's nationalistic resurgence. Yes, a large populous in the United Kingdom suffer the same economic woes as do the working and middle classes here. The English workers' anger towards elitism justifies dissension but not a reversion to the past. Millions of English-persons now regret the decision, at least in terms of economic consequences, and have called for a second referendum to repeal the secession vote. Clearer minds and common sense have begun to prevail. However, I do wonder how many in England, Wales and the United States see that blind nationalism has devastating consequences in foreign policy as well?

Groups of nationalists in France and Germany have begun sowing the weeds of separatism, especially with the influx of refugees--a term which should be used more by the press, in case they don't remember it means: "a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution." (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Symbolic weed-killers, i.e. supporting isolationism and prejudice; bombings, and worse sending in ground troops (who, to continue the analogy, used napalm during Vietnam to flush out or eliminate alleged Viet Cong "terrorists")  will not eradicate the current pestilence of terrorism. Only a united front among our allies who accept the inevitable globalization and global community and the United States to improve the economic welfare of all impoverished people will facilitate stabilization. To feed prosperity, the ground must be fertile, nourished by its growers, not destroyed by its predators.

Certainly a lesson Trump supporters, war-mongers--particularly avengers who wish to retaliate against all Muslims by bombing their homelands, indiscriminately, and establishing Western-backed leaders in countries such as Syria--haven't learned. Sound familiar? If the United States wants to be independent from British rule, then our citizens must think globally. Our economic survival, national security depend on being part of the solution and separate from our colonial past.

Happy Independence Day, Americans!