Checks and Balances

While I ended up as an English major in college, and currently make my living teaching English to middle school students, I loved Social Studies (or History) when I was a student.  In fact, had I taken a class or two more, I would have been certified in that and who knows how my career might have been different.

With that said, one of the things I loved as a student was the study of American history - specifically the Constitution.  I seem to remember that the founding fathers created three branches of government to allow for checks and balances - keeping one branch from having too much power.   I always accepted that that was the expectation here in the US - the Legislative made the laws, the Executive carried out the laws and the Judicial made sure it was all kosher.

So you can imagine my dismay as I continue to follow the follies of the Trump administration and their blatant disregard of the judicial branch of government.  They seem to do whatever they want and, sadly, the Judicial branch seems to be completely ignored. But what is more disturbing is that the Supreme Court - the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality in this country - seems to be, if not blatantly ignorant ,then at least anemic when it comes to assuming their rightful position in the whole "check and Balances" equation.

It's time for the justices to remember that their job is NOT dependent on who is in the White House once they've gotten the job. And it's time for the justices to remember that they have an obligation to uphold the  US Constitution - even if it pisses off the Chief Executive.

So what do you say justices?  How about doing your damned job. And not making the judicial branch simply an extension of the Executive branch. Because that's not what the founding fathers intended.

Do your job.

Oldies . . . and Goldies (or How the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are still relevant in 2025)

 Just a quick note for today to say how remarkable it is to me that, in February of 2025, both The Beatles and the Rolling Stones won Grammy awards.   Perhaps some of the votes were sentimental (I mean, how many more times might you, as a member of the academy, get a chance to check "The Beatles" or "The Rolling Stones" on our ballot).  But  the fact that they are still relevant - and still known by enough of the academy to warrant a statue, is just remarkable.  

Think about all of the groups and artists that have come and gone since both of these groups burst on the US scene in 1964.  Do you seriously think that Gary Lewis and the Playboys would have received a vote for any new record released in 2025?  And while that's an extreme example, it just  goes to show how culturally significant both of these groups were and are.

I have often said what I'm about to say yet again - it is remarkable that, for every day of my 61 years on Earth,  I have been privileged to be surrounded by the music of The Beatles. And that, for my entire record buying life, I have been able to add new music to that collection - be it by the band itself, or its individual components - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr.  Ringo just released a brand new album - at 84 years young!!

They have been the soundtrack of my life and I'm so thrilled to see that they are once again Grammy award winners.