Appointments

For the most part I have not been disappointed in the appointments to cabinet positions for the next administration—plus the first appointment to the Supreme Court. I don’t know any of the appointments—or was even aware of them beforehand, with the exception of Rick Perry, as Energy Secretary, who was Governor of Texas, and Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development, who ran for president.

General James Mattis, now confirmed as Secretary of Defense, made his first communication to the troops, and it is better than we have seen in some time:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis
photo found here

It’s good to be back and I’m grateful to serve alongside you as Secretary of Defense.

Together with the Intelligence Community we are the sentinels and guardians of our nation. We need only look to you, the uniformed and civilian members of the Department and your families, to see the fundamental unity of our country. You represent an America committed to the common good; an America that is never complacent about defending its freedoms; and an America that remains a steady beacon of hope for all mankind.

Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.

I am confident you will do your part. I pledge to you I’ll do my best as your Secretary.

He serves. Her serves alongside. He respects those he leads. And he leads them with the larger mission in mind—defending American freedom. He intends to earn trust, rather than demand it. He has the leadership qualities that Jim Collins identifies in his business book Good to Great.

While I wasn’t aware of Neil Gorsuch before his nomination to the Supreme Court, those who do know him are very pleased. He sees his role mainly as his oath states, to

administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

There’s nothing in there allowing a justice to make up laws, or to pretend laws say what he/she thinks they ought to say. So refreshing!

Justice Scalia (left) and Neil Gorsuch
photo found here

People say he is much like Scalia. Maybe even in writing talent, which is good, because we will so miss Scalia’s wit and colorful language. According to a recent study of “Scalia-ness,” out of 15 judges, Gorsuch comes in second, out Scalia-ed only by Justice Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme Court.

He is known to quote Scalia as saying,

If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.

The item of interest about Gorsuch is where he differs from Scalia, specifically on what is called the Chevron Deference, sometimes called the Chevron Doctrine. In the 1984 case the court ruled that, when a statute (regulation, typically) is not clear, the courts must defer to the regulating agency to determine meaning as long as they have a reasonable basis. There are arguments in favor of that view, in theory. But in practice the Chevron Doctrine has shifted a great deal of power away from lawmakers, to the executive branch, through regulatory agencies.

In 2016, in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he concurred with the 10^th Circuit ruling, but wrote a separate opinion, referring to the Chevron Deference:

[T]he fact is Chevron… permit[s] executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.

Ironically, the new president has appointed a justice likelyto limit his power. I don’t know for certain whether President Trump agrees with that limitation, but I think it’s long overdue. As Gorsuch added in his opinion, “[m]aybe the time has come to face the behemoth.”

He was on the right side for the religious freedom in the Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor cases. He’s a strong defender of 4^th Amendment rights.

He was easily approved for the 10^th Circuit, so it would be for political reasons only if democrats oppose him now. There is hope that at least a few democrat senators will do their duty and vote to appoint. While senate higher-ups are refusing to say the words “We will use the nuclear option implemented by Harry Reid,” they do say, “He will be appointed.”

The appointment with the most opposition has been Betsy DeVos. I haven’t known her, but early reactions from conservatives was positive. Still, some good friends are very worried about her, so I’ve wondered why. If nothing else, she is in favor of choice in education. She has championed vouchers, and has been anti-Common Core. My feeling about vouchers is that they are such a small incremental move that they solve very little, but are at least better than total public school monopoly.

Since my view on education freedom, as a homeschooler, is an outside view, I have searched for other people’s views.

Oddly, articles seem to be titled “5 things” about Betsy DeVos, either in her favor, or supposedly against her.

Here are five mostly favorable, from “5 Things to Know About Betsy DeVos” from The Atlantic:

1.       DeVos will push for school choice.

2.       Critics of the Common Core standards may have reason to worry.

3.       Expect deregulation to be a priority.

4.       She’s politically active, but she doesn’t have a lot of political experience.

5.       The reaction to her nomination is mixed.

That last one includes a tweet against her, quoting someone calling “DeVos the ‘most ideological, anti-public education nominee’ since the start of the Ed Dpt.” Among teachers’ unions that might sound ominous. To me, I think that’s a huge plus.

Here are another five from “5 Reasons to Oppose Betsy DeVos” from US News and World Report:

1.       Lack of experience.

2.       Lack of knowledge and preparation.

3.       Well outside the mainstream.

4.       A dangerous precedent for pay-for-play in politics.

5.       No plans or vision, except for outdated and ineffective policies that are harmful to public education.

These require some response. As for lack of experience, she has not worked in public schooling, nor sent her children to public schools. The fears of pro-public-school-as-religion adherents are in evidence.

Education is not a proper role of government, and is not among the enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The creation of the Department of Education has cost money without virtually any positive outcomes for American education as a whole. I am perfectly happy to have someone not taken in by the public-school believers.

There is further lack of experience in government, and in running a particular bureaucracy. But we have a president who wants to shake things up, so we shouldn’t be surprised he didn’t appoint a go-along-to-get-along bureaucrat. She has, however, managed multi-million-dollar philanthropies and has worked toward influencing society in the way she is now being given the opportunity to act on.

The opponents call that pay-for-play. It’s an ugly term. I’ve come across it locally and have mixed feelings about those who work that way. But I try to use my influence in my small circle—pretty much without money, since I don’t have that as an option. But if I had plenty of money, would I donate to candidates I liked? Yes. And then would I make sure they knew me and heard what I have to say? Yes. I do that even without the donation. So I really don’t look at her wealth and donations as a disqualifier. Nor do I believe she “bought” the position; she holds the position this administration wants to implement. Does she have the skill to carry it out? We’ll see.

If the mainstream is being over-protective of the public school monopoly, even at the expense of educating our children, then being outside the mainstream is a good thing. I wrote about school choice ideas just last month. We're hoping something useful will make it's way through the Texas legislature now in session.

I don’t know whether Betsy DeVos has the capacity to do what she intends—to put more choice into the hands of parents for their own children, and hopefully to get rid of the federal education bureaucracy entirely—but I’m here to cheer her on in her attempts.

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks so far. But, if you can get past the hyperventilating press, there have been some things to bring us hope.

Principle of Legitimacy

I recently read Malcom Gladwell’s latest book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfit and the Art of Battling Giants. His books are a collection of data, combined with stories, making surprising, often counterintuitive, points. He and Charles Murray are the best I know at writing statistics books for general reading. And Gladwell’s tend to be less numbers-heavy and more weighted with stories. They can be a fun read.

His underlying theme, in David and Goliath, is that those who appear to be the underdogs might actually have advantages that aren’t obvious, but might explain why they win against the odds. With the David and Goliath story, he passes along various scholarly details, saying, “No one in ancient times would have doubted David’s tactical advantage once it was known that he was an expert in slinging.” (Notes, pp. 279-28.)

David was powerful like an artilleryman, as opposed to an infantryman. He was skilled and practiced, as boys of his day were likely to be, given time to practice. Goliath, on the other hand, may have suffered from a glandular disorder called acromegaly. Besides making him very large, it was associated with a partial blindness. So Goliath needed David to come in for close contact battle. All David needed to do was attack, with skill, from a distance. Essentially, Goliath brought a sword to a gunfight.

The book sorts through a number of underdog stories, from a girls’ basketball team to Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights movement. Sometimes the stories seem only peripherally associated to the theme (my opinion), but they still make for an interesting read.

One of the ideas Gladwell talks about is the “principle of legitimacy” in leadership, or authority: “When people in authority want the rest of us to behave, it matters—first and foremost—how they behave” (p. 207). Among the many things in the book I was marking to recall later, this one got special attention.

Remember back in the 1990s, when the Clintons and their allies were lying to the American people and then eventually saying, “What difference does it make?” and “It’s only his personal life.” Remember that? I remember thinking of the William Cowper quote, "When was public virtue to be found when private was not?"

If a leader lies to the woman in his life he has covenanted with, and lies about it to the people he serves—aware that the behavior subjects him to the risk of blackmail—can such a person be trusted with the life and death decisions of the leader of the free world? I don’t think so. Nor would I trust anyone else who claims character has nothing to do with ability to lead.

Gladwell doesn’t continue on with the idea of personal morality, however. He looks at other behaviors that lead to authoritative legitimacy:

Legitimacy is based on three things. First of all, the people who are asked to obey authority have to feel like they have a voice—that if they speak up, they will be heard. Second, the law has to be predictable. There has to be a reasonable expectation that the rules tomorrow are going to be roughly the same as the rules today. And third, the authority has to be fair. It can’t treat one group differently from another (pp. 207-208).

Gladwell doesn’t seem to me particularly political. And if I had to guess, I’d say he leans slightly democrat. He does not go on from this point to talk about our current presidential regime. He talks about police in New York, English-Irish unrest in Belfast a couple of decades ago, and the end results of the three-strikes-you’re-out laws that started in California. All worth reading.

But I’d like to just briefly apply the three rules to this president.

·         People need to feel like they have a voice.  No.

o   This president doesn’t listen. No Republicans voted for Obamacare. Most Americans were against it, and have continued against it, with those percentages growing as the rollout continues to fail.

o   He refers to legitimate questions about an array of administration-caused scandals as trumped up faux scandals: VA deaths, Benghazi deaths and cover-up, IRS targeting of conservative groups…

o   He refuses to listen when Congress puts limits to his executive powers, and acts unilaterally outside the law

·         Consistency of rules over time. No.

o   Those seeking citizenship through the maze of legal means get turned away, sometimes for years. Meanwhile, illegals are invited and welcomed and forced on border states—and remember how Arizona was sued for being willing to help enforce existing laws? The administration claimed that it has the right to pick and choose which laws it chooses to enforce, and no state should assume enforcement is a good thing.

o   Obamacare doesn’t work—not news. So the president decides who gets exemptions, at his whim—or which rules will get postponed to after another election, breaking his own law.

·         Fairness from one group to another. No.

o   Voting violations will not be prosecuted by this justice department. When New Black Panthers were shown to be blocking voting places and intimidating voters, the DOJ said it wasn’t possible for African-American-skin-colored people (blacks, but we not supposed to use that descriptive word?) to be prosecuted for racist behavior.

o   Homosexuals, atheists, "green" businesses,and anyone else the administration favors currently, gets special treatment, exemptions, rules. But religious people are not allowed their God-given right to practice their religion. Under duress, the administration gave in and allowed exemptions for churches and religious nonprofits. It saw no need to extend that exemption to closely held companies, run by religious people, like Hobby Lobby. SCOTUS has ruled in Hobby Lobby’s favor, but only narrowly. And the dissent argument claims that the 1^st Amendment right to freedom of religion goes out the window when one enters the marketplace. Courts have put small businesses—bakeries and photographers—out of business when they refused to act against conscience.

When a solid majority of Americans disapprove of how the president is doing his job, and 67% believe the country is on the wrong track, that either means—as this president and his minions assert—that it’s simply because of his color. Or it means he lacks legitimate authority to lead—because of his behavior.

Texas Talk--Part I

This past weekend I was a delegate at the Texas State Republican Convention. It’s not a presidential year, so it might seem more low key then in those other years. Still, there’s some good conservative stuff being said.

There are more delegates at the Texas convention than at the national GOP convention. And there’s a much higher percentage of those that are conservative or very conservative. So, it’s safe to say this is the biggest gathering of conservatives participating in the government process anywhere in the world.

convention logo, from up on the big screen

Texans are plain spoken. In-your-face bold. And sometimes colorful with the metaphors. I’ve developed a taste for the Texas sound. (I’ve been imitating the sound pretty well since our pre-Texas years, when we started reading Hank the Cowdog books aloud.) One of the most Texas sounding was Sid Miller, candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. He always has his cowboy hat on. If I’m remembering his bio accurately, he’s a former rodeo champion. In his speech, he said the greatest threat to freedom is the overreaching federal government: “Standing up to the EPA, BLM, or any of those other dirty three-letter organizations” is what we’re about.

I think there’s a good chance we heard from the next US President during this convention. I’m not that good at prognostication, and no one has announced a candidacy yet, but some speeches sounded like the preliminaries.

There was a straw poll—and a change in the rules, so that two years from now our straw poll will have an effect on how the at-large delegates will be directed to vote. For now it was just for fun.

I hadn’t done a lot of thinking about Ted Cruz as a candidate for president. He’s a first-term senator, doing a stellar job there (no voting present). We’ve elected a first-term senator before, and his lack of experience is becoming more evident as he fails to learn on the job.

early purchase, in case I need it later

Ted Cruz had a lot of good experience before becoming a senator, but I do think governors are a more typical source of executive material, as a rule of thumb. But clearly other Texans have their hopes set on him. And I have to say, if he runs, I would be glad—and very supportive. (I bought myself a political button, just before they ran out, in case I need it later.)

He sounds like he just might run, although no mention of the possibility came up in his speech. I thought I’d share some highlights here, for those who didn’t get to be there. Ted Cruz, by the way, sounds like a thinking lawyer, fully capable of supporting his ideas before the Supreme Court—which he has done. He doesn’t have much of an accent, and he dresses in conservative suits and white shirts and ties. Still, he speaks very boldly, in that Texas way—and he wears cowboy boots with his suits.

Sen. Ted Cruz, wearing boots,
speaking without notes or teleprompter

His first words were, “I spent all week in Washington, DC; it’s great to be back in America.”

The speech was divided into three main parts, with some extended comments on each. Part I was Defend the Constitution. He quoted Thomas Jefferson: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Cruz said we should defend all of the Bill of Rights.

Of the Second Amendment he offered this Texas perspective: “In Texas, gun control means hitting what you aim at.”

Of the First Amendment, he referred to the litigation against Little Sisters of the Poor, in which the federal government claims it has a right and overriding interest in forcing nuns to pay for abortions of others. Ted Cruz offers a “simple rule of thumb—if you’re litigating against nuns, you’re doing something wrong.”

When referring to privacy, as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, he said, “Please leave your cell phones on today—we want Obama to hear every word we say.”

Part II was Restore America to Leadership in the World. He talked of the dangerous vacuum created when America fails to lead. Two week ago he was in Israel and visited with Natan Sharansky, who had been in a Russian gulag near the end of the Cold War. He and fellow prisoners used to pass along Reagan’s words, when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” When he gave his simple plan: “We win. They lose.” When he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” This was immediately after the ineffectual administration of Jimmy Carter. Ted Cruz was pointing out how quickly things can turn around when you change from malaise to bold leadership.

He reminded us that, when Iran appointed a terrorist as their ambassador, he put forth legislation to bar that man from entry into the country. It passed the Senate 100-0. It passed 435-0 in the House. Then, under that kind of pressure, Obama signed it. Some things need to be acted on, and Ted Cruz is willing to do that. As he put it, in his colorful way, “We will no longer play footsie with the mullahs of Iran.”

Cruz called for rescue of Christian prisoners, such as Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned in Iran for professing his Christian faith; and Miriam Ibrahim, a lifelong Christian woman married to an American citizen, being held in Sudan for the crime of “converting” to Christianity from Islam, punishable by death. Cruz says, “Where is the president of the United States? Why isn’t he standing up on the world stage and calling for her return?  Bring our Americans home.”

Raphael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz

Part III was Bring Back Jobs and Economic Growth. He said, “For five years we’ve been trapped in the Great Stagnation.” [I love that phrase and plan to use it hereafter.] And those who struggle the most are the ones most hurt by it. How do we turn that around? Get back to free-market principles. Specifically, “Unleash an energy renaissance.” “Audit the Federal Reserve.” “Abolish the IRS.” And “Repeal every blessed word of Obamacare.” I think the word blessed in that context was not meant to imply those words are holy, but rather the opposite.

I got to hear his father, Pastor Raphael Cruz, earlier, in my Senate District caucus meeting, and he’s an impressive speaker as well. Ted Cruz quoted his father, who fled communist Cuba 57 years ago: “I lost my freedom once, and I’ll die before it happens again.” Ted Cruz imagined a time when our children or grandchildren could ask, “What was it like, when there was freedom?” We never want to have to answer that question. We together claim freedom. 

 

There’s plenty more to share from the convention. Wish you could have been there.

I think I’ll need another day to share highlights from some of the better speeches: Rand Paul, candidate for Texas Governor Greg Abbott, candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and others. And there’s a whole discussion about the business of getting a party platform, which is probably worth its own post. Somewhere in the middle of this series comes Father’s Day, so we’ll have to just patiently get it all covered. So come back for eventual parts II and III.

The Iron Lady

Margaret Thatcher
photo from Wikipedia

On Monday, April 8, we lost a great champion of freedom, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She was 87. I thought I’d take a moment to remember her and her heroic contributions.

The Economist starts its piece on her this week with this truth: “Only a handful of peacetime politicians can claim to have changed the world. Margaret Thatcher was one.”

When she was voted into Britain’s most powerful position in 1979, that country’s top tax rate was 98%, which had put the brakes on job creation. She drastically cut income and corporate taxes, while simultaneously cutting government spending—from 44.6 per cent of GDP in 1979 to 39.4 per cent of GDP in 1991. (Our economy works best when government spending is held well below 20%; Obama likes it at 25%. So you can see Britain was in bad straits.) She led Britain from a declining country, with ever lower standard of living compared to the rest of Europe, to an economy growing at 3% per year throughout her decade-plus. In fact, for two decades (good decades for the US), Britain’s standard of living rise exceeded the US, Japan, Germany, France, and Italy.

She came at a time when the country was in the throes of union-induced misery. The unions had a stranglehold on politics, politicians, and private enterprise. It took an iron will to stand up against them. She did it with good grace and humor—very much like her US counterpart of history, Ronald Reagan.

Like Reagan, she was highly quotable. One of the famous ones is, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

I love this two-minute clip of her standing up against socialism in parliament:

 

Here are a few more favorite quotes:

To those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: “You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning.” [at Conservative Party Conference 1980] 
 

[on whether to have UK join Europe in a common currency]: No, no, no.
 

Ronnie [Ronald Reagan] and I got to know each other at a time when we were both in Opposition, and when a good many people intended to keep us there. They failed, and the conservative 1980s were the result. But in a certain sense, we remained an opposition, we were never the establishment. As Ron once put it: the nine most dangerous words in the English language are “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” As usual, he was right.

 

Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult,

is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction.

 

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

 

Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be

nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.

 

Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy. 

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women,

and there are families.

 

I just owe almost everything to my father and it's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.  

You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.

A good source for pages more of her gems is BrainyQuote.

For a larger taste, I suggest a speech she gave here in the US, at Hillsdale College in November 1994, on “The Moral Foundations of Society.” I think I would like to make her an honorary member of the Spherical Model think tank. She

Statue of Margaret Thatcher at Hillsdale College
Photo from Hillsdale email newsletter 4-8-2013

understood the basic truths.

Here’s an observation that concerns me as I reflect this week. Decades of southern hemisphere practices (on the Spherical Model) build up problems, piling them into mountains. A leader who understands freedom, free enterprise, and civilization comes along every once in a generation, and turns things in the right direction. Evidence accumulates to prove that the principles our Constitution writers recognized are true, that they lead to thriving in every sphere. Nevertheless, as soon as the heroic leader no longer holds the world on his/her shoulders, the enemy slides back into their previous positions, as though trying to erase the good times, denying they happened. And problems mount again.

How do we get a critical mass of heroes to overcome the ubiquitous tyrannists? We need more Margaret Thatchers. We need more Ronald Reagans. We need them in leadership positions. But we also need many more smaller heroes, regular people whose voices may not carry as far, but who recognize truth and stand up for it—we need those heroes to prevent us from sinking ever downward.

I have answers about what the necessary principles are; many of us do. I don’t have answers about how to get the word out on what the principles are. I just try to be one of the quieter but needed voices.

Happy Birthday, Boy Scouts of America

I have been gathering info for a post about the Boy Scouts, since they were in the news this week. I have more than I think can fit into one post, and since the big decision from Wednesday got more or less put off for a couple of months, I thought I could put info together under less urgency. But then I realized today is the anniversary of the founding: Boy Scouts of America was founded February 8, 1910, so the organization is 103 years old. So, today we'll celebrate, and save controversy for another day.

The cake from our Eagle Court of Honor back in 2005

The purpose of the organization is to raise boys into men—men of integrity and honor, men who will be valuable contributors to our civilization. The organization has been pretty effective at meeting this goal. The oath and law provide some of the method:

The Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best

 To do my duty to God and my country

 and to obey the Scout Law;

 To help other people at all times;

 To keep myself physically strong,

 mentally awake, and morally straight. 

Boy Scout Law

A Scout is:

• Trustworthy,
• Loyal,
• Helpful,
• Friendly,
• Courteous,
• Kind,
• Obedient,
• Cheerful,
• Thrifty,
• Brave,
• Clean,
• and Reverent.

If you know what civilization looks like, and the qualities a person needs to acquire to positively contribute to making society civilized, could you come up with a better list? I’ve tried to do that at Spherical Model. Generally, obey the Ten Commandments. I’ve included on occasion a couple of other lists, like the one in I Corinthians 13, paraphrased here:  

·         be long-suffering

·         be kind

·         don’t envy

·         don’t be self-important

·         don’t behave unseemly

·         don’t be self-centered

·         don’t be easily provoked

·         think no evil

·         avoid iniquity

·         rejoice in truth

·         bear difficulties with patience

·         believe in God and truth

·         be hopeful

·         endure 

The lists for “how to be civilized” are similar enough that I think it’s possible to say that we know what behavior is required for a civilized culture. But all of the behaviors are not what you’d call natural for 12-year-old boys. They need to be taught, and they need to be able follow the model of men who have grown from uncivilized rowdy boys into fine and honorable men and fathers. 

Mr. Spherical Model was a scoutmaster for many years (and still has a volunteer role with the troop), starting well before our boys got through their cub scout years. Our older son got to the level of Life Scout, next to the highest rank. He reached that at 13, and then we moved, and the new local troop wasn’t as good at advancement. He came close, just before turning 18, at finishing the requirements for an Eagle, but college classes and work got in the way. Still, it was a good accomplishment, and the principles took root. For our second son, Mr. Spherical Model became the scoutmaster again. This was a challenging troop, made up of bright, quirky characters—who had a history of taking on the challenge of doing in adult volunteer leaders. But in Mr. Spherical Model they had met their match. And most of these young men earned their Eagle rank, including our son Economic Sphere. Today they’re educated, working, married—and surprisingly civilized. 

The photo is from Shawn Rogers' Facebook page;
he and his son were in that jamboree crowd

Only 5% of young men who begin scouting eventually reach the rank of Eagle. But some troops are much more successful than others. My assertion is that the successful ones combine more religion into the teachings. Yes, they go camping and learn woodsman and survival skills. But they take a minute at their meetings and around the campfire to develop the young man’s spirit. Not all really good men can be a good scoutmaster, but a scoutmaster has to be a really good man. 

In another post I’ll talk about the membership controversy that’s going on. But today, let’s just honor this organization that has gone about the business of inculcating the next generation with civilizing principles with remarkable success for over a century.