LITERACY NARRATIVE

Before one writes, one reads.  A lot.  How did you begin to read?  What did you read?  What did it mean to you?  My college writing-workshop instructor, author Craig Lancaster, asks us to write it down.  Here's mine.

"Come, Martha Jean.  Edith Ann?  Carol Louise, Bud, Sis?  It's time to read before bed," calls Mom.  From different points in the house, we gather in the living room and quietly find a place to sit.  Dad is already seated in his sedate but comfortable chair by the reading lamp.  The Bible is in his lap.  When we're ready, he opens it to a place sometimes marked, sometimes not.  His voice begins quietly, steadily, reverent in every aspect.  When he stops and closes the book, we know it's time to kneel at our place for prayers.

From before my birth, this is the tradition followed by my father's father, and his family of eight:  devotions and prayers before bed.  Nothing interferes, not even an errant mouse.  "William, go get the broom."  Reading is on hold until William captures and eliminates the rodent --after which reading takes up again. 

The Bible is the mainstay, the foundation of our family's reading, my reading.  This is where it begins.  Every day of every year from birth until I leave for college and then marriage, reading the Bible aloud is a basic tradition.  Are there benefits to Bible reading this often, this long?  That never occurs to me until I start writing this narrative (it hits like a thunderbolt!).  This is the framework, the picture so-to-speak, of our family Bible-reading sessions. 

• The setting -- The family is gathered together in the living room in the evening.  It is dark outside but we have light inside.  We are safe.  Each of us sits where we choose, on chairs, on sofa, on piano bench.  The center of attention is a book and everyone listens to the reading of that book.  When prayers are finished, all leave the room and go to bed for the night with language from the book still ringing in our ears.

•  The main character -- The main character in the scene is Dad with the book.  He sets the tone for the Bible-reading just through his own actions.  His voice is still, steadfast, deferential.  And so are we.  It is abundantly clear that Dad is the leader of this family.  He is not always as loving and kind as this scene would imply.  There are multiple facets to his personality.  But in relation to his reading of the Bible, his attitude and actions are impeccable. 

• The supportive characters -- We, including my mother, follow Dad's lead.  More than we know, we are soaking up all the language that the King James version of the Bible provides.  The cadence and rhythm of the narrative; the exceptional vocabulary like "thee", "thou", and "thy" not often used any more except by specific sects similar to Quakers; the flow of the words, phrases, sentences.  These are what stick.

This framework explains that the impact of the Bible-reading sessions has to do with more than just the reading.  It also creates feelings of (1) safety, warmth, and comfort; (2) security that our parents do/will take care of us; and (3) appreciation for the beauty of the language we hear.

No other book has influenced me more, as I am now realizing.  My choices of reading material later on do not include what are considered the classics.  "Mr. Fix-it", "Black Beauty", books by author Grace Livingston Hill are a means by which I can lose myself in the story.  Even biographies and historical fiction serve the purpose of taking me out of my own reality of a too-restrictive life to a place where I can dream. 

The absence of pictures is another benefit of the Bible as a reading foundation.  As I listen, I create pictures in my mind.  To this day, I prefer listening to National Public Radio just as much or moreso than seeing TV or a movie.  Creating my own mind-pictures is one of the most enjoyable aspects of listening to a narrative.

The last benefit of the Bible-reading sessions, but not the least, is a deep appreciation for the book as object.  One of my first acts in exploring a new book is to smell the pages as I flip through them.  Not only seeing the exterior of front and back covers but also feeling them (are they smooth or nubby?) is important.  Icing on the cake comes, however, when I discover the pages are thin as tissue.  Parchment, maybe?  To me, that's the ultimate -- just as Dad's Bible had.

This revelation of the importance and influence of Bible-reading sessions on my literacy inheritance almost blows me away.  As a college student, I reject my early upbringing and choose a much more liberal path, becoming more broad-minded with each passing decade.  What continues to linger, I realize, is not so much the message and content of the readings but the method by which they are delivered.  Language is the thing.  Therein lies its inherent value.  One could do worse than have the Bible as a literary role model.

THE LOWDOWN ON HILLARY CLINTON

"...Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society's trust."  This description is what both right and left agree on when it comes to Hillary Clinton, according to Michael Arnovitz of Portland, Oregon.  His Facebook post clearly lays out the process by which this viewpoint has been developed over the years.  Authenticity of his facts and summations ring so many bells for me that I wish to pass them on to you.

First, "...the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given."  Two sources who should know refute this claim of dishonesty:  (1) Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most politicians (but not all) they have tracked over the years, and (2) Jill Abramson, former Executive Editor of New York Times states, "I'm not a favorite in Hillaryland...Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy."

Where, then, does the "birth of 'Hillary as a Liar' meme start?"  Arnovitz takes us back to Whitewater and William Safire's essay about Hillary Clinton called, "Blizzard of Lies."  A few examples created by Safire and listed by Arnovitz include Safire calling her a "'congenital' liar...[she] created 'web of deceit' with friends...she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, 'bamboozled' bank regulators," and so on.  In the end, "...Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written".  So what was the real reason Hillary was pilloried at the time?  "She had refused to play the traditional First Lady role...and...she attempted to champion Universal Health coverage."  [What many women of today are very sure of is that "uppity women" get no respect.  Currently, Hillary Clinton, in my view, is the mother of all uppity women -- she has the audacity to think that she as a woman could become President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world!  How dare she?!  But I digress.]

Arnovitz goes on.  Although"conservative propaganda and lies" are to blame, he feels the "main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism...I've seen no other plausible explanation---this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary."

However, Arnovitz sees several serious impediments when making accusations of sexism:
(1)  Almost no one will admit to it, either conservative or liberal...
(2) Overt sexism is significantly more likely to be tolerated in our society than overt racism...
(3) We have formed a sort of collective blindness to sexism that allows us to pretend that we are on top of the issue while simultaneously ignoring the many ways in which it actually permeates our society...
(4)  Unlike men, women who make demands are still often seen as unfeminine and inappropriately aggressive, bordering on deviant...

To overcome these impediments, Arnovitz brings out the heavy-hitters:  numbers, proof of the pudding as it were.  Arnovitz describes a chart of Hillary's popularity over time.  It has been put together by Nate Silver beginning with her time as First Lady in the White House in the early 90's.

• At that time, Hillary's polling starts out great
• When Hillary takes charge of Universal Health Care, her negatives skyrocket.
• During Whitewater investigations, her polling improves dramatically.
• When Hillary declares she will run for Senate in New York, her favorables plummet while her unfavorables rise sharply.
• Once she's elected, her numbers stabilize and even improve.
• About the same time Hillary withdraws from the 2008 Presidential race, her favorables take off again.
• Her polling stays way up (some think to a remarkable level) until...guess?
• She decides to run for President again.  Where are her unfavorables now?

The common thread running through all this, as Arnovitz makes clear, is that whenever Hillary asks for power, her numbers drop like a manhole cover [my emphasis].  "The one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power."  [There's that uppity woman again.]

Arnovitz also analyzes issues people are currently using to disparage Hillary.

1.  Honesty -- That's been addressed above.  Additionally, it can be asked if she's any worse than other politicians.  No worse than many; better than most.  Trump has been known to be significantly less honest on the campaign trail.  According to Politifact, Trump is the least honest candidate they have ever analyzed.  Is Hillary being held to a higher standard than Trump?  

2.  Scandals -- "Are scandals still scandals if no one has done anything wrong?" asks Arnovitz.  In fact, Hillary has always been cleared of any wrongdoing, he points out.  There is such a thing as "negative effect on credibility," he goes on.  "It's not so much the RESULT of scandals as it is the INTENT of those who create them."  Examples:  (a) Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hours investigating Clinton's use of White House Christmas Card List, and (b) Consider treatment Hillary gets due to her private email "scandal" compared to that of General David Petraeus and asks, "Why is Hillary Clinton being held to an obviously different standard than Petraeus?"  Republicans fawn all over him after his illegal behavior but defame her when she has no illegal behavior.

3.  Money -- Hillary has been denigrated for accepting $250,000 speaking fees.  The truth?  "There is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees."  For appearances, Paris Hilton has been paid $750,000; Kylie Jenner, $100,000; and Vanilla Ice, $15,000.  For speaking engagements, the MINIMUM paid by "All American Speakers" who represents Hillary and 135 other people is $200,000.  If the fee drops to $50,000, over 1200 are represented.  Many more are represented by other agencies.  It is not unusual, then, for people to earn high speaker fees.  What is unusual, Arnovitz points out, is for A WOMAN to earn this amount.  Ever hear of Rudy Guiliani and speaking fees he earned in 2007?  Like $700,000 a month; $40 million in the 5 years before his presidential run?  Or Jeb Bush earning millions from paid speeches after leaving Governors office?  Any complaints?

4.  Wall Street -- The implication is that Hillary's highest paid speeches are provided to Wall Street.  In fact, out of 100 speeches she's given since leaving the State Department, only 8 were done for Wall Street at $225,000 each.  That doesn't break her highest paid speeches rate of $275,000 of which 3 were provided to Canada.  Most of her speeches have been to organizations like Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, and even to American Camping Association...  "Does Wall Street have influence over politicians?" Arnovitz asks.  "Of course. It has enormous influence on everyone.  But," he continues, "influence is not the issue.  Whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption is the issue...There is an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander."

There's been a media frenzy over Hillary and her paid speeches.  How does Donald compare?  He has been paid $1.5 million on numerous occasions; has been a proud scam artist with "Trump University" as a prime example; regularly calls Hillary Clinton, "Crooked Hillary and gets away with it.

[These last paragraphs are copied word-for-word from Arnovitz's post.  They speak directly to the issue at hand.  No one could have said it any better.]

"What the actual f... is going on here?  What's going on is what we all know, but mostly don't want to admit:  presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being 'manly' -- physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume.  Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases.  There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard.  And her battle with societal sexism isn't going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama's battle with racism stopped once he was elected.  These are generational issues, and we are who we are.

And, actually, this only makes her victory all the more amazing.  And maybe it's OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments.  In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State.  Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress.  By any objective measure Hillary is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she's one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office.  The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, 'voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.'  [Arnovitz adds more quotes.]

Hillary is nobody's idea of perfect.  Fine.  But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started.  And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they'd be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.

Most of the people who hate Hillary when she's running for office end up liking her just fine once she's won.  And I have every confidence that history will repeat itself again this November.  As for myself, I have been watching Presidential elections since Nixon.  And never in my life has there been an easier or more obvious choice than now.  Trump is not merely a bad choice, he is (as manly leading Republicans have already admitted) a catastrophic choice, unfit in every possible way for the office of the Presidency.  As such, I happily voted for Hillary in my primary.  And I will proudly vote for her in November.  Yes she will disappoint us all on occasion.  Who doesn't?  But I think she's also going to surprise a lot of people  She will fear neither consensus when possible nor ass-kicking when necessary.  She will safeguard us from the damage a right-wing Supreme Court would inflict on the nation.  She will stand for the rights of women, LGBT Americans, and minorities.  She will maintain critical global relationships, and she will react to dangerous situations with the temperament of a seasoned and experienced professional.  And in a nation that didn't even allow women to vote until 1920, she will make history by shattering the very highest glass ceiling, and in doing so forever change the way a generation of young women view their place in our Republic.

She's going to be a fine President.

I'm with her."

As of June 12, 2016, the original Michael Arnovitz Facebook post had 6,143 shares.  The original Facebook post is here:  www.facebook.com/...