Blank Genealogy

David:
You've done considerable genealogy work on the Blank family, and both of us have collected a great deal of momentos from the family. I thought we might discuss some of our history, and how others might investigate their own family heritage in this week's blog.

After all, who you are can often depend on to whom you're related to.

Doug:
True, genealogy is a favorite hobby of mine. Although there are lots of places you can pay to sign up to connect to genealogies created by others, I have never paid for online genealogy services. I see lots of bad information on the web.

I use (and work on) a free and open source program called Gramps, available for free from gramps-project.org. It doesn't help with research directly, but is a program for you to use on your own computer to record the conclusions of your research.

David:
What do you think of websites like Ancestors.com?

Doug:
Wouldn't touch it. Rather, I'd go to the library. The internet can be a good way to find hints, or to make connections with other researchers, though. The picture below is of the trunk that our Blank ancestors brought with them from Germany, stamped (inset) with the region's name (Urloffen). I did find an online community of people discussing this region.

David:
I'd add that you spent a considerable amount of time just talking to many of our relatives. The Blank family is fairly large (Dad was one of seven children, and our grandpa was one of eight). Many of those relatives stayed close by. Close enough for you to be able to interview them extensively for nuggets of information about the family, and where many branches lead. Older relatives are a wealth of knowledge that cannot be obtained any other way. It's one thing to identify a name, but it's something else altogether to hear stories of their lives, and funny or interesting things they did.

Doug:
One of the surprising things I found was that it was easier tracing some of our female ancestors (even though they almost always changed their names when they got married). I would have thought that that would make them hard to track, but not necessarily so. It also helped that our grandmother's family (Scott and Cooper) and her ancestors were well connected in politics.

It is often convenient to think of this as the "Blank" genealogy, but the truth is that at every generation we are merging two complete family trees. We just happened to end up with the surname "Blank."

David:
I particularly like the number of names one of our ancestors had, on Mom's side of the family tree (The Bamfords). Her name was Mary Sarah Elizabeth Jane Edna Tina Margaret Francis Fortney Wheeldon. It seems her folks couldn't decide on a middle name.  Interestingly (and ironically),  she went by "Tiny".  According to the story from Granny Bamford, it's because they pronounced the name Tina as "Tie-nah".

Doug:
I couldn't verify all of those names, but I did find her (she is our great great grandmother) listed as Tina Frances Fortney, and she did marry Jonathan Wheeldon, so it generally matches.

One thing I have enjoyed is finding items created by our ancestors. For example, here is a painting made by our great grandmother on our father's side, Lucinda (Lucy) Cooper:

I imagine that it was the scene of her Indiana home, but don't know. I find it very beautiful and serene.

David:
Some might find it interesting that four generations of Blank's have graduated from the same High School, Ben Davis H.S. although none of them had classes in the same building. Here's the letter sweaters that belong to me, Dad, and Papa Blank (all size 38).

Doug:
I was surprised to find that we have had a couple of distant relatives teach at Bryn Mawr College before me:

Paul Leland Hayworth - was the sibling of the wife of a first cousin, three times removed from us. Pretty remote, but did teach History at Bryn Mawr College in 1910, and served in the Indiana House of Representatives in the 1920s.

Woodrow Wilson - had a daughter that was briefly married to a Cooper. Precisely, he was the father of a wife (briefly) to a first cousin five times removed from us. He was the first professor of History at Bryn Mawr College in 1885. He left Bryn Mawr because he said that he found the female students "too literal and unimaginative." Obviously, he was not a good fit for the all-women's college, to say the least. Of course, he was also President of the U.S. for a time. Recently, his legacy has been re-examined because of his racist views. In fact, a new exhibit opens this week at Princeton examining his legacy.

David:
Not to diverge too far off topic, but it may be true that women at Bryn Mawr in 1885 were, in fact, too literal and unimaginative compared to college men of the time period. And, I'd bet that most of the faculty of most American colleges and universities of that time period believed that minorities were mentally inferior to white folks.  But beliefs change, and so do people.

Doug:
Deciding to go to a brand new college? I think those women were brave. Regarding racism, I think you mean that racist views were more generally accepted then than they are now.

David:
Racist views were actually supported by some of the sciences of the era. I'm also certain that these scientists considered the science "settled" and beyond debate. I think this supports  my take that you should not judge the motives and actions of our ancestors through the lens of today's paradigms, and it also supports my view that social sciences and psychology can sometimes be directed through a prism of current ideologies, rather than hard data like other sciences. Caution should be used with Social studies and the "truths" they decree.

Now, back on topic, we also had an ancestor who attended Bryn Mawr College as a student. The little girl in the far left of this photo of a Blank family gathering (1923) is  Francis Blank. She became an "owl" in later years.

Talking about ancestors, we would be remiss not to mention a not too distant relative through marriage,  well-known author Kurt Vonnegut. And at one time (before a divorce), we were also related to Geraldo Rivera. Which just goes to show you that with enough digging, you never know who may turn up swinging in your family tree.

Doug:
Indeed, Kurt Vonnegut was one of my favorite relatives! He was our third cousin once removed. I felt that I had a real connection with his perspectives on life, and a deep appreciate for his sense of humor. By the way, it was Kurt's daughter who was briefly married to Geraldo. Well, we all make mistakes.

David:
But, the Blank's have not moved very far from our family's original American roots, have we? The first Blank's who immigrated from Germany settled in Wayne Township, Indiana. They came up the Mississippi River from the port  of New Orleans. The George Blank farm can be seen in early Indiana maps at the Indiana Historical Society. Several of us still live within 20 miles of that original farm.

Doug:
Some of you haven't moved very far. But there are some of us that have gone out into the world.

David:
But that's how it is with many families.  Some stay put, and others plant roots in new locations.

I note a new version of the book Roots, by Alex Haley, is being filmed for release soon. This will likely create a whole new interest in genealogy. It's important to learn as much about your family's history as you can. Spend time with your relatives, and discover interesting stories about your relatives, past and present. With the resources we have today, it's easier than ever to record all of these amazing, humorous, and cultural stories for future generations.

Is it Time for a Third (or Forth) Party?

David:
In the Republican ranks, there is now talk of a third party candidate rising, to supposedly save the day. That would likely hand the keys to the White House back to the Clinton's, but the question I pose to you today is this: Is it time for more than just the two-party system we currently have?

Doug:
There are lots of different ways to organize political parties. I'm not sure that just adding another party would do what you want. Wouldn't a Libertarian party split the Republican party in two?

But anything that helps bring compromise to the current congress, I'd be in favor of. That might include lots of variations on the current dominate political platforms.

David:
It's more than just organizing, but that's part of it. Many folks I know are Libertarians, but there is also the Constitution Party and the Green Party, which are well established. For many, the assumption has been that to vote for one of these alternate party candidates is to "waste" a vote on someone who can't win. Ralph Nader was the standard bearer for the Green Party, was was a poor candidate. But the time may be right for a strong, well-spoken candidate from a third party to gain some momentum.

As to Libertarians taking votes from one party or another, they generally are fiscally conservative and support limited government, but socially agnostic (based on the idea government should not be involved with social issues), so depending on what issues are at the forefront of the debate, they would gain support from both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Doug:
That is exactly what I like about Libertarians... they don't find themselves agreeing with everything in a party's platform. Actually, that is what I like about Democrats, too. The Democratic Party really is a big tent.

David:
Not big enough. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about third or forth parties filling in gaps.

Doug:
(Where the Libertarians go off the rails is when they abandon support for social services, such as sewer and water systems. Also, the idea that social justice can be solved by economic pressure has been shown to not work.)

David:
I think my Libertarian friends might disagree with you.

Doug:
I'm sure they do think that they stay on the rails.

David:
"Libertarianism" is a bit of an umbrella term that covers a lot of various degrees of their over riding theme: Liberty. The one idea that holds them together is freedom from government, and freedom of choice and determination. Bigger government invariably infringes on personal liberty.

Fifteen years ago, a Yale graduate student got fed up with the politics of the day, and started the "free-state project":

https://freestateproject.org

This project is designed to get 20,000 Libertarians to all move to New Hampshire, and then to elect candidates  to essentially create their own enclave of government, a "free" state. They are approaching the 20,000 mark, and have already elected their own to numerous local and state positions. In a way, this is very similar to the Mormons of Utah.

Doug:
I completely agree that we need more organized forces in politics, and that the dual, monolithic party's days are over. But that doesn't mean that we can't have our two-party system. It just means that we need to break up the stranglehold that the two establishments have in running the parties. Perhaps this is the one (and only) good thing to come out of Trump's candidacy: he has shaken up the establishment.

David:
Speaking of stranglehold, yesterday the Democratic Party was asking Sanders to bow out, in the name of party unity.  The argument is that he cannot get enough delegates to win the race. But the reality is that Sanders has won as many popular votes as Clinton has. If the system were not rigged with "super delegates", that are all bought and paid for by the Clinton elites, Sanders would be tied, or even leading Clinton.

Doug:
Our election system is designed in a similar way---by the founding fathers, no less. We still have the electoral college, for example, that works in an almost identical way. Are you claiming that the founding fathers had this all wrong?

David:
The delegate system for determining the party candidates was not developed by the founders, silly boy. The Constitution says nothing about political parties. The delegates, how they're selected, and how they vote (and how they may change their votes on subsequent  ballots), are all determined by their respective state parties.

So, for example, the Democrats have set up a system of super-delegates (party insiders) who have no allegiance to the popular vote at all. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have a system where the popular vote dictates the voting of the delegates to the nominating convention, at least for the first round of voting. The possible lack of a decisive winner in the delegate race will lead to a convention where the candidates and party bosses will try to sway delegates to their side, to decide who will carry the banner.

Doug:
That will only be true if Trump doesn't win outright.

David:
Right. If that scenario plays out, then in both cases (Democrat and Republican), the popular vote will have minimal impact on who will eventually be the party nominee. This is worse on the Democratic side, where half of the delegates have no loyalty to the voter's will right from the start, but has not had much coverage by the media, who likely want to hide a divided party from view.

Doug:
If this is true, than you'd have to admit that the popular vote has minimal impact on who will be president, right? In fact, this has happened in the 2000 election. Are you arguing that Al Gore should have been president?

David:
Heavens no! You're talking about an entirely different system here, the electoral college. I'm talking about the selection of party delegates to the nominating conventions.

Doug:
So you are saying that it is ok to win the popular vote and not win the presidency, but that same standard should not be used in the primaries?

David:
The electoral college, as you mentioned, is defined by the constitution. The rules governing that process are much different. The 2000 election court case was about how to determine the counting of ballots (and introduced the words "hanging chad" to the lexicon).  But we can blog about that when the candidates are finally selected. The electoral college process is greatly misunderstood by many folks.

Doug:
The Democratic party is a divided party by definition! Try to find two democrats that agree on anything. And why would "the media" be conspirators in this great plan to hide that obvious fact?

David:
Please. The media is overwhelmingly controlled by Democratic members and supporters. Here's a study done at our Alma Mater, Indiana University, that found only 7% of journalists align as Republicans.

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

Doug:
I would think that most journalists don't let their party affiliation cloud their ethics, let alone dictate that they should conspire to hide the fact that the Democratic party is fairly diverse group of people. Besides, only 28% of journalists identify as Democratic.

David:
As it has become obvious that most reporters are Democrats, the trend over the past few years has been for journalists to declare themselves "independent".

Doug:
I'm sure you can obviously tell a reporter is secretly a Democrat. I've heard of gay-dar, but not demo-dar.

David:
However, data indicates they still donate their cash to Democrats, whether they admit they're Democrat or not.  Another blog idea?

Doug:
Again, I suspect that most journalists have ethics---rules prohibiting contributions.

David:
You would suspect wrongly. Tell that to George Stephanopoulos.

But as you mentioned, both parties have a variety of opinions within them, on a wide variety of issues. The tea party caucus has shown that a group of elected officials can direct the discussion. And the Libertarians of New Hampshire have shown you can make changes to government by electing like-minded individuals in local races. There certainly seems to be room, and some momentum, for splinter groups and new party alliances to develop.

March Madness and Title IX

David:
As we enjoy the thrill of the NCAA college basketball tourney, I thought we might reflect on how Title IX, which was designed to increase opportunities for women in higher education, has been misused to eliminate some men's athletic programs, and now is leading to the expulsion of young men across the country from college without due process.

Doug:
March madness... that's basketball, right? I don't really know very much about Title IX, or any Titles for that matter. How has it been misused?

David:
Wow.

Of course, you do work at an all-girls school, so the impacts of Title IX have less of an impact for you, so I'll give you a slight pass. However....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Title IX was introduced in the Senate in 1972 by Indiana's then-senator Birch Bayh. The intention was to eliminate discrimination against women in higher education. But the wording in the bill has allowed the Department of Education to extend the original intent to encompass a great many things that were unintended. (No surprise  there. A government bill that is poorly written, that depends on a government agency to regulate the bill, that then has unintended consequences. And history repeats itself....)

Doug:
I work at an "all-women's college." How do you know what was intended when the bill was written? Perhaps this was the intention. I haven't read any bills, so I have no idea what a poorly written one would look like.

David:
I'd describe an all-male school as "all-boys", so, no slight is intended unless you're looking to be offended.

Doug:
That isn't how offending slights work, but do continue.

David:
I know what was intended because Congress had many committee meetings and conferences delineating exactly what they intended. College sports was one concern that was addressed. However, once the bill was passed, the Department of Education decided sports should be included anyway. The language of the bill was not specific enough to reign in the regulations, so that is why I say the bill was poorly written. This is what it actually says:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

The language sounds simple enough, but was used by the Department of Education (DoE) to extend it's reach into areas that were specifically to be off-limits in the bill.

Doug:
There goes those inanimate government agencies "reaching" again... They do a lot of that in your imagination. How does one know what is "off-limits in the bill"?

David:
When a bill is "open-ended" like this one, it can be hard to tell. That's why the trend during the last few decades of allowing employees at various agencies to create regulations, instead of writing specific language into legislation, is lazy legislation, and can lead to many unintended consequences. These agencies are not "inanimate". They are made up of many people, some with agendas, and almost all un-elected and unaccountable.

Doug: 
Is that "agencies are people, too, my friend." ? Channeling Mitt?


David:
College athletics, which was supposed to be excused from Title IX, was the first victim of Title IX.

Doug:
Victim? Wow, I really should know about this! Victims! Wait... college athletics is another inanimate agency.

David:
Because of the wording of the regulations, there needs to be equity of access to sports for women and men. Because you can't make women get in involved in sports if they don't want to be involved, this parity rule ended up causing colleges and universities to cancel men's programs. Men's soccer, track and field, cross-country, and gymnastics have all been eliminated at schools across the country. Women do have more opportunities for sports than before, but some of it has been at the expense of men's programs.

Doug:
Ok, that all sounds great. What is the problem?

David:
Let's say that schools need to have the same percentage of women in science courses as they do men. As many women do not choose to major in these sciences, the correlation to our discussion would be for schools to limit how many men can enroll in these classes. That isn't right. The goal is to eliminate barriers for women, not to punish men. But that is how the Left works: Don't focus on opportunity, but make sure the outcomes are equal.

Doug: 
That would be great to require that all schools have the same percentages of men and women in all classrooms across the board. That would go a long way to making things fair.

David:
I'm surprised you have not heard of the hundreds of investigations that are now ongoing across the US of sexual assaults on campus. This is the new territory the DoE is expanding into, under a new interpretation of Title IX.

Doug:
I have heard much about sexual assaults on campuses.

David:
Young men are accused of sexual assault, and then expelled from colleges and universities without trial, or without evidence of wrongdoing. This is being done due to pressure from the federal government. Perhaps you just were unaware that all of this is based on the Department of Education's directives under the guise of Title IX?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/education-department-power-grabs-criticized-congress

Doug:
I think you meant to say "boys" to be parallel with "girls"... unless there is some implicit bias going on. Whoa... that is some mighty opinionated writing! You do realize that that is commentary, not a news story right? And the links in it are to other commentary from right-wing writers?

David:
You can find articles explaining the "Dear Colleague..." letters that were sent out by the DoE all over the internet.

Doug:
I can only find cat videos all over the internet.

David:
These letters mandate that colleges have to act as courts, or lose funding and face fines. Perhaps left-wingers celebrate skipping the courts (and all of that mumbo-jumbo about evidence or proof), and just go straight to a verdict of "guilty", which is what is now happening.

Here is a very nice post that explains how the new "rules" impacted  the University of North Carolina:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/24/ocr-dear-colleague-letter-prompts-big-change-sexual-assault-hearings-unc

The schools are also at risk when they act, as these  expulsions of exclusively male students are now being successfully challenged in courts, with big financial penalties being paid out by the schools.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/28/court-rules-u-kansas-cant-expel-students-over-remarks-twitter-made-campus

Doug:
I'm trying to understand what you are upset about. Is it that people should always be able to defend themselves before being found guilty? That sounds like a fine principle to defend. Sexual assault is a terrible crime, and should be prosecuted by the law, not handled by colleges. However, proving sexual assault in a court of law may be difficult. Colleges and universities may be in a tough place between protecting people from sexual assault, and protecting the innocent from false accusations.

David:
That is exactly my point. The Department of Education's mandates have now put colleges in a position where they must act as a court, jury, and judge, but they are not allowed to function in the manner of a court. Sexual assault is a crime, and should be handled by the legal system, not the educational system. Using Title IX to try to force colleges to perform in this way is wrong.

Doug:
Sexual assault is a sensitive issue. If you want to work with me to find better ways of making college campuses less dangerous for women, count me in!

Regarding the "mean tweets"... I would kick any student out of my school if they were saying mean things about another student. At Bryn Mawr College, we have an honor code, and I suspect that such actions would be grounds for expulsion.

David:
Right. And who gets to decide what is "mean"? If I say your argument is "ridiculous", could I get expelled? If I say your argument is "moronic", could I get expelled for being too mean? There is the First Amendment, which protects all speech, not just flowery compliments.

Doug:
You don't have a first amendment right to go to college, unfortunately. At Bryn Mawr College, a student would turn herself in for such a violation. In any event, I don't see that Title IX has much to do with this, except for generating the motivation for helping solve the problem of sexual assaults. That is good, right?

David:
Once again, you prove my point. Title IX should not have anything to do with any of this. If the Department of Education wants to highlight sexual assaults in higher education, they should do that through educational programs. Using fines or loss of funding to force schools to act as a court of law is placing schools in a "tough place" for sure. Using it to eliminate opportunities in sports for men is also wrong.

Doug:
You mean "boys." Those poor boys. They already have far more opportunities than the girls, but they want all of the opportunities.

David:
But when Congressmen and women leave decision making up to government agencies, instead of taking responsibility for the language of the bills themselves, unintended consequences follow.