PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I am incredulous that Donald Trump is still in the presidential hunt.

All he does is appeal to the worst instincts in citizens as he expresses his own deep-seated racism, his hatred for women, his disdain for immigrants and his inability to put two sentences together in a way that makes sense.

The latter may, in fact, be one of his biggest appeals. He doesn’t even try to answer questions along the campaign trail and only resorts to generalizations that buttress his position as one marketing himself without regard to substance and reality.

Listen to him sometime. I defy you to repeat what he says. Cannot be done.

Referring to when Trump made headlines by questioning one of the initial Republican front-runners, Jeb Bush, columnist Kathleen Parker put it this way:

“Bush’s style isn’t exactly, say, electric, but he does have actual policies in his actual brain to back his campaign points. You may not like or agree with them, but at least there’s something there — a book on immigration, a legislative history on education, a longtime personal relationship with the Hispanic world.

“With Trump it’s all later, baby. Essentially, his motto is: Trust me, I can do this.”

I, for one, refuse to join the Trump bandwagon. Michael Davis, the editor of my hometown newspaper, the Salem Statesman-Journal, had it right a couple days ago when he wrote a piece with the headline

“The case of the loose buffoon running his mouth.”

Mr. Davis intentionally did not mention the name of the buffoon, but he didn’t need to do so. Anyone who read that headline would know that the subject is Donald Trump, who has made a mockery of running for the world’s most important political office, President of the United States.

With kudos to Mr. Davis, here is his column.

“There’s a buffoon on the loose who continues to claim that our country is no longer great.

“This dangerous xenophobe and unrepentant racist would have you believe that our triumphs as a society are all behind us, and that only by electing him to the highest office in the land will we regain our commanding place among free nations.

“What concerns me most about this bully is the lack of proper response to his vitriol and incendiary rabblerousing.

“For months, his accusatory mouth has run wild as his adherents nod their approval, even as the candidate contradicts himself and mouths inanities like all ethnic groups will “love” his presidency. This, as he disparages and defames Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Syrian refugees and basically anyone who isn’t him.

“The nation’s first reality-show presidential candidate is incapable of providing a straight, informed answer to questions of even moderate difficulty. He dodges, weaves, meanders, misdirects and scat sings his way out of responding intelligently.

“Worse, he attacks opponents and critics with schoolyard taunts, as he did when depicting former prisoner of war John McCain as something less than heroic for being captured by the North Vietnamese.

“A few months ago, it occurred to me that this candidate was a modern-day Joe McCarthy, the vicious former senator from Wisconsin responsible for creating one of the blackest marks on our nation’s history. But the person who aspires to lead our nation is much more dangerous and insidious than McCarthy because he seems determined to stir a civil uprising from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

“The candidate is churning up so much hatred and overt bigotry we are at risk of rekindling hostilities between regions of the country that we thought had been put to rest in the 19th century.

“The candidate’s adherents are armed, they are angry and they’re feeling victimized. They’re being driven by emotion, not reason, and they don’t seem to care a whit whether the guy in the red ball cap can provide specifics. That he perpetuates outrageous falsehoods is of no matter. That he is incapable of an apology or even a clarification is of no consequence.

“The candidate is simply a fast-talking salesman, a pitchman, a B.S. artist, a dealmaker in the worst sense.

“Most enraging is his sales pitch that he will singlehandedly “make America great again.”

“Forget for the moment that we already a great country, albeit it with a list of issues we need to improve. That’s been the case since 1776.

“The candidate’s version of greatness is all caught up in “winning,” as if the global stage is just one big wrestling mat, where one combatant is victorious while another slinks away in shame.

“In the candidate’s cartoonish version of humanity’s progress, there are only winners and losers.

“A nation’s greatness has nothing to do with scoreboards and end zone dances.

“Greatness emanates from a nation’s soul, from its willingness to actually follow through on Monday morning on the promises made over the weekend in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of private contemplation where people of conscience gather.

“We are united by the Golden Rule, yet one blustering candidate and his followers are relentlessly turning away from that guiding principle.

“The candidate whose name I can no longer mention – out of revulsion – believes this: Mistreat others and make no apology for doing so.

“Rise up, people of good will and fairness.

“Your silence is exacerbating the problem and slowly spreading another dark blot on our history.”

As Americans, we can do better than Trump and, I add, better than Hillary Clinton who, in her own way, cheapens the political process by her own lack of ethics.

I pine for the day when we will have better choices that reflect more credit on this great country.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it this way recently – and I agree with her:

“We don’t need the drab, manipulative ideological arguments we so often get, and we don’t need the shaming that comes from so much of our political discourse—you’re insensitive, racist, sexist, check your privilege, quit appropriating my culture. We don’t need the two things we so often get from our government and its practitioners, the defensive whine and the impenetrable babble.

“There is a hunger to be reminded we’re all in this together, that this thing we’re all part of is, in fact, a great and noble project.

“We all want to be moved by the public acts of public men and women. We all want to be stirred by the soundtrack of the nation we love. We all want a leader who is equal to the music (which was a reference to her love of instrumental music as she writes).”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Good question.

But I know the answer – and it is yes. Emphatically

I know this because our dog, Hogan, a miniature poodle, not to mention a multi-sport athlete, incurred a torn ACL recently. Yes, a torn ACL, which in the dog business, is called a “cruciate ligament.”

Not quite sure how he did it, other than the report from our very competent dog sitter indicating that, one morning, on a rain-soaked driveway, Hogan slipped and begin limping badly. We were out of town and, when we got the report, we advised our dog sitter to do what she would have done anyway, which is to get an x-ray.

She did and it showed a tear.

When we got home, we arranged for an appointment with a vet surgeon who explained the corrective procedure to us. It would take major surgery to put the two joints in the knee back into alignment, along with insertion of a piece of metal fixed to the leg bone to help the knee heal.

The alternative was not good – let the tear heal on its own, which would not be likely.

We were not sure about whether to proceed with our 11-year-old dog who, as a small dog, probably has five, six or seven good years left in a normal life span.

Eventually, we elected to have the surgery done, so we left him at the vet’s office overnight for the procedure which, by all accounts, went very well, including the fact that he had to be under for the procedure.

But, what was especially tough was the first two weeks after surgery when we had to keep Hogan mostly immobile.   To be sure, he was not inclined to move around much on his recovering leg, but, still, it was up to us to stop any movement.

And, no need to give this too much thought, but immobility included on trips outside in our arms to do “his business.” Enough said.

Let’s just say that, to endure the two-weeks, it was a lot of TV.

Now, we are reaching the end of the third week, with one more week to go before the month-out follow-up visit. After that, we presume Hogan will be allowed to get a little exercise and learn again how to use his now surgically-repaired leg.

All in all, a day in life for dog owners. For us, it was not an easy decision to have the surgery done because it was a major procedure. But one of the factors was NOT how much it would cost. For a member of the family that is not a deterrent. Let’s just say it was a big number.

We have nothing but respect for the surgeon, Dr. Steve Peterson, who works at the VCA Specialty Clinic in Clackamas, Oregon. From the beginning, it was obvious he knew what he was doing, including giving us all the information we needed, but giving us room to make our own decision without any pressure.

He performed the surgery, then gave us his personal cell phone number and said, “Call anytime.” We did and he answered after only a couple rings.

Great professionalism. Great service. And, so far, great result.

And, yes, dogs have knees and tears are one of the most common injuries. Here’s hoping that this is our last one.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It’s strange to imagine anyone feeling a sense of gratitude in pondering John Kitzhaber’s tarnished legacy.

But somewhere down the line – after many years of healing and fading memories – Oregonians may actually thank the former governor for making one particular lasting difference for the better. At least that’s the hope after Gov. Kate Brown recently commissioned a task force of lawmakers, lobbyists an accomplished investigative reporter from The Oregonian, and an Oregon broadcaster to take a closer look at Oregon’s public records law.

It was, after all, Kitzhaber’s questionable dealings with his ever-puzzling fiancée Cylvia Hayes that served as the impetus for revisiting the law. Without the famous scandal that ultimately pushed him out of office amid a criminal investigation – and Kitzhaber’s attempts to block and delay the release of many telling emails – we honestly wouldn’t be at this point.

The crux of the issue is the question of where the balance lies between the public’s right to know what’s going on inside the government and our elected officials’ right to privacy.

Of course, the whole situation is actually driven by the media. If Willamette Week reporter Nigel Jaquiss hadn’t dug into what was going on behind the scenes, the Kitzhaber stories may have never seen the light of day.

Kitzhaber’s story aside, maybe it was just time to take another look at the rules anyway. The Oregon Association of Broadcasters and the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association argue we need to bring order to all of Oregon’s public and private record statutes.

Oregon has a basic public records law with an assumption that everything is public. In the strongest possible terms, all attorneys general in recent memory have advised state officials that they should assume all records are public and that they can be protected only if they qualify under one of the exemptions.

The law was created in 1973, and today it has more than a few dozen exemptions. Many of those are justified, of course, so don’t expect all of them to be stricken from the books. Trade secrets, records pertaining to pending litigation, evidence compiled in an open criminal investigation. All of that is exempt from disclosure under the law, and for good reason.

The increased use of email systems in recent years has made public records issues far more complex since the law’s genesis 42 years ago. In fact, that hits at the central question of the investigation into Kitzhaber and Hayes: Did they use private email systems to conduct public business and then shield the emails from public scrutiny?

As it turns out, news organizations have also played a role in complicating the public records issue. Occasionally, reporters make blanket requests for access to email records over a long period of time, which only adds to the government’s difficulty in complying.

But of course, no matter where you stand on the question of the effectiveness of the law, there’s no denying that without a solid system of public access to government records, democracy suffers.

[My colleague at CFM Strategic Communications, Justin Runquist, wrote this piece on public records, with an assist from me. Thus, he deserves the major credit for this analysis.  This piece also appeared in the Salem StatesmanJournal on November 20.]

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a press secretary for an Oregon Congressman in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

It’s been several weeks since the Department of Peeves was open for business, so, as the department’s director, I say it’s time to throw wide the doors and outline a few additional pet peeves.

1. Using nouns used as verbs

Here are a few examples:

• Partner is a noun, not a verb. So, it is wrong to say that “I intend to partner with someone.” It is right to say, “I intend to be a partner with someone.”

• Catalyst also is a noun. But I have a former partner who coined a word, which I have seen a few times since and which always hurts the ear. It is “catalyze.” Frankly, it’s not a word.

• Or, how about a word that sticks closer to home for me – golf. It is a noun describing a game to which I have become addicted over about 30 years. It is not a verb. Thus, what some golf commentators say – “It’s time for the player to golf his ball.” – sounds crazy.

• My wife has another example, frankly one she likes. In a poem by Dylan Thomas, A Child’s Christmas in Wales, Thomas writes this – “The postman mittened on the door.” Sure, it communicates – a muffled knock, but using the noun “mitten” as a verb? I say no.

2. Splitting infinitives

I know many readers don’t share my concern. But, consider this example. “The athlete was inspired to quickly run to the tape.” It would be stronger to write this, “The athlete was spired to run quickly to the tape.”

3. Requiring singular verbs with singular subjects

There is a change I think should be made in correct sentence construction. It deals with the awkward construction that, under current rules, requires a singular verb when the subject is singular. Being correct sounds awful.

Here is an example. In a paid advertisement from Chipotle founder Steve Ells (after many customers got sick after visiting the restaurants), a sentence read like this: “We have also confirmed that none of our employees in these restaurants have E. coli.” The sentence should have read – none of our employees has E. coli.

In a story about the New York attorney general’s initiative to shut down two daily fantasy sport gaming sites, the Wall Street Journal wrote this: “A handful of other states have previously said fantasy sports amounts to gambling and isn’t allowed.”

The word in bold should have been has, modifying the singular subject, “a handful.” As I wrote above, being accurate sounds awful, so I would recommend changing the construction to allow the plural verb in such cases.

Or, consider the use of the word “none,” as in, “None of the participants are enjoying the meeting.” The word should be is, but, again, it hurts the ear.

4. Using centered around

The correct phrase would be centered on. Literally, it is not possible to center around something.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, this was the sentence – “An insider trading investigation centered around a possible leak of government got a boost…” It should have been centered on.

That’s enough for now. But, as the above shows, there were a few reasons why I opened the Department of Pet Peeves again today.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

One of the big risks in writing a blog like this – a focus on words, including errors in writing – is the fact that you may make new mistakes even as you point out old ones. But this is a risk worth running for me because I am one of those persons who believes that words – including using the right ones – carry great power.

Sometimes the wrong words arise because of typos. Sometimes they are misspellings that a computer program doesn’t catch. Sometimes they convey impressions when they should be neutral. And sometimes they are just plain the wrong word.

It’s always especially difficult when the mistake changes the meaning. Consider one of the mistakes I make repeatedly. It is to use — or at least type — the word now when I mean the word not, or the reverse. This may be because the “w” and “t” letters are fairly close on the laptop keyboard. Or, it may be, as they would say in tennis, that I am committing an unforced error.

If you write this sentence, Jeb Bush says is will now run for president, you mean what it says…Mr. Bush will run. But what if you meant to use the word “not.” The meaning would be reversed. I have made that mistake often more than I care to admit, though not in relation to Mr. Bush.

Or, a mistake many of us have made is to want to use the word “public,” but then leave out the “l.” Not good.

In fact, as I began writing this blog several months ago, I made that mistake in the introduction that runs every time I post a piece. Fortunately, one of my friends caught the mistake and, said, in effect, “Hey Fiskum, get your act together.”

I did in that blog intro and will continue to do so in other pieces – or at least try to do so.

To make a different point about words, consider the impression that could be conveyed by certain ones used in the news media business. How about the word “admitted,” as in this example? The state official admitted that things had gone poorly in the administration of the state program.

The word “admitted” connotes that the individual being quoted was trying to hide something and only “admitted” the problems when caught trying to hide or under pressure from a reporter. If that’s the way it was, so be it.

If not, how about the word “said,” which is clearly more neutral? Perhaps the manager was simply volunteering to identify something he or she had determined to be a mistake.

Or consider the word “defends.” This was the headline in a hill.com post the other day involving new House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Ryan Defends Open Process in Spending Fight.”

Perhaps the word was right because the Speaker might have been coming under attack from members of his own party for opening up the budget-making process to a series of what were called “tough votes.” Thus, he was “defending” his new process.

But, if he was just explaining the new process, why not use that word — “explains” – as in “Ryan Explains Open Process in Spending Fight.” Again, a different impression, one more neutral, is conveyed.

In writing all of this, am I being too defensive myself? Perhaps. But the point is that when such words as “admitted” and “defends” are used so frequently, the impression remains that every issue mentioned by someone being quoted is a matter of substantial contention.

For my part, I vote for neutrality – or at least understanding the impression conveyed by using certain words that don’t convey neutrality. And I also vote for trying hard to use the right words as they convey the power of thoughts.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

That title of the television show crossed my mind last week as I joined my daughter-in-law Holly Fiskum to help teach her fifth grade class at Schirle School here in Salem, Oregon.

My assignment, one I accepted eagerly, was to help the class “Understand More About Government,” based, I suppose, on my 40 years of experience with the subject. I spent two years as a city-county government reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon, The Daily Astorian; 15 years as a government manager, both in Washington, D.C. and in Salem; and 25 years as a state lobbyist.

But, as is the case with many of these assignments, I learned as much from the students in the class as they learned from me. These fifth graders impressed me with their interest and enthusiasm, as well as their awareness of political life around them, including the presidential election.

They won’t be able to vote for about eight more years, but, if they were voting today, they would clearly fall into the camp of “informed voters.” Most of the class, for instance, watched the most recent Republican presidential debate and began forming views on the candidates based on what they saw and heard.

Before one of my class days this week, I was told that the students could name the presidents of this country in order, from George Washington to Barack Obama. I found that hard to believe, especially because I could not manage the feat, so I asked Holly about it before the class last Thursday.

She answered the question by showing, not telling. As the class started, she began playing music and, as all 27 students marched in to take their seats, they sang all of the names from Washington to Obama. Some of the students danced to the tune as they sang.

Impressive! A tribute to the kids, as well as to the teacher who has special abilities to help kids learn and have fun doing so.

On to one other point which impressed me – and from which I learned more than I knew going in.

As we talked about the presidential election, one young girl raised her hand in the back of the room and asked this question: “Can an adopted person run for and become president?”

At that moment, I was smart enough to thank her for the question, but said I would get back to her the next day with the answer. Glad I did because, first, I was not sure of the answer and, second, the answer is a bit complicated.

Here it is as best I can recount from my on-line research, including with words from Harvard University law professors:

• If the adopted person was born in the United States, then the answer is, clearly, yes. That person is a “natural born United States citizen” and, thus, able to run for president after he or she reaches the age of 35 and has been a resident of this country for 14 years, which are the qualifications to be president (though being smart and having access to money seem to be two other important “qualifications”).

• If the adopted person was born outside this country, then adopted by two “natural born U.S. parents,” it is likely that the individual would not be able to serve as president because he or she would not meet the “natural born” test. It is possible that a future court could rule that such an adoptee could, by virtue of the adoption, be considered a U.S. citizen, go through the naturalization process and, thus, be allowed to run for president. Still, the best answer, based on available evidence and the apparent lack of a court decision directly on point, is that the adoptee could not serve as president.

• If the adopted person was born outside this country, then adopted by parents who were not “natural born U.S. citizens,” that person would not meet the qualifications to be president.

In all of this, there are still issues that have not been resolved legally, in part because they have not necessarily been ripe for a court challenge or a court decision, nor do they deal directly or with adoption issues per se.

In one case, for instance, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, now running for the Republican nomination to be president, was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father (in other words, he was not adopted).  The senator formally renounced his Canadian citizenship last year, and at first blush, it appears he meets the qualifications to be president, though, if he were to win, there might be a legal challenge on this question – is it enough for a person to have one U.S. citizen parent, or must it be both parents?

My view? He meets the qualifications, a tentative judgment I render without regard to party affiliation or personal preferences.

In another case, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate four years ago, was born on a military base in Panama in 1936. His parents were “natural born” U.S. citizens. Some people argued that McCain was not eligible to be president, but, when he lost the 2008 election, the question never ended up going to court. Harvard law professors have said the question was resolved because (a) it is stupid to believe that “a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as president because or she was delivered at a hospital abroad,” and (b) Congress ruled that McCain was eligible to serve before he ran in (and lost) the election.

My assumption is the same — with two U.S. citizen parents, McCain would have been eligible if he had won the office.

As you can see, I learned more about this than I knew otherwise – and all because a very bright 5^th grader asked a good question. I found out that she had been adopted from China, so it was clear she was asking, at least partially, on her own behalf – can I be president one day? In her case, I suspect the answer is no, though eventually a court might be asked to rule on that specific question.

To me, this episode suggests that learning should be a life-long pursuit. The fifth graders I have been meeting with over the last few days are starting enthusiastically down that road with initiative and interest.

With an assist from these fifth graders, I continued my own lifelong learning march last week.

[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

That title of the television show crossed my mind last week as I joined my daughter-in-law Holly Fiskum to help teach her fifth grade class at Schirle School here in Salem, Oregon.

My assignment, one I accepted eagerly, was to help the class “Understand More About Government,” based, I suppose, on my 40 years of experience with the subject. I spent two years as a city-county government reporter for a daily newspaper in Oregon, The Daily Astorian; 15 years as a government manager, both in Washington, D.C. and in Salem; and 25 years as a state lobbyist.

But, as is the case with many of these assignments, I learned as much from the students in the class as they learned from me. These fifth graders impressed me with their interest and enthusiasm, as well as their awareness of political life around them, including the presidential election.

They won’t be able to vote for about eight more years, but, if they were voting today, they would clearly fall into the camp of “informed voters.” Most of the class, for instance, watched the most recent Republican presidential debate and began forming views on the candidates based on what they saw and heard.

Before one of my class days this week, I was told that the students could name the presidents of this country in order, from George Washington to Barack Obama. I found that hard to believe, especially because I could not manage the feat, so I asked Holly about it before the class last Thursday.

She answered the question by showing, not telling. As the class started, she began playing music and, as all 27 students marched in to take their seats, they sang all of the names from Washington to Obama. Some of the students danced to the tune as they sang.

Impressive! A tribute to the kids, as well as to the teacher who has special abilities to help kids learn and have fun doing so.

On to one other point which impressed me – and from which I learned more than I knew going in.

As we talked about the presidential election, one young girl raised her hand in the back of the room and asked this question: “Can an adopted person run for and become president?”

At that moment, I was smart enough to thank her for the question, but said I would get back to her the next day with the answer. Glad I did because, first, I was not sure of the answer and, second, the answer is a bit complicated.

Here it is as best I can recount from my on-line research, including with words from Harvard University law professors:

• If the adopted person was born in the United States, then the answer is, clearly, yes. That person is a “natural born United States citizen” and, thus, able to run for president after he or she reaches the age of 35 and has been a resident of this country for 14 years, which are the qualifications to be president (though being smart and having access to money seem to be two other important “qualifications”).

• If the adopted person was born outside this country, then adopted by two “natural born U.S. parents,” it is likely that the individual would not be able to serve as president because he or she would not meet the “natural born” test. It is possible that a future court could rule that such an adoptee could, by virtue of the adoption, be considered a U.S. citizen, go through the naturalization process and, thus, be allowed to run for president. Still, the best answer, based on available evidence and the apparent lack of a court decision directly on point, is that the adoptee could not serve as president.

• If the adopted person was born outside this country, then adopted by parents who were not “natural born U.S. citizens,” that person would not meet the qualifications to be president.

In all of this, there are still issues that have not been resolved legally, in part because they have not necessarily been ripe for a court challenge or a court decision.

In one case, for instance, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, now running for the Republican nomination to be president, was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father. The senator formally renounced his Canadian citizenship last year, and at first blush, it appears he meets the qualifications to be president, though, if he were to win, there might be a legal challenge on this question – is it enough for an adopted person to have one U.S. citizen parent, or must it be both parents?

My view? He meets the qualifications, a tentative judgment I render without regard to party affiliation or personal preferences.

In another case, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate four years ago, was born on a military base in Panama in 1936. His parents were “natural born” U.S. citizens. Some people argued that McCain was not eligible to be president, but, when he lost the 2008 election, the question never ended up going to court. Harvard law professors have said the question was resolved because (a) it is stupid to believe that “a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as president because or she was delivered at a hospital abroad,” and (b) Congress ruled that McCain was eligible to serve before he ran in (and lost) the election.

My assumption is the same — with two U.S. citizen parents, McCain would have been eligible if he had won the office.

There are two other adoption for president cases in the past – George Romney in 1968 and Lowell Weicker in 1980, but it is likely both have been ruled eligible to serve had they won.

As you can see, I learned more about this than I knew otherwise – and all because a very bright 5^th grader asked a good question. I found out that she had been adopted from China, so it was clear she was asking, at least partially, on her own behalf – can I be president one day? In her case, I suspect the answer is no, though eventually a court might be asked to rule on that specific question.

To me, this episode suggests that learning should be a life-long pursuit. The fifth graders I have been meeting with over the last few days are starting enthusiastically down that road with initiative and interest.

With an assist from these fifth graders, I continued my own lifelong learning march last week.