Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:
Up here on the computer, listening to some TV show, purportedly a more cerebral one, that K is watching, I heard..."General George McClellan, a great World War 2 hero...." It took a second or two to shake off the cobwebs, but, one, he wasn't a "WW2" figure and, two, he wasn't a "hero."
McClellan was the commander of the Union forces in the Civil War. He was appointed, dismissed, and appointed a second time. Hmmm, Civil War or World War 2? What's the difference? A lot of people died...get over it. (Yes, that's a snide, caustic, and sarcastic comment based on how one teacher cover(s)(ed) the Civil War.)
McClellan was hardly a "hero." In fact, someone might make the case that he was a traitor, in that he aided and abetted the enemy. I don't think he was overtly treasonous; he was just egotistical to the extreme. Like many of today's "anointed" politicians and academics, he knew what was best, better than anyone else possible could. He was a good organizer and a good defensive general, but he didn't like to fight. Isn't that a great quality for a general leading troops in war? His dalliance, his proclivity for vastly overestimating the size of Lee's and other Confederate generals' armies (he had to know he was doing that, didn't he?), and his unwillingness to engage the Rebs likely extended the war, causing how many more deaths?
How could someone make such a mistake?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Where Have All the Adults Gone?
An author has posed this question, "Where have all the grown-ups gone?" It is her suggestion that we no longer have any adults, that they have abdicated their responsibilities. It's an interesting thesis.
From the 1950s and 1960s, we've had more and more "toys," not little kid ones, but those for adults. The post-WW2 prosperity and lower costs made, first, televisions, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. affordable. These "toys" began to occupy the thinking, the time of adults. No longer could they be bothered with things, trivial things, such as what's happening to our government, to our culture. There were important things to consider, important things like television, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. Of course, as the decades passed, more toys occupied more time of more people--these toys also became more important. Color television, computers, cell phones, and now all the attachments (blueberries, whatever they are!)....
Consider these Presidents: FDR (although I'm no fan of his, I reluctantly admit his significance), Truman, Eisenhower (yes and I can make a strong case for his inclusion). Then consider their successors, right up to the present. None of them belong in the same room with FDR, HST, DDE (although, I suppose, Reagan could be included). Why is that? Why have we had such lousy Presidents (or good Presidents who did too many lousy things?)?
Of course, you might say, "Why did you start with FDR in returning to yesteryear?" (thank you Lone Ranger!) Good question and it helps make my point. At the turn of the century we had TR, Taft (OK, but no great shakes), Wilson. Most consider them pretty good Presidents. We were paying attention. Whoa, but what about Harding, Coolidge (and I'm nearly as hard on Cool Cal as most historians; he was better than they say), and Hoover? Right! And what did the '20s, "The Roaring '20s," bring? Yep, more "toys" in the presence of radio, movies (and the talkies), phonographs, cars that were affordable, etc. The Depression took away many of those toys. People didn't have the diversions.
Hmmm. It's an interesting thesis and more can be said about it and my brief analysis of it here. I haven't really had time to think more about it. But I like it at face value.... It explains a lot of what is happening today.
Remember the Dutchman, "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to spend any time defending it."
From the 1950s and 1960s, we've had more and more "toys," not little kid ones, but those for adults. The post-WW2 prosperity and lower costs made, first, televisions, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. affordable. These "toys" began to occupy the thinking, the time of adults. No longer could they be bothered with things, trivial things, such as what's happening to our government, to our culture. There were important things to consider, important things like television, sporty cars, leisure boats, etc. Of course, as the decades passed, more toys occupied more time of more people--these toys also became more important. Color television, computers, cell phones, and now all the attachments (blueberries, whatever they are!)....
Consider these Presidents: FDR (although I'm no fan of his, I reluctantly admit his significance), Truman, Eisenhower (yes and I can make a strong case for his inclusion). Then consider their successors, right up to the present. None of them belong in the same room with FDR, HST, DDE (although, I suppose, Reagan could be included). Why is that? Why have we had such lousy Presidents (or good Presidents who did too many lousy things?)?
Of course, you might say, "Why did you start with FDR in returning to yesteryear?" (thank you Lone Ranger!) Good question and it helps make my point. At the turn of the century we had TR, Taft (OK, but no great shakes), Wilson. Most consider them pretty good Presidents. We were paying attention. Whoa, but what about Harding, Coolidge (and I'm nearly as hard on Cool Cal as most historians; he was better than they say), and Hoover? Right! And what did the '20s, "The Roaring '20s," bring? Yep, more "toys" in the presence of radio, movies (and the talkies), phonographs, cars that were affordable, etc. The Depression took away many of those toys. People didn't have the diversions.
Hmmm. It's an interesting thesis and more can be said about it and my brief analysis of it here. I haven't really had time to think more about it. But I like it at face value.... It explains a lot of what is happening today.
Remember the Dutchman, "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to spend any time defending it."
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Education
Boy, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have it right on education!!!! Why is it nobody listens to them, preferring the "psychobabble" of the education-types (I say that in the most pejorative sense, of course!) and administrators? Williams and Sowell make all kinds of sense.
Read the latest column from Williams: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/12/23/black_education
Note what he says about schools of education, which, in my experience, is right on the money. I know people will scoff, not really arguing against what I say, just scoffing as if I can't be taken seriously, but student-teaching is a big scam. It's a crock. What does student-teaching do that the first year of teaching doesn't? Oh, then they learn it while student-teaching, not while earning pay? Think about that one a while, think deeply. Then try asking it again, with a straight face. Student-teaching rips off students-teachers, reinforces the worst of the worst (note Williams' comments on schools of education again), and allows teachers to get paid with time off. But who will listen? Who will take this seriously?
And note what Williams says about those going into education, that is, those becoming teachers. It's devastating. No doubt, we have some good people with good minds who are going to be teachers, but, in all honesty, they are not nearly a high enough percentage. Even some people I know who have always defended teachers, the worse even, have said that the younger teachers just don't cut the mustard. From my experiences, they don't know their subjects, have no sense of rigor and/or quality, and don't have any integrity or courage when it comes to demanding excellence (of course, per my first two clauses, they might not know what "excellence" is!). And, who keeps passing them along, with tenure and awards? Yep, the equally inept administrators, who also are afraid of or don't know quality, rigor, etc. What, do people think Sowell and Williams just make up this stuff? They know what they are talking about.
Good timing, for the editorial above Williams' column this AM talks about the state reform legislation that is pending, calling for its passage. Again, people who don't know what they are talking about, who don't know the real problems, who take what they hear from politicians and administrators as the gospel, etc., weighing in on education. Read the editorial and then read Williams--night and day. The difference between right and wrong (although the intent might be noble).
Freakonomics takes a few glances at education and suggests the above, the good part of above. Again, my guess is nobody will listen. Who, after all, wants to criticize teachers who give out all As and Bs to their kids, despite the fact the students can't read or write very well?
What have we created? See, there's the problem with "give and take," with "compromise." A little give here and there and here and there and soon we have a problem that is monumental, one that likely can't be solved without destroying the entire system. What was it Everett Dirksen said about gov't spending? A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Yep....
We should be ashamed, but, alas, there no longer is a sense of shame.
Read the latest column from Williams: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/12/23/black_education
Note what he says about schools of education, which, in my experience, is right on the money. I know people will scoff, not really arguing against what I say, just scoffing as if I can't be taken seriously, but student-teaching is a big scam. It's a crock. What does student-teaching do that the first year of teaching doesn't? Oh, then they learn it while student-teaching, not while earning pay? Think about that one a while, think deeply. Then try asking it again, with a straight face. Student-teaching rips off students-teachers, reinforces the worst of the worst (note Williams' comments on schools of education again), and allows teachers to get paid with time off. But who will listen? Who will take this seriously?
And note what Williams says about those going into education, that is, those becoming teachers. It's devastating. No doubt, we have some good people with good minds who are going to be teachers, but, in all honesty, they are not nearly a high enough percentage. Even some people I know who have always defended teachers, the worse even, have said that the younger teachers just don't cut the mustard. From my experiences, they don't know their subjects, have no sense of rigor and/or quality, and don't have any integrity or courage when it comes to demanding excellence (of course, per my first two clauses, they might not know what "excellence" is!). And, who keeps passing them along, with tenure and awards? Yep, the equally inept administrators, who also are afraid of or don't know quality, rigor, etc. What, do people think Sowell and Williams just make up this stuff? They know what they are talking about.
Good timing, for the editorial above Williams' column this AM talks about the state reform legislation that is pending, calling for its passage. Again, people who don't know what they are talking about, who don't know the real problems, who take what they hear from politicians and administrators as the gospel, etc., weighing in on education. Read the editorial and then read Williams--night and day. The difference between right and wrong (although the intent might be noble).
Freakonomics takes a few glances at education and suggests the above, the good part of above. Again, my guess is nobody will listen. Who, after all, wants to criticize teachers who give out all As and Bs to their kids, despite the fact the students can't read or write very well?
What have we created? See, there's the problem with "give and take," with "compromise." A little give here and there and here and there and soon we have a problem that is monumental, one that likely can't be solved without destroying the entire system. What was it Everett Dirksen said about gov't spending? A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Yep....
We should be ashamed, but, alas, there no longer is a sense of shame.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Youth
First, I want to thank our elected officials in DC for the lousy, rotten Chris present they call "health care reform." And, if I were a youngster, I would especially thank them for seriously threatening my future. (We won't mention the vote to raise the debt ceiling, ever higher, with no chance of paying back the debt and no hope of these clowns reducing spending.)
"Clowns?" Yeah, didn't Lee Iacocca call them "bozos" in his book, on page one? Boy, with that and the Mustang, K-car, and mini-wagon, he got things right.
Perhaps we can take some solace, with some hope, from the recent history of Rumania. It wasn't the "grown-ups," but the youth of Rumania who had the courage to stand up to the tyranny of the dictator Ceaucescu. They encouraged the older folks to protest. They took to the streets, often being gunned down in cold blood. They stood their ground. They had the guts to fight for freedom. Maybe we can hope for the same.
I see some hope in that I get a few e-mails from the younger crowd asking about the massive spending and restrictive legislation our government officials are perpetrating. (I deliberately use the word "perpetrating" because that's what the crime show cops call those who commit crimes, "perps.") Some are beginning to see what a mess is being created with their future.
Now, if they can protest and the "grown-ups" can learn from their courage and throw off their apathy.... Is this too much to ask for?
"Clowns?" Yeah, didn't Lee Iacocca call them "bozos" in his book, on page one? Boy, with that and the Mustang, K-car, and mini-wagon, he got things right.
Perhaps we can take some solace, with some hope, from the recent history of Rumania. It wasn't the "grown-ups," but the youth of Rumania who had the courage to stand up to the tyranny of the dictator Ceaucescu. They encouraged the older folks to protest. They took to the streets, often being gunned down in cold blood. They stood their ground. They had the guts to fight for freedom. Maybe we can hope for the same.
I see some hope in that I get a few e-mails from the younger crowd asking about the massive spending and restrictive legislation our government officials are perpetrating. (I deliberately use the word "perpetrating" because that's what the crime show cops call those who commit crimes, "perps.") Some are beginning to see what a mess is being created with their future.
Now, if they can protest and the "grown-ups" can learn from their courage and throw off their apathy.... Is this too much to ask for?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Television Judges?
Just asking:
How did many of these judges get through law school????? And, then, how did they pass the bar exams????? No, I don't watch them, but Karen does. So, they are on frequently, esp during her breaks. I listen while I read or write or grade papers or am on the computer. What I hear leads me to think, "What the heck?" What was it one of my AC professors wrote on one of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?"
Yesterday, one of them berated a plaintiff, "I don't care what you 'think!' That's the last thing I'll consider in this case, what you 'think.'" The next question out of the judge's mouth, after the appropriate delay for the audience laughter and approval at the judge's Solomonic words, was, "Well, sir, what then did you think...?"
And so it goes....
How did many of these judges get through law school????? And, then, how did they pass the bar exams????? No, I don't watch them, but Karen does. So, they are on frequently, esp during her breaks. I listen while I read or write or grade papers or am on the computer. What I hear leads me to think, "What the heck?" What was it one of my AC professors wrote on one of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?"
Yesterday, one of them berated a plaintiff, "I don't care what you 'think!' That's the last thing I'll consider in this case, what you 'think.'" The next question out of the judge's mouth, after the appropriate delay for the audience laughter and approval at the judge's Solomonic words, was, "Well, sir, what then did you think...?"
And so it goes....
Lonely Opinions
Boy, I really like talking/writing to myself. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear, does it make a noise?
Hey, is American Idol on tonight? What about a football game?
"I was too busy enjoying my freedoms to do anything to protect them."
Hey, is American Idol on tonight? What about a football game?
"I was too busy enjoying my freedoms to do anything to protect them."
Degrees
At face value, I'm sure the idea of the former state superintendent of public schools to offer lower tuition to students majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" seems attractive to some. After all, to get more math majors, offer financial incentives. Upon closer examination, though, the whole thing stinks of, well, something offered by the education establishment--and there's a reason the guy rose to state superintendent of public schools.
First, is that the sole purpose of education, to fill jobs? Education, then, is to prepare people for specific jobs? Wow! What has become of the western tradition of liberal education?
Second, how long before there is a glut of those graduates, that is, before the "under-filled professions" are sated? Will those graduates then be flipping burgers as has been the case with math, science, engineering students of the past?
Third, who says majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" is a smart thing? Let's see, one of my college roommates majored in psychology and, with no graduate degree in business, eventually was a manager of properties for major insurance firms, millions of dollars of transactions passing his desk daily. Hmmm, a fine arts major a year ahead of me, who later played in the NFL, became an anaesthesiologist--no, he wasn't a chemistry or biology major.
Education, in the western tradition, is to teach people to think (not necessarily what to think, but how to think), as well as express, in writing and verbally, those thoughts. Students should be able to apply what they think, to problems, to citizenship, etc. If one is taught to do these things, one, physical/intellectual limitations excepted, any job should be open. In the western tradition, students would be exposed to math and science as well as history and English/writing. Further training, as in the case of my fine arts/anaesthesiologist college mate, can be had in graduate school.
The idea offered by the former super of public education is hare-brained. So, likely, the education-types will embrace it.
First, is that the sole purpose of education, to fill jobs? Education, then, is to prepare people for specific jobs? Wow! What has become of the western tradition of liberal education?
Second, how long before there is a glut of those graduates, that is, before the "under-filled professions" are sated? Will those graduates then be flipping burgers as has been the case with math, science, engineering students of the past?
Third, who says majoring in areas of "under-filled professions" is a smart thing? Let's see, one of my college roommates majored in psychology and, with no graduate degree in business, eventually was a manager of properties for major insurance firms, millions of dollars of transactions passing his desk daily. Hmmm, a fine arts major a year ahead of me, who later played in the NFL, became an anaesthesiologist--no, he wasn't a chemistry or biology major.
Education, in the western tradition, is to teach people to think (not necessarily what to think, but how to think), as well as express, in writing and verbally, those thoughts. Students should be able to apply what they think, to problems, to citizenship, etc. If one is taught to do these things, one, physical/intellectual limitations excepted, any job should be open. In the western tradition, students would be exposed to math and science as well as history and English/writing. Further training, as in the case of my fine arts/anaesthesiologist college mate, can be had in graduate school.
The idea offered by the former super of public education is hare-brained. So, likely, the education-types will embrace it.
Walking the Walk
It's time to stop talking the talk and begin walking the walk.
The Senate, and the House before it, has passed the ObamaCare bill. This despite a more than 2 to 1 opposition to it among Americans. The latest polls have 60% or more against the bill(s) while somewhere among the mid-20% favor it. Almost half would rather have nothing than this so-called "reform." Yet, it's passed anyway.
Bribes. Prostitution. Threats. Promises. These are all parts of this bill. I'm not naive enough to think these are unique in legislative deals. That, though, doesn't make them right. In other words, because "it's done all the time" isn't a justification.
Shall we add Sneaky. Duplicitous. Dishonest....
I hope residents of some states will be happy paying billions of dollars to citizens of other states for the bribes/prostitution extorted by their Senators. With a lot of luck, the court challenges to this unconstitutional usurpation of government power will succeed. The health care bill is patently a violation of the Constitution. How can the government require citizens to purchase health insurance? Will we also be required to buy homeowners' insurance? What about life insurance? (Auto insurance is another story, since it is involved with a specific activity. If one doesn't own a car, one shouldn't have to buy car insurance. Or, with this Congress, maybe one will be required to, regardless of auto ownership!) How about government buying my auto, homeowner's, life insurances for me? How can the government require citizens of one state to openly subsidize the medical insurance of residents of other states?
A pox on the houses of all those members of Congress who voted for this bill! (I might also add the bailouts, the CRA, TARP, and, soon, Tax and Trade.) Ready to walk the walk????
Beginning in 2010, yep this coming year, all those incumbents who voted for the bill need to be replaced. If some don't run (rumor is some have been promised ambassadorships, Cabinet posts, and other government positions), before we elect a candidate from that same party, we must elicit a firm commitment to repeal this legislation. In fact, we must insist that anyone we vote for is one who is committed to rescinding this abomination.
I have opined that people who say they are fed up, mad as hell, outraged, not going to take it are not really fed up, mad as hell, outraged and that they are going to take it. We'll see in the next elections. We'll see who says more than their prayers. Now is the time for political actions--get hid of the duplicitous, dishonest, stupid crooks. Remember, Monica Conyers is going to prison for taking a $5000 bribe. What about the bribes to Landrieu, Brown, Levin, etc...the amounts of which are a great deal more than $5000???? Are those legal just because they were proffered by the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate, President of the United States? What about the threats? Because they were made by the above, does that make the intimidating extortion legal?
Throw out the bums--ASAP!!!!!
The Senate, and the House before it, has passed the ObamaCare bill. This despite a more than 2 to 1 opposition to it among Americans. The latest polls have 60% or more against the bill(s) while somewhere among the mid-20% favor it. Almost half would rather have nothing than this so-called "reform." Yet, it's passed anyway.
Bribes. Prostitution. Threats. Promises. These are all parts of this bill. I'm not naive enough to think these are unique in legislative deals. That, though, doesn't make them right. In other words, because "it's done all the time" isn't a justification.
Shall we add Sneaky. Duplicitous. Dishonest....
I hope residents of some states will be happy paying billions of dollars to citizens of other states for the bribes/prostitution extorted by their Senators. With a lot of luck, the court challenges to this unconstitutional usurpation of government power will succeed. The health care bill is patently a violation of the Constitution. How can the government require citizens to purchase health insurance? Will we also be required to buy homeowners' insurance? What about life insurance? (Auto insurance is another story, since it is involved with a specific activity. If one doesn't own a car, one shouldn't have to buy car insurance. Or, with this Congress, maybe one will be required to, regardless of auto ownership!) How about government buying my auto, homeowner's, life insurances for me? How can the government require citizens of one state to openly subsidize the medical insurance of residents of other states?
A pox on the houses of all those members of Congress who voted for this bill! (I might also add the bailouts, the CRA, TARP, and, soon, Tax and Trade.) Ready to walk the walk????
Beginning in 2010, yep this coming year, all those incumbents who voted for the bill need to be replaced. If some don't run (rumor is some have been promised ambassadorships, Cabinet posts, and other government positions), before we elect a candidate from that same party, we must elicit a firm commitment to repeal this legislation. In fact, we must insist that anyone we vote for is one who is committed to rescinding this abomination.
I have opined that people who say they are fed up, mad as hell, outraged, not going to take it are not really fed up, mad as hell, outraged and that they are going to take it. We'll see in the next elections. We'll see who says more than their prayers. Now is the time for political actions--get hid of the duplicitous, dishonest, stupid crooks. Remember, Monica Conyers is going to prison for taking a $5000 bribe. What about the bribes to Landrieu, Brown, Levin, etc...the amounts of which are a great deal more than $5000???? Are those legal just because they were proffered by the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate, President of the United States? What about the threats? Because they were made by the above, does that make the intimidating extortion legal?
Throw out the bums--ASAP!!!!!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
No Naps
Apparently Sen Levin wasn't taking a nap when all the bribe money was being handed out. He arranged some sort of deal exempting Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the health care bill. I don't know details. Wait a minute... Aren't the insurance companies one of the monsters targeted by the party of the good Sen? Then, why the deal???
Regardless, the bribes were sleazy. I have heard Mich's atty-gen, along with those from at least six other states, are considering a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the deals with the health care bill. They are citing the 14th Am's "equal protection" clause.
Regardless, the bribes were sleazy. I have heard Mich's atty-gen, along with those from at least six other states, are considering a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the deals with the health care bill. They are citing the 14th Am's "equal protection" clause.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Health Care Bill
"Elections have consequences." We've heard that one a lot lately and now we are experiencing it. And, the experience isn't a good one.
The health care bill is an abomination. Those who vote for a Congressman or Senator who support it deserves exactly what they get--and, unfortunately, the rest of us who use our votes much more wisely get it, too. I wish we could rescind their right to vote for being stupid.
Imagine a car dealer who tells you, "OK, you bought the car tonight. You can make payments on it for four years and then you get the car." Read the health care bill.
Imagine a family of 4 with an income of up to $96,000...it now qualifies for Medicare. So I am now paying for that family's health care, even though it makes more than twice what I make. You mean to tell me a family that makes $96K can't afford its own health insurance. Why not? Exactly why not?
Imagine paying a LA Senator $300,000,000 to get her vote. Let's see, when we pay a woman or man for sex, that's prostitution--and it's illegal. Hmmmm.
Imagine getting a NE Senator to vote for the bill by promising him his state won't have to kick in matching funds (well, OK, the feds pay 60% and the states 40%) for Medicaid coverage. Hey, why doesn't my state get the same thing? Isn't Michigan the hardest hit state in this recession?
Imagine, where are our two US Senators in all of this?
Imagine this bill, other than the taxes for it, don't go into effect until after the next Presidential election. Wonder why?????
Imagine a bill that still doesn't cover 21,000,000 Americans (about 7%). Now, even though the liars claimed 48,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance now, the number is likely less than half that--take out the illegals, those too lazy or stupid to sign up or Medicare/Medicaid or S-Chip, those who opt to pay cash for health services instead of insurance premiums, and those who opt to gamble by choosing to spend their money on other things. So, to cover about 1% of the population, we are messing up health care for 85-90% of Americans.
Imagine, now, having to pay income tax on health insurance given as a perk at work.
Imagine your life insurance policy expiring and, to renew, rates more that tripled. Now, will Congress pay for my life insurance premiums? Come to think of it, will it also pay for my auto insurance, homeowners' insurance, and any other I can think of?
Imagine sneaking around on Sat eves, the night before Thanksgiving, Chris eve to pass bills. Imagine have a 2000+ page bill that nobody has read be transformed into a 1000 page bill in 17 hours and having it pass--all before anyone in the public knows what is in it!
Imagine passing a bill that doesn't apply to those who passed the bill! Congressmen and Senators and their staffs are not subject to it and its provisions.
Imagine we elect and re-elect these duplicitous, arrogant, dishonest fools. A bad dream? Nope, not at all.
The health care bill is an abomination. Those who vote for a Congressman or Senator who support it deserves exactly what they get--and, unfortunately, the rest of us who use our votes much more wisely get it, too. I wish we could rescind their right to vote for being stupid.
Imagine a car dealer who tells you, "OK, you bought the car tonight. You can make payments on it for four years and then you get the car." Read the health care bill.
Imagine a family of 4 with an income of up to $96,000...it now qualifies for Medicare. So I am now paying for that family's health care, even though it makes more than twice what I make. You mean to tell me a family that makes $96K can't afford its own health insurance. Why not? Exactly why not?
Imagine paying a LA Senator $300,000,000 to get her vote. Let's see, when we pay a woman or man for sex, that's prostitution--and it's illegal. Hmmmm.
Imagine getting a NE Senator to vote for the bill by promising him his state won't have to kick in matching funds (well, OK, the feds pay 60% and the states 40%) for Medicaid coverage. Hey, why doesn't my state get the same thing? Isn't Michigan the hardest hit state in this recession?
Imagine, where are our two US Senators in all of this?
Imagine this bill, other than the taxes for it, don't go into effect until after the next Presidential election. Wonder why?????
Imagine a bill that still doesn't cover 21,000,000 Americans (about 7%). Now, even though the liars claimed 48,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance now, the number is likely less than half that--take out the illegals, those too lazy or stupid to sign up or Medicare/Medicaid or S-Chip, those who opt to pay cash for health services instead of insurance premiums, and those who opt to gamble by choosing to spend their money on other things. So, to cover about 1% of the population, we are messing up health care for 85-90% of Americans.
Imagine, now, having to pay income tax on health insurance given as a perk at work.
Imagine your life insurance policy expiring and, to renew, rates more that tripled. Now, will Congress pay for my life insurance premiums? Come to think of it, will it also pay for my auto insurance, homeowners' insurance, and any other I can think of?
Imagine sneaking around on Sat eves, the night before Thanksgiving, Chris eve to pass bills. Imagine have a 2000+ page bill that nobody has read be transformed into a 1000 page bill in 17 hours and having it pass--all before anyone in the public knows what is in it!
Imagine passing a bill that doesn't apply to those who passed the bill! Congressmen and Senators and their staffs are not subject to it and its provisions.
Imagine we elect and re-elect these duplicitous, arrogant, dishonest fools. A bad dream? Nope, not at all.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Bobby Knight
I saw that Bobby Knight ragged on another college coach, some guy named Calipari (?). He wondered who would hire this guy after he led two other college programs into NCAA probation. Very good question, Bobby!
"Not Rational?"
I'm still a bit worked up over the reply to a recent assessment of Obama that was dismissed as "not rational." I know I responded with strong language and examples, but I'm still upset. Here are more of my thoughts:
What "wasn't rational" about the assessment? It was never said. Here is what is "irrational." Letting Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel head Congressional commitees. Ruining health insurance for abou 85-90% of Americans to take care of the 10-15% who "aren't covered," about half of them can be explained away (illegals, opting not to purchase health insurance--like my two sons, being too lazy to sign up for Medicaid or S-Chip, etc.). Hillary Clinton pledging hundreds of billions of dollars as sort of a "climate reparations" to third world countries, letting the UN "oversee" the funds, you know, so the petty tyrant dictators don't just spend the money on themselves and consolidating their own power (and the UN has been so very effective over the years, hasn't it?). Hailing Ted Kennedy as a hero, "An American Lion," when, the truth is, he was a scumbag, from the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (or at least leaving the scene of her homocide) to libeling Robert Bork to being a hypocrite with his hundreds of millions of dollars (Did I mention so many affairs as to put Tiger Woods to shame? Why wasn't he excommunicated from the Catholic Church on general principle rather than exalted as St. Ted, as it was St John, his equally nefarious brother?). Giving taxpayer money to the same people who drove the auto companies, the banks, the financial/investment companies into the ground. My US Senator telling me, huffily, that the science on man-made global warming "was settled," as if saying I should stop sending her letters on the hoax. Need I go on? "Wasn't rational!" Yeah, right....
What "wasn't rational" about the assessment? It was never said. Here is what is "irrational." Letting Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel head Congressional commitees. Ruining health insurance for abou 85-90% of Americans to take care of the 10-15% who "aren't covered," about half of them can be explained away (illegals, opting not to purchase health insurance--like my two sons, being too lazy to sign up for Medicaid or S-Chip, etc.). Hillary Clinton pledging hundreds of billions of dollars as sort of a "climate reparations" to third world countries, letting the UN "oversee" the funds, you know, so the petty tyrant dictators don't just spend the money on themselves and consolidating their own power (and the UN has been so very effective over the years, hasn't it?). Hailing Ted Kennedy as a hero, "An American Lion," when, the truth is, he was a scumbag, from the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (or at least leaving the scene of her homocide) to libeling Robert Bork to being a hypocrite with his hundreds of millions of dollars (Did I mention so many affairs as to put Tiger Woods to shame? Why wasn't he excommunicated from the Catholic Church on general principle rather than exalted as St. Ted, as it was St John, his equally nefarious brother?). Giving taxpayer money to the same people who drove the auto companies, the banks, the financial/investment companies into the ground. My US Senator telling me, huffily, that the science on man-made global warming "was settled," as if saying I should stop sending her letters on the hoax. Need I go on? "Wasn't rational!" Yeah, right....
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tenure Laws
Tenure laws, namely those involving public school teachers, have come under attack recently--for their costliness, prevention of "real reform," etc. Having been in the public schools for 33 years, while continuing on now in my 15 year of college teaching, I am of two minds about teacher tenure laws.
First, I realize they have been abused. There are some very good teachers out there, very good. I think, for instance, my grandson has had several. And, likely most teachers are adequate, if lacking in courage/integrity. (With proper leadership, they can be led in the right direction, but only with proper leadership that includes, of course, courage/integrity and knowledge of what is quality education.) Far too many (certainly not a majority, but far too many) teachers are incompetent, don't belong anywhere near a classroom. How many of them get tenure? Likely, almost all of them. They should and, once achieved, they cannot really be touched. It's a shame to have to have them teaching. It's a shame to have had to work with them.
Second, though, I think tenure laws are necessary. They are needed to protect good teachers, those who are outspoken and courageous enough, with integrity, to speak out against the deleterious programs and policies often found in our schools. Who are responsible for granting tenure? Often it's the administrators who don't have a clue as to what quality education is, have never experienced the rigor required for that quality, and cannot summon the courage or integrity to stand up to the "deleterious programs and policies." Now, isn't that comforting? The lousiest of the lousy are responsible for perpetuating the lousiness!
Without tenure, how long would I have lasted? I don't know. I do know, on more than one occasion, I called out administrators, even a couple of superintendents, on the stupidest of things they were doing or were requiring the schools/teachers to do. At least once, I publicly questioned the integrity/honesty of an assistant super who blatantly lied to a small group of us on an important curriculum matter. (Fortunately, I had another courageous teacher back me up when the administrator tried to deny the lie. Of course, it made no difference. The policy of the lie won out and teachers just merrily went on and implemented it--remember the above, courage and integrity?).
Instead of a forum for different ideas, education has become on of the least tolerant institutions. And, it's hidden, as "diversity," "acceptance and respect," etc. are fraudulently perpetrated on an unsuspecting (uncaring?) public.
So, tenure or no tenure????
First, I realize they have been abused. There are some very good teachers out there, very good. I think, for instance, my grandson has had several. And, likely most teachers are adequate, if lacking in courage/integrity. (With proper leadership, they can be led in the right direction, but only with proper leadership that includes, of course, courage/integrity and knowledge of what is quality education.) Far too many (certainly not a majority, but far too many) teachers are incompetent, don't belong anywhere near a classroom. How many of them get tenure? Likely, almost all of them. They should and, once achieved, they cannot really be touched. It's a shame to have to have them teaching. It's a shame to have had to work with them.
Second, though, I think tenure laws are necessary. They are needed to protect good teachers, those who are outspoken and courageous enough, with integrity, to speak out against the deleterious programs and policies often found in our schools. Who are responsible for granting tenure? Often it's the administrators who don't have a clue as to what quality education is, have never experienced the rigor required for that quality, and cannot summon the courage or integrity to stand up to the "deleterious programs and policies." Now, isn't that comforting? The lousiest of the lousy are responsible for perpetuating the lousiness!
Without tenure, how long would I have lasted? I don't know. I do know, on more than one occasion, I called out administrators, even a couple of superintendents, on the stupidest of things they were doing or were requiring the schools/teachers to do. At least once, I publicly questioned the integrity/honesty of an assistant super who blatantly lied to a small group of us on an important curriculum matter. (Fortunately, I had another courageous teacher back me up when the administrator tried to deny the lie. Of course, it made no difference. The policy of the lie won out and teachers just merrily went on and implemented it--remember the above, courage and integrity?).
Instead of a forum for different ideas, education has become on of the least tolerant institutions. And, it's hidden, as "diversity," "acceptance and respect," etc. are fraudulently perpetrated on an unsuspecting (uncaring?) public.
So, tenure or no tenure????
Ooooh...
They got me going yesterday!
First, I'm listening to the Lt Gov on the radio and he blurts out, "We have to protect the property rights of Michigan citizens." Huh? Didn't his own gov sign the law that forces private property owners in the state to be nonsmoking? That is, restaurant and bar, etc. owners now cannot permit smoking, whether they want to or not in their own personal private property establishments. Grrrr....
I received an e-mail last week from a man who didn't like my negative assessment of Obama. One of the things that criticized the assessment was "not rational." Hmmm. "Not rational?" Now, let's forget that BO has exhibited no sense, not an iota, of history, no understanding at all. Let's just focus on, say, this week in Copenhagen. BO's Sec of State, HRC, pledged $100 Billion, yes, with a "B," to third world nations as sort of "climate reparations." Was it a bribe to prevent third world nations from using too much energy/carbon? Come again? Was it the typical guilt that this administration has because the US is the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever seen? Now, who is going to see that the money we give to these mostly petty, tyrannical martinets is spent on things other than their own power/grandeur? Oh, the United Nations...OK, now I feel better! Yeah, right. So relying on these despots and the ineffective UN, because that's what the BO administration does, is "rational?" Yep, it is rapidly becoming "the world turned upside down."
First, I'm listening to the Lt Gov on the radio and he blurts out, "We have to protect the property rights of Michigan citizens." Huh? Didn't his own gov sign the law that forces private property owners in the state to be nonsmoking? That is, restaurant and bar, etc. owners now cannot permit smoking, whether they want to or not in their own personal private property establishments. Grrrr....
I received an e-mail last week from a man who didn't like my negative assessment of Obama. One of the things that criticized the assessment was "not rational." Hmmm. "Not rational?" Now, let's forget that BO has exhibited no sense, not an iota, of history, no understanding at all. Let's just focus on, say, this week in Copenhagen. BO's Sec of State, HRC, pledged $100 Billion, yes, with a "B," to third world nations as sort of "climate reparations." Was it a bribe to prevent third world nations from using too much energy/carbon? Come again? Was it the typical guilt that this administration has because the US is the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever seen? Now, who is going to see that the money we give to these mostly petty, tyrannical martinets is spent on things other than their own power/grandeur? Oh, the United Nations...OK, now I feel better! Yeah, right. So relying on these despots and the ineffective UN, because that's what the BO administration does, is "rational?" Yep, it is rapidly becoming "the world turned upside down."
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Education
A guy who wrote like he new what he was talking about, namely comparisons of the academic achievements in various states, suggested in the weekend's paper that all of the students in Michigan take the same tests as those in Detroit. I don't think he was trying to make Detroit students or their scores look any less anemic, hardly; there's no way to sugar coat those. They were pathetic, at best.
I think he was suggesting others in the state, other school districts, compared to the rest of the country are doing abysmally, too. I don't know, maybe. But it would be interesting. Consider recent reports that Michigan students on the ACT ranked no better than 41st on any of the four tests rated. On one, they were 49th and another 45th. That's not good, is it?
In the same paper, a former state super was calling for reform or, more precisely, taking state politicians, local school districts, and the MEA to task for standing in the way of reform. The former super had no real ideas about reform, other than generalities such as "getting more dollars in the classroom." What does that mean? Even more computers? More videos? I don't know--nobody ever says. I think a good argument can be made that there are enough computers and too many videos, but that's not the point here and now.
Like almost all so-called calls for reform, this one never talked about quality teachers and administrators, that is, those with real degrees, with the integrity and courage to set high standards (not just blab about setting high standards and then caving in on them), who have experienced quality education. They should know how to read and write, I mean really know how to read and write--and do math. They should have been through quality education at schools whose degrees demanded rigorous effort, study, and work. Obviously, not all can have this background. But the leadership, both administrators and teachers, should have these. But, I don't recall many, if any, so-called "reformers" who espouse this. They seem to just accept that administrators and teachers are "the best and brightest" or, at least, competent.
I don't know....
I think he was suggesting others in the state, other school districts, compared to the rest of the country are doing abysmally, too. I don't know, maybe. But it would be interesting. Consider recent reports that Michigan students on the ACT ranked no better than 41st on any of the four tests rated. On one, they were 49th and another 45th. That's not good, is it?
In the same paper, a former state super was calling for reform or, more precisely, taking state politicians, local school districts, and the MEA to task for standing in the way of reform. The former super had no real ideas about reform, other than generalities such as "getting more dollars in the classroom." What does that mean? Even more computers? More videos? I don't know--nobody ever says. I think a good argument can be made that there are enough computers and too many videos, but that's not the point here and now.
Like almost all so-called calls for reform, this one never talked about quality teachers and administrators, that is, those with real degrees, with the integrity and courage to set high standards (not just blab about setting high standards and then caving in on them), who have experienced quality education. They should know how to read and write, I mean really know how to read and write--and do math. They should have been through quality education at schools whose degrees demanded rigorous effort, study, and work. Obviously, not all can have this background. But the leadership, both administrators and teachers, should have these. But, I don't recall many, if any, so-called "reformers" who espouse this. They seem to just accept that administrators and teachers are "the best and brightest" or, at least, competent.
I don't know....
A. Jackson
Just finished An American Lion, the second biog of A. Jackson I've read in the past few months. Certainly Jackson was an important President, likely in the very top echelon. I wouldn't quite rank him with Lincoln or Washington or even Jefferson (if only his first term were counted). I know most historians have F. Roosevelt up there, too. I agree he was very, very influential. But, to me, his significant influence was debilitating/deleterious (I don't often get a chance to use those words!). Yes, he changed American lives in a big way; I just don't think the changes were good ones. T. Roosevelt, Truman, and even Eisenhower were also favorites of mine. Truman, for instance, never gets the credit he deserves for his role in the civil rights movement--very courageous man, that Truman. And many people still don't understand Eisenhower and his "Hidden Hand Presidency." But, back to Jackson....
Jackson, I think, did save the Union. We'll never know for sure, but it seems he prevented any serious talk of nullification/secession at a time when the North couldn't have really prevented it. There are big problems with his bigotry, namely Indian removal (which was based in large part on his prejudiced views of Indians) and slave ownership (although did he have an epiphany near his end?). Those are hard to overlook (as they are with Wash and Jeff). How to evaluate. One great statement coming from the author, Jon Meacham, of An American Lion is "Evil can appear perfectly normal to even the best men and women of a given time." Maybe that is a lesson of history. Do we judge others from the past using our own values, without necessarily condoning evils? Hmmmm....to ponder.
One of the lessons of A. Jackson is pretty clear, one we need to seriously consider today. As early as the 1830s, Jackson recognized that the US had little to fear from other nations' armies. More, much more, with which to concern ourselves are "the combinations of the wealthy and professional [political] classes, from an aristocracy ["the anointed?"] which throught the influences of riches and talents, insidiously employed, sometimes succeeds in preventing political institutions , however well adjusted, from securing the freedom of the citizen...." Wow! And all this from a political rube, a backwoods hick?
We ignore our history at our own peril.
Thanks, Robb!
Jackson, I think, did save the Union. We'll never know for sure, but it seems he prevented any serious talk of nullification/secession at a time when the North couldn't have really prevented it. There are big problems with his bigotry, namely Indian removal (which was based in large part on his prejudiced views of Indians) and slave ownership (although did he have an epiphany near his end?). Those are hard to overlook (as they are with Wash and Jeff). How to evaluate. One great statement coming from the author, Jon Meacham, of An American Lion is "Evil can appear perfectly normal to even the best men and women of a given time." Maybe that is a lesson of history. Do we judge others from the past using our own values, without necessarily condoning evils? Hmmmm....to ponder.
One of the lessons of A. Jackson is pretty clear, one we need to seriously consider today. As early as the 1830s, Jackson recognized that the US had little to fear from other nations' armies. More, much more, with which to concern ourselves are "the combinations of the wealthy and professional [political] classes, from an aristocracy ["the anointed?"] which throught the influences of riches and talents, insidiously employed, sometimes succeeds in preventing political institutions , however well adjusted, from securing the freedom of the citizen...." Wow! And all this from a political rube, a backwoods hick?
We ignore our history at our own peril.
Thanks, Robb!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Last...
...but not least.
I watched on C-Span (please, no nasty comments) a panel discussion involving research/polling of eleven ordinary citizens. They were queried on the President and Congress and the issues confronting the nation.
Two of the nine thought the nation was going in the wrong direction. Five though Obama was going to be a "great" President (although they couldn't remotely say why except, "He cares."). Two disliked Congress and didn't trust what it was doing.
From what I could tell, one certainly didn't like BO, three likely weren't big fans of his, a couple were fence-sitters, and the other five fawned over him. Now, realize, each of the five couldn't say one positive result that has stemmed from BO's Presidency (he might have some, but that isn't the point here--the people who couldn't name even one still thought he was great). Oh, there were the generalities and platitudes like, "Oh, he's one of us" (although none of the panelists looked like they lived in multi-million dollar homes), "He really cares" (enough to spend how many millions on his weekly parties and dates with Michelle--so far?), "He's really trying" (well, lots of people have "tried," even Nixon and W). How frightening! It's one thing to think he's doing well and be able to cite reasons for it (whether or not I agree or disagree). It's quite another to say he's doing well, but not be able to name a single thing that he's accomplished. Is it suprising that almost all of the BO supporters were in education or some sort of gov't work?????
It was funny, the opinion gatherer asked the panelists to form a portrait, a picture of someone who symbolized Congress to them. I immediately laughed as "Satan" came to my mind. I laughed even harder as five of the panelists also said "the devil" (with one admitting he couldn't spell "Beelzebub," as if I can).
I was answering along with the questions. For instance, "What one word or phrase characterizes what you think of President Obama? My word was "hypocrite," although I could think of others. For Michelle O my phrase was "glitz with no substance."
I could see a couple of the panel members seemed to want to explode at some of the other responses, but were obviously told ahead of time that this was not a debate, wasn't supposed to be contentious, etc.
It's OK to differ in opinions, but there must be reasons for differences. People should be able to support their views. "I feel" isn't a good argument. I'm all for 100% voting, until I think that people like these (or the one interviewed a year ago who thought Sarah Palin was a good choice to be Barak Obama's running mate) have a vote that counts as much as mine.
I watched on C-Span (please, no nasty comments) a panel discussion involving research/polling of eleven ordinary citizens. They were queried on the President and Congress and the issues confronting the nation.
Two of the nine thought the nation was going in the wrong direction. Five though Obama was going to be a "great" President (although they couldn't remotely say why except, "He cares."). Two disliked Congress and didn't trust what it was doing.
From what I could tell, one certainly didn't like BO, three likely weren't big fans of his, a couple were fence-sitters, and the other five fawned over him. Now, realize, each of the five couldn't say one positive result that has stemmed from BO's Presidency (he might have some, but that isn't the point here--the people who couldn't name even one still thought he was great). Oh, there were the generalities and platitudes like, "Oh, he's one of us" (although none of the panelists looked like they lived in multi-million dollar homes), "He really cares" (enough to spend how many millions on his weekly parties and dates with Michelle--so far?), "He's really trying" (well, lots of people have "tried," even Nixon and W). How frightening! It's one thing to think he's doing well and be able to cite reasons for it (whether or not I agree or disagree). It's quite another to say he's doing well, but not be able to name a single thing that he's accomplished. Is it suprising that almost all of the BO supporters were in education or some sort of gov't work?????
It was funny, the opinion gatherer asked the panelists to form a portrait, a picture of someone who symbolized Congress to them. I immediately laughed as "Satan" came to my mind. I laughed even harder as five of the panelists also said "the devil" (with one admitting he couldn't spell "Beelzebub," as if I can).
I was answering along with the questions. For instance, "What one word or phrase characterizes what you think of President Obama? My word was "hypocrite," although I could think of others. For Michelle O my phrase was "glitz with no substance."
I could see a couple of the panel members seemed to want to explode at some of the other responses, but were obviously told ahead of time that this was not a debate, wasn't supposed to be contentious, etc.
It's OK to differ in opinions, but there must be reasons for differences. People should be able to support their views. "I feel" isn't a good argument. I'm all for 100% voting, until I think that people like these (or the one interviewed a year ago who thought Sarah Palin was a good choice to be Barak Obama's running mate) have a vote that counts as much as mine.
Barbara Boxer
What with Babs? Is she loco? If there's any reason to doubt that California is off its collective rocker, consider Pelosi, Feinstein, Schwartzenegger (sp?), and now Boxer.
Boxer wants the hackers of the e-mails in the Climategate affair prosecuted. OK, I understand the privacy issues and am sensitive to them. But, c'mon....
What about the fraud being perpetuated by the global warming nuts? There's a reason Algore cancelled his latest talks. That fraud resulted in how much gov't money going into certain hands? Hmmmm. Isn't that a felony? Isn't that, too, worthy of prosecution? I would surmise, with the millions or billions of dollars involved, with deliberate fraud, this would be a more significant case to chase. But, nope, gotta keep the global warming fraud going because it, but not the facts, fits an agenda.
And, yes, I believe we should cut back on waste, pollution, emissions, etc., but not because of the global warming fiction.
Boxer wants the hackers of the e-mails in the Climategate affair prosecuted. OK, I understand the privacy issues and am sensitive to them. But, c'mon....
What about the fraud being perpetuated by the global warming nuts? There's a reason Algore cancelled his latest talks. That fraud resulted in how much gov't money going into certain hands? Hmmmm. Isn't that a felony? Isn't that, too, worthy of prosecution? I would surmise, with the millions or billions of dollars involved, with deliberate fraud, this would be a more significant case to chase. But, nope, gotta keep the global warming fraud going because it, but not the facts, fits an agenda.
And, yes, I believe we should cut back on waste, pollution, emissions, etc., but not because of the global warming fiction.
How Rome Fell
I wonder what we are doing. We are so very ignorant of history. It is likely going to help lead to the downfall.
The US is the only nation to be founded on an idea, a set of principles. That creed is spelled out in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Yet, we seem to be forgetting it (as imperfect as it was in the beginning).
Why is it that government and now private concerns are refusing to recognize "Christmas?" It's "Happy Holidays" or some other such generality. OK, so I'm not much on the religion part, but still.... What if there was no Christmas? What "holiday" season would it be to most people, the overwhelming majority of people? After all, how many people celebrate the Jewish High Holidays, people who aren't Jewish? People who aren't Christians still partake in the mood of the season, the Christmas season (the "greed" is a topic for another occasion).
Oh, I know the arguments. Government is worried about "separation of church and state," or so it says. Then, I ask, why does government not only permit, but encourage things like foot baths at public colleges for Muslims to pray? I have no problem with those footbaths, as long as there is no problem with singing Away in the Manger at a public school's Chris concert.
Private concerns are worried about offending some people. Are they stupid???? If the Christians decided they were "offended" by "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Chris and decided boycotts were in order.... Yeah, see.
There's room for everyone and every faith--we should not discriminate against the majority religion while bending over backwards for minority religions.
Consider the principle and reread the fall of Rome.
The US is the only nation to be founded on an idea, a set of principles. That creed is spelled out in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Yet, we seem to be forgetting it (as imperfect as it was in the beginning).
Why is it that government and now private concerns are refusing to recognize "Christmas?" It's "Happy Holidays" or some other such generality. OK, so I'm not much on the religion part, but still.... What if there was no Christmas? What "holiday" season would it be to most people, the overwhelming majority of people? After all, how many people celebrate the Jewish High Holidays, people who aren't Jewish? People who aren't Christians still partake in the mood of the season, the Christmas season (the "greed" is a topic for another occasion).
Oh, I know the arguments. Government is worried about "separation of church and state," or so it says. Then, I ask, why does government not only permit, but encourage things like foot baths at public colleges for Muslims to pray? I have no problem with those footbaths, as long as there is no problem with singing Away in the Manger at a public school's Chris concert.
Private concerns are worried about offending some people. Are they stupid???? If the Christians decided they were "offended" by "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Chris and decided boycotts were in order.... Yeah, see.
There's room for everyone and every faith--we should not discriminate against the majority religion while bending over backwards for minority religions.
Consider the principle and reread the fall of Rome.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Please Write Your Congressmen/Senators
A letter I wrote to my US Senator:
No!
The overwhelming majority of Americans have health insurance. Even if the numbers provided by some advocates of an ObamaCare bill are accepted (and I don't; they are grossly inflated), but for the sake of argument if they are accepted, 85-90% of Americans have health care! And, we have the best health care in the world!
Of course the cost of coverage are skyrocketing and are worrisome. But there are much better ways of dealing with them, even through Congressional meddling, than the monstrosity being considered now.
Health care is not "a right," no more so than life insurance, auto insurance, etc. Can I expect the next "right" to be tackled by Congress is how to pay my life insurance premium, which, by the way, just increased more than 300%!?!? No, none of these are rights--and where in the Constitution can any tangential semblance to such rights be found? Don't look because none can. Of course, as one of your Congressional colleagues on a recent Sunday AM news show said, if a majority of the elected officials in Washington want something that violates the Constitution, it's OK to pass. Health insurance is an individual/family budget issue. People, especially young ones, think nothing of a $150 a month cell phone bill, among other things. But, thanks to the nanny state, they expect health insurance to be given to them.
Members of Congress think they are smarter than the rest of us. They aren't. They think they know what's best for us better than we do. They don't. Stop this madness of spending, practically guaranteeing bleak lives for our children and grandchildren who will be saddled with this massive debt. Vote NO! on this health care bill.
No!
The overwhelming majority of Americans have health insurance. Even if the numbers provided by some advocates of an ObamaCare bill are accepted (and I don't; they are grossly inflated), but for the sake of argument if they are accepted, 85-90% of Americans have health care! And, we have the best health care in the world!
Of course the cost of coverage are skyrocketing and are worrisome. But there are much better ways of dealing with them, even through Congressional meddling, than the monstrosity being considered now.
Health care is not "a right," no more so than life insurance, auto insurance, etc. Can I expect the next "right" to be tackled by Congress is how to pay my life insurance premium, which, by the way, just increased more than 300%!?!? No, none of these are rights--and where in the Constitution can any tangential semblance to such rights be found? Don't look because none can. Of course, as one of your Congressional colleagues on a recent Sunday AM news show said, if a majority of the elected officials in Washington want something that violates the Constitution, it's OK to pass. Health insurance is an individual/family budget issue. People, especially young ones, think nothing of a $150 a month cell phone bill, among other things. But, thanks to the nanny state, they expect health insurance to be given to them.
Members of Congress think they are smarter than the rest of us. They aren't. They think they know what's best for us better than we do. They don't. Stop this madness of spending, practically guaranteeing bleak lives for our children and grandchildren who will be saddled with this massive debt. Vote NO! on this health care bill.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Terms of Congress
Reading a book the other day, I was reminded that Congress in the 18th and 19th Centuries normally adjourned from March/April to November/December. Wow! What a great idea!
Now, I'm not in favor of part-time legislatures because of the savings. That would be a start, but just a pittance. More so, I am in favor of part-time legislatures (including Congress, see above) to get them away from making so many laws that are ruining this country. To wit, the state legislature now requires school districts to report any teacher illness lasting more than three days. Now, is this to check up on teachers? I don't know. But consider the time, effort, and money spent/wasted on this.
Should we then turn to the myriad agencies created by full-time legislatures? You know, the people who are not responsible to anyone, no electorate, nobody, and give such great service, care, and concern? Let's make them, too, either part-time or nonexistent.
Now, I'm not in favor of part-time legislatures because of the savings. That would be a start, but just a pittance. More so, I am in favor of part-time legislatures (including Congress, see above) to get them away from making so many laws that are ruining this country. To wit, the state legislature now requires school districts to report any teacher illness lasting more than three days. Now, is this to check up on teachers? I don't know. But consider the time, effort, and money spent/wasted on this.
Should we then turn to the myriad agencies created by full-time legislatures? You know, the people who are not responsible to anyone, no electorate, nobody, and give such great service, care, and concern? Let's make them, too, either part-time or nonexistent.
Two Items
I heard on the radio this week these two things.
First, one of our Congressmen from Michigan pretty much said, flat out, that he's smarter than we are and knows what's best for us better than we do. There, that's one of the "anointed" for you. I think most of them are like that, certainly Reid, Pelosi, and their cabal and, of course, Obama. Well, although they may know a bit more on the specific issues--at least I would hope they would, since that's their job!!!!! and we have other jobs--they aren't any smarter. I've listened to some of these people and, although I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, they are not smarter than I am. In fact, I think I could make a pretty good case they are a lot more stupid! But, let's keep electing the "anointed."
Second, there was a U of M prof discussing "obesity" on the air. She was very interesting, made good points, esp toward the costs of obese and overweight people, etc. Then, she lost me. She said it wasn't people's fault they ate too much and exercised too little, that, indeed, they were overweight or obese. It was outside factors, such as stress, frustration, etc. Yeah, right. I weigh 20 pounds more than I should because of stress and frustration? No! I weigh 20 pounds more than I should because I like to drink beer (and do) and like to eat just about anything (except vegetables and fruits), including raw cookie dough (and I do). If stress and frustration led to overweight and obesity, back when I was working, I'd have weighed 400 lbs!!!! Yet another instance of not holding people accountable for their own actions, their own lives; it's always somebody or something else's fault.
First, one of our Congressmen from Michigan pretty much said, flat out, that he's smarter than we are and knows what's best for us better than we do. There, that's one of the "anointed" for you. I think most of them are like that, certainly Reid, Pelosi, and their cabal and, of course, Obama. Well, although they may know a bit more on the specific issues--at least I would hope they would, since that's their job!!!!! and we have other jobs--they aren't any smarter. I've listened to some of these people and, although I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, they are not smarter than I am. In fact, I think I could make a pretty good case they are a lot more stupid! But, let's keep electing the "anointed."
Second, there was a U of M prof discussing "obesity" on the air. She was very interesting, made good points, esp toward the costs of obese and overweight people, etc. Then, she lost me. She said it wasn't people's fault they ate too much and exercised too little, that, indeed, they were overweight or obese. It was outside factors, such as stress, frustration, etc. Yeah, right. I weigh 20 pounds more than I should because of stress and frustration? No! I weigh 20 pounds more than I should because I like to drink beer (and do) and like to eat just about anything (except vegetables and fruits), including raw cookie dough (and I do). If stress and frustration led to overweight and obesity, back when I was working, I'd have weighed 400 lbs!!!! Yet another instance of not holding people accountable for their own actions, their own lives; it's always somebody or something else's fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
