Yet other signs that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:
I read today that the Olympic Village was passing out condoms to the athletes. Great, just great! And we hold these athletes up as some sorts of paragons. Ha Ha!
A Detroit Free Press columnist suggested that maybe the elected DC are competent enough to give us health care. Is this guy nuts? How did he get his job? Does he have something on someone in high places? Is it nepotism? Again and again, the Bozos in DC are fouling up things. This columnist even suggested that the President handled himself well at the recent health summit. I guess this guys bias is showing--pretty clearly. I heard some of it on the radio, driving back and forth to class, and the President surely didn't seem very, ahem, "statesmanlike." Rather, he sounded like a, well, Chicago politician.
The Olympic hockey gold medal game, between the US and Canada, goes into OT. So, what goes on the television in our house? Yep, you guessed it--reruns of Deal or No Deal. And, what makes this worse, Olympic skating, luge, skiing, racing, etc. are watched.
An article profiles a couple of successful schools and the headmaster/principal notes all the programs and policies of the school, but notes they are not nearly as important as quality teachers. Now, who's going to listen to that one? Or, more likely, who's going to admit that there are far too many teachers out there who are of poor quality. Again, note the easiest curricula and the lowest GPAs belong to whom???? Yep, our graduating teachers.
I just finished a book the other day on the Leo Frank case. Frank was a Northern Jew who ran a pencil factory in Atlanta, GA in the 1910s. A 13-year old girl was murdered and he was tried and convicted of the crime, sentenced to be electrocuted. He received a commutation to life in prison, but, somehow, was kidnapped from jail and lynched. As terrible as that seems, the book's most sordid, chilling parts were those that showed the gov't--police, prosecutor, judge, elected officials--as biased, dishonest, incompetent. Evidence was fixed, witnesses coerced or bribed, "facts" changed, etc. The book, in addition to the light it shined on anti-Semitism, was a reminder of just how dangerous gov't can be in the hands of the wrong people.
Can there be any more disingenuous utterance than some professional (or, I suppose college) athlete who says, "I just want to contribute," "I just want to help my team," "I want to put my team in a position to win," or some other such nonsense. Then why can't more players bunt or hit behind the runner? OK, Polanco could and did do those things, oh, but he left. Can you say "play out option," "millions of dollars," "transfer," etc.???? Who believes this crap? I don't care what they make--I don't have to watch or go to games (and I don't). But don't say this silly stuff and expect not to be laughed at.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Random Saturday Musings
From George Will, "Liberals are deeply disappointed with the public, which fails to fathom the excellence of their agenda." Will nails it, to cite a sports phrase! Liberals are what Thomas Sowell calls, "the anointed," although "the self-anointed" is more accurate, I think. They are smarter than we are; they know what's best for us better than we do. Now, I have no doubt the conservatives might think the same things, that they are smarter, etc. But, they are not the ones trying to ram through all this deleterious legislation right now.
Consider, the federal deficit/debt. If government spending goes up the $1.2 trillion dollars as projected, that is about $150,000 for every man, woman, child in this country! Instead of the gov't spending all of this, most as we know is wasted, how about giving us each $150K and let us spend it? Imagine the jobs we, not Congress, could create by going on a spending spree of those proportions! I point to students, who are rarely confronted with negatives views of FDR and the New Deal, that the tax rates during the Depression were about 23% for those making $2000 and 94% for those making $200,000 and above. Let's see, the lower income gets to take home $1540 (I used my calculator!) and the upper income takes home $12,000. Wait a minute... You mean one guy makes 100 times what the other guy does, but gets to spend only about 7.5 times more? You are catching on students.... Then, I ask, let's suppose we tax the upper brackets at only (I do say it facetiously) 50%, so the upper income actually brings home $100,000. What do you think he's going to do with that extra $88K the government hasn't taken? The cogs begin to turn, as I continue to ask--and who's going to make all those extra things that $88K per person is going to buy? Hmm....
Speaking of FDR, let's toss in LBJ and make it complete. Are we ever going to get out of this atmosphere of dependence on the gov't started and furthered by these two, among others? I was struck this week, twice in two different classes, by two students questions. Is this when (the Depression) people started expecting government handouts? (OK, that wasn't exactly how the questions were worded, but was certainly the gist of them.) Need we wonder?
Chas Krauthammer had an interesting piece this week. He asked us to reflect on the costs of progress. For instance, we have drugs that are dangerous for a small percentage, a very small percentage, of people, but they are very helpful for overwhelmingly larger percentages. Yet, the outcry to ban these drugs is deafening. Vioxx, which was found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes a "whopping" 0.75% to 1.5% among users, was taken off the market. But how many people who were no longer able to treat their debilitating arthritis, among other things, were now denied the chance to do so? The risk was theirs, yet the choice was taken from their hands by the do-gooders who forced the ban. They were now faced with crippled lives. Should we bring up the 55 mph speed limit and the number of lives that saved versus the 70 mph limit? That reminds me of the folks who decry the "GREED" of Wall Street, of the big oil companies, of the banks, etc., yet find nothing wrong with giving their favorite college football teams' coaches millions of dollars, with funding stadiums to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, of pay Major League players tens of millions of dollars a year, etc. Has anyone come close to calculating the numbers of Third World lives lost or the suffering and misery of those who didn't die because of the ban on DDT several decades ago? Who said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
I was pouring (or is it poring???) through a magazine for librarians (or is it media specialists???) the other day. I was checking the reviews of books, videos, DVD, etc. Has anyone ever been critical of a biog of Pres Obama or his wife or a history of Am Indians, etc.?
Funny, our basketball team was lambasted today. If I didn't know better, I'd think we hadn't just had 7 weeks of games and practices. It was that bad, if not worse. I did have to laugh, though, when one parent came to me at halftime of one of the games and complained that one kid on the opposing team "wasn't guarding his man." The kid "was double teaming, just running all over the court stealing the ball." Well, yep, he was, but.... Didn't this parent notice our kids, including his, dribbling with heads down, losing the ball to players they didn't see because their head were down? Didn't he notice the rotten passes to the other team (I facetiously told our players during a time out that we were wearing white jerseys, not red) because their heads were down and they couldn't see who they were passing to? Didn't he notice the missed shots, when we were able to take them or the lack of trying for rebounds (jump? grab and hold the ball? You mean you might have to jump and then grab and hold the ball to get a rebound?)? Ah, the pleasures of myopia.
Can't wait for tomorrow AM's NY Times Crossword (about the only thing still worthwhile in that paper, but the NY Times doesn't see that yet) and the coupons. (I saved over $60 this week, out of $90-some.)
Out to have a ham sandwich on oat bread with honey mustard....
Consider, the federal deficit/debt. If government spending goes up the $1.2 trillion dollars as projected, that is about $150,000 for every man, woman, child in this country! Instead of the gov't spending all of this, most as we know is wasted, how about giving us each $150K and let us spend it? Imagine the jobs we, not Congress, could create by going on a spending spree of those proportions! I point to students, who are rarely confronted with negatives views of FDR and the New Deal, that the tax rates during the Depression were about 23% for those making $2000 and 94% for those making $200,000 and above. Let's see, the lower income gets to take home $1540 (I used my calculator!) and the upper income takes home $12,000. Wait a minute... You mean one guy makes 100 times what the other guy does, but gets to spend only about 7.5 times more? You are catching on students.... Then, I ask, let's suppose we tax the upper brackets at only (I do say it facetiously) 50%, so the upper income actually brings home $100,000. What do you think he's going to do with that extra $88K the government hasn't taken? The cogs begin to turn, as I continue to ask--and who's going to make all those extra things that $88K per person is going to buy? Hmm....
Speaking of FDR, let's toss in LBJ and make it complete. Are we ever going to get out of this atmosphere of dependence on the gov't started and furthered by these two, among others? I was struck this week, twice in two different classes, by two students questions. Is this when (the Depression) people started expecting government handouts? (OK, that wasn't exactly how the questions were worded, but was certainly the gist of them.) Need we wonder?
Chas Krauthammer had an interesting piece this week. He asked us to reflect on the costs of progress. For instance, we have drugs that are dangerous for a small percentage, a very small percentage, of people, but they are very helpful for overwhelmingly larger percentages. Yet, the outcry to ban these drugs is deafening. Vioxx, which was found to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes a "whopping" 0.75% to 1.5% among users, was taken off the market. But how many people who were no longer able to treat their debilitating arthritis, among other things, were now denied the chance to do so? The risk was theirs, yet the choice was taken from their hands by the do-gooders who forced the ban. They were now faced with crippled lives. Should we bring up the 55 mph speed limit and the number of lives that saved versus the 70 mph limit? That reminds me of the folks who decry the "GREED" of Wall Street, of the big oil companies, of the banks, etc., yet find nothing wrong with giving their favorite college football teams' coaches millions of dollars, with funding stadiums to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, of pay Major League players tens of millions of dollars a year, etc. Has anyone come close to calculating the numbers of Third World lives lost or the suffering and misery of those who didn't die because of the ban on DDT several decades ago? Who said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
I was pouring (or is it poring???) through a magazine for librarians (or is it media specialists???) the other day. I was checking the reviews of books, videos, DVD, etc. Has anyone ever been critical of a biog of Pres Obama or his wife or a history of Am Indians, etc.?
Funny, our basketball team was lambasted today. If I didn't know better, I'd think we hadn't just had 7 weeks of games and practices. It was that bad, if not worse. I did have to laugh, though, when one parent came to me at halftime of one of the games and complained that one kid on the opposing team "wasn't guarding his man." The kid "was double teaming, just running all over the court stealing the ball." Well, yep, he was, but.... Didn't this parent notice our kids, including his, dribbling with heads down, losing the ball to players they didn't see because their head were down? Didn't he notice the rotten passes to the other team (I facetiously told our players during a time out that we were wearing white jerseys, not red) because their heads were down and they couldn't see who they were passing to? Didn't he notice the missed shots, when we were able to take them or the lack of trying for rebounds (jump? grab and hold the ball? You mean you might have to jump and then grab and hold the ball to get a rebound?)? Ah, the pleasures of myopia.
Can't wait for tomorrow AM's NY Times Crossword (about the only thing still worthwhile in that paper, but the NY Times doesn't see that yet) and the coupons. (I saved over $60 this week, out of $90-some.)
Out to have a ham sandwich on oat bread with honey mustard....
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Amherst Teachers
I know I have expressed, here and elsewhere, how very fortunate I was to go to Amherst. Most, not all, but most were just outstanding. After teaching for almost 40 years, I still marvel at what they did and how they did it. I am, often, in awe--still--of many of them. Their book, Teaching: What We Do, should be required reading for every teacher and every "wannabe" teacher. Just coincidentally, on one of my class's listserves, one of the teaching essays in this book was mentioned. Yep....
In the latest issue of the Amherst Alumni Magazine, this great teaching was again highlighted. The letter was titled, "A Teacher Most of All." In it, the alumnus spoke of an encounter with on of our professors. The alum, sheepishly or "with embarrassment...confided" to our prof that he "had not made much professionally" of his AC education. Our professor, in turn, "would have none of it, insisting to the contrary that a conscientious life of raising a family and assisting in the local community could be just as fitting and honorable a return on an academic investment." Wow!!!!
Yep, how lucky I was....and am.
In the latest issue of the Amherst Alumni Magazine, this great teaching was again highlighted. The letter was titled, "A Teacher Most of All." In it, the alumnus spoke of an encounter with on of our professors. The alum, sheepishly or "with embarrassment...confided" to our prof that he "had not made much professionally" of his AC education. Our professor, in turn, "would have none of it, insisting to the contrary that a conscientious life of raising a family and assisting in the local community could be just as fitting and honorable a return on an academic investment." Wow!!!!
Yep, how lucky I was....and am.
Addendum
Oh, while I'm at it....
I heard on the radio coming come from running with Michael Holmes (my blind buddy) some talking head who really didn't speak English very well--not properly, not very descriptive. I thought this odd, seeing as the guy makes his living through "communication." Hmmmm....
Anyway, this reminded me of a conversation I had with another teacher a few years ago, just before I retired. I mentioned one of my pet peeves (OK, so it's not a big thing) in student writing. This teacher, in the English Dept (Oh, I'm sorry, the "Language Arts" Dept), you know, the one dedicated to communication, didn't agree with my "peeve." I remember her exact words, "Oh, that's not important." For whatever reason (likely because at the time, I thought it would be a waste of my time), I didn't contest that response. But, I have thought about it more than once over the years. "Oh, that's not important." My concern was what she thought was "not important" was the use of a word that would make writing or speaking just a little more precise, a little more accurate in description. How odd, that an English teacher (yes, English!) would think it "not important" to be more precise, etc. in the use of language. And, again over the years, I remember similar comments, from history, math, etc., as well as English teachers. I wonder how many administrators ever think about these things. Well, actually, I don't really wonder because I'm pretty sure I know.
Perhaps that's the problem. Those in education don't have the background, the discipline, the knowledge to teach little things. They don't even think about them. I am reading now Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point. He certainly wouldn't argue that little things are "not important." Again, and I know I harp on this, perhaps so incessantly nobody listens, this is another thing wrong with education that those in charge of it have no ideas about.
I heard on the radio coming come from running with Michael Holmes (my blind buddy) some talking head who really didn't speak English very well--not properly, not very descriptive. I thought this odd, seeing as the guy makes his living through "communication." Hmmmm....
Anyway, this reminded me of a conversation I had with another teacher a few years ago, just before I retired. I mentioned one of my pet peeves (OK, so it's not a big thing) in student writing. This teacher, in the English Dept (Oh, I'm sorry, the "Language Arts" Dept), you know, the one dedicated to communication, didn't agree with my "peeve." I remember her exact words, "Oh, that's not important." For whatever reason (likely because at the time, I thought it would be a waste of my time), I didn't contest that response. But, I have thought about it more than once over the years. "Oh, that's not important." My concern was what she thought was "not important" was the use of a word that would make writing or speaking just a little more precise, a little more accurate in description. How odd, that an English teacher (yes, English!) would think it "not important" to be more precise, etc. in the use of language. And, again over the years, I remember similar comments, from history, math, etc., as well as English teachers. I wonder how many administrators ever think about these things. Well, actually, I don't really wonder because I'm pretty sure I know.
Perhaps that's the problem. Those in education don't have the background, the discipline, the knowledge to teach little things. They don't even think about them. I am reading now Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point. He certainly wouldn't argue that little things are "not important." Again, and I know I harp on this, perhaps so incessantly nobody listens, this is another thing wrong with education that those in charge of it have no ideas about.
Primary Sources
One of my former OCC students sent me an e-mail decrying the use of his most recent, less favorite buzzword--"footprint." I concurred and added "transparency."
But that also sparked something I've been thinking about for a while--the use of, indeed, the emphasis on, primary sources in the current teaching of history. First, to be clear, I am not opposed to using primary sources, not at all. And, in fact, I do use them in class, in assignments, and even on tests/quizzes. But I wonder if, perhaps, "primary sources" have become a sort of buzzword in teaching history.
They might be fine, really required/necessary, for students planning on majoring in history. Let's give them more and more of them. And, I think primary sources should be introduced to all students of history, if, at the very least, to show them things like bias/prejudice, perspective ("the big picture"), etc. and their roles in history. But, do nonmajors really need a whole lot of primary source study? I wonder. Since we have such limited time with nonmajors and, according to all the published studies/reports, most Americans have such scant knowledge of history, shouldn't we spend more time on the actual history (I just frightened myself, almost using the word "consensus," another idiotic buzzword of years past!), not primary sources? Students/Citizens don't know about the Civil War, the Constitution, the Depression, etc. in any depth, with little understanding. So, if we spend more time on two or three generals' views of a battle (primary sources), are we cutting into information that would be more necessary and relevant to a nonmajor?
I'm not sure; I'm just asking. And, in the interest of "transparency" (yes, I am now laughing!), one of my favorite lessons in class (discussion/seminar) is based on two primary source readings. It's good to talk over such things in education/teaching.
But that also sparked something I've been thinking about for a while--the use of, indeed, the emphasis on, primary sources in the current teaching of history. First, to be clear, I am not opposed to using primary sources, not at all. And, in fact, I do use them in class, in assignments, and even on tests/quizzes. But I wonder if, perhaps, "primary sources" have become a sort of buzzword in teaching history.
They might be fine, really required/necessary, for students planning on majoring in history. Let's give them more and more of them. And, I think primary sources should be introduced to all students of history, if, at the very least, to show them things like bias/prejudice, perspective ("the big picture"), etc. and their roles in history. But, do nonmajors really need a whole lot of primary source study? I wonder. Since we have such limited time with nonmajors and, according to all the published studies/reports, most Americans have such scant knowledge of history, shouldn't we spend more time on the actual history (I just frightened myself, almost using the word "consensus," another idiotic buzzword of years past!), not primary sources? Students/Citizens don't know about the Civil War, the Constitution, the Depression, etc. in any depth, with little understanding. So, if we spend more time on two or three generals' views of a battle (primary sources), are we cutting into information that would be more necessary and relevant to a nonmajor?
I'm not sure; I'm just asking. And, in the interest of "transparency" (yes, I am now laughing!), one of my favorite lessons in class (discussion/seminar) is based on two primary source readings. It's good to talk over such things in education/teaching.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thoughts
Imagine if W. Bush had said, "I refust to accept the notion that the US...is not going to lead the world...throughout the 20th Century"--on Feb 16, 2010! That's more than nine years after the "20th C" ended. And, it was Joe Biden. I've heard, but can't confirm, even Democrats have called Biden "the dumbest man in the Senate." Maybe, maybe not. But he was just a little off with his dates here, almost a decade so. Sort of like Obama twice (or more) referring to the "57 states." Slips? Maybe and, I'd guess, likely. But if W had said these things, we'd be reading and hearing about them forever, along with how stupid he was/is. Again, maybe, but what a double standard.
Equal time--How about the Rep National Committee Chair M. Steele who said something last week about, after taxes, a million dollars (income) really isn't that much money? First, is this guy an idiot? Second, is this yet another piece of proof of how out of touch these "elites," "the anointed," are with the rest of us? Even after 30+ years of working, at my peak salary, it would have taken me about 15 years (two jobs, mind you) to earn $1,000,000. Who are these people? We certainly need and, if we really care, deserve a viable third party. The Dems and Reps are both Bozos.
How about the WSJ writing that, after Gov Jennie, the Reps could pretty much nominate a corpse and would be "nearly guaranteed to win the governorship?" I think even the Free Press had some derogatory things to say about her yesterday, something about 7 years and still doesn't have a clue--the Free Press!
OK, so the 3rd grade basketball league rules say no substituting players "if a team has 10 players." Now, it's all right to substitute if a team has nine or eleven. And, each game has 5, not 4 periods. So, how is a coach to get all of his players in the game for an equal amount of time without being able to substitute? Almost all of the referees have permitted us to do so, through 12 games so far. They understand, esp since our team is 1-11, and we can't substitute anyone to "pull out a game in the final minutes." Fine, so we run into a clod of a referee who didn't let us substitute. I tried to explain what I was doing, that I wasn't trying to cheat, that I really didn't care if we won or lost, but was just trying to get players who hadn't played as much as the others into the game. Nope, Mr Inflexible said no. He was also the guy who threatened to give our team a technical for not picking up defensively at the time line. We picked up at the top of the key (so the offensive players wouldn't just blow past us for layups), weren't double teaming, in essence, not trying to cheat or do anything duplicitous. But, nope, Mr Inflexible.... Mike did pick up a tech, after I likely set him up after talking to the official and using words like "ridiculous," "stupid," etc. In the next game we cleared with one official substituting. He had no problem with it, as long as our players checked in and waiting to be waved in during a dead ball. Fine--and the other coach said OK, too. So, when we subbed, or tried to, to even out playing time with 3 mins to go (and the subs weren't going to have any impact on the outcome of the game), the other official blew the whistle and said he wasn't going to let us do that. He also cited "the rules." About 20 secs later, an opposing defender just smashed one of our players, knocking him over, getting the ball, and going down for an easy shot. On the way back up the court I said to the official, "So, it's against the rules to substitute, but perfectly fine to throw trap blocks (football) out there. Just brilliant!" He just shrugged. Again, it's the high school kids who do a fine job of officiating, of letting the kids, note that, "the kids" play the game, be the focus--not the referees or some stupid set of rules that people who have no sense or ideas have made.
We had about 6-7" of snow today. Bopper and I went out to shovel. I went this AM, while he and Grandma were still sleeping and he came with me the second time. With all of the kids in the neighborhood, upper el, jr and sr high students, only one other was shoveling. Mostly it was adults--with snow blowers, of course--or plowing companies. Not to take business from the plowers, but I think that says a lot about where we are right now. Kids are supposed to shovel the snow--and it the summer mow the lawn--but they don't. And we wonder....
Out to play a board game with Bopper.
Equal time--How about the Rep National Committee Chair M. Steele who said something last week about, after taxes, a million dollars (income) really isn't that much money? First, is this guy an idiot? Second, is this yet another piece of proof of how out of touch these "elites," "the anointed," are with the rest of us? Even after 30+ years of working, at my peak salary, it would have taken me about 15 years (two jobs, mind you) to earn $1,000,000. Who are these people? We certainly need and, if we really care, deserve a viable third party. The Dems and Reps are both Bozos.
How about the WSJ writing that, after Gov Jennie, the Reps could pretty much nominate a corpse and would be "nearly guaranteed to win the governorship?" I think even the Free Press had some derogatory things to say about her yesterday, something about 7 years and still doesn't have a clue--the Free Press!
OK, so the 3rd grade basketball league rules say no substituting players "if a team has 10 players." Now, it's all right to substitute if a team has nine or eleven. And, each game has 5, not 4 periods. So, how is a coach to get all of his players in the game for an equal amount of time without being able to substitute? Almost all of the referees have permitted us to do so, through 12 games so far. They understand, esp since our team is 1-11, and we can't substitute anyone to "pull out a game in the final minutes." Fine, so we run into a clod of a referee who didn't let us substitute. I tried to explain what I was doing, that I wasn't trying to cheat, that I really didn't care if we won or lost, but was just trying to get players who hadn't played as much as the others into the game. Nope, Mr Inflexible said no. He was also the guy who threatened to give our team a technical for not picking up defensively at the time line. We picked up at the top of the key (so the offensive players wouldn't just blow past us for layups), weren't double teaming, in essence, not trying to cheat or do anything duplicitous. But, nope, Mr Inflexible.... Mike did pick up a tech, after I likely set him up after talking to the official and using words like "ridiculous," "stupid," etc. In the next game we cleared with one official substituting. He had no problem with it, as long as our players checked in and waiting to be waved in during a dead ball. Fine--and the other coach said OK, too. So, when we subbed, or tried to, to even out playing time with 3 mins to go (and the subs weren't going to have any impact on the outcome of the game), the other official blew the whistle and said he wasn't going to let us do that. He also cited "the rules." About 20 secs later, an opposing defender just smashed one of our players, knocking him over, getting the ball, and going down for an easy shot. On the way back up the court I said to the official, "So, it's against the rules to substitute, but perfectly fine to throw trap blocks (football) out there. Just brilliant!" He just shrugged. Again, it's the high school kids who do a fine job of officiating, of letting the kids, note that, "the kids" play the game, be the focus--not the referees or some stupid set of rules that people who have no sense or ideas have made.
We had about 6-7" of snow today. Bopper and I went out to shovel. I went this AM, while he and Grandma were still sleeping and he came with me the second time. With all of the kids in the neighborhood, upper el, jr and sr high students, only one other was shoveling. Mostly it was adults--with snow blowers, of course--or plowing companies. Not to take business from the plowers, but I think that says a lot about where we are right now. Kids are supposed to shovel the snow--and it the summer mow the lawn--but they don't. And we wonder....
Out to play a board game with Bopper.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Random Fri Thoughts
A few quick thoughts:
First, an apology. As gbohr, a former student, noted correctly, I was in error with my Lincoln's Birthday post last week. He was, of course, born in 1809, back when I was a kid. This year, then, marks his 201 birthday, not 198. I reckon my calculator wasn't working that night. I hope Bittinger and Kittle aren't paying attention!
Did you see what Thomas Friedman said? Why can't we be more like China????? Can you believe that? He was talking about Chinese gov't efficiency, compared to our "ungovernable" government. Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Is this guy a nut? How can we take anyone who says this seriously? I suppose the Chinese don't have to worry about things like freedom, liberty, etc. to get in the way of their efficiency. I hope he didn't really say that.
Out...to help Ashley on the laptop.
First, an apology. As gbohr, a former student, noted correctly, I was in error with my Lincoln's Birthday post last week. He was, of course, born in 1809, back when I was a kid. This year, then, marks his 201 birthday, not 198. I reckon my calculator wasn't working that night. I hope Bittinger and Kittle aren't paying attention!
Did you see what Thomas Friedman said? Why can't we be more like China????? Can you believe that? He was talking about Chinese gov't efficiency, compared to our "ungovernable" government. Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time. Is this guy a nut? How can we take anyone who says this seriously? I suppose the Chinese don't have to worry about things like freedom, liberty, etc. to get in the way of their efficiency. I hope he didn't really say that.
Out...to help Ashley on the laptop.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Apocalypse
College athletics have, once again, reminded us of how close we are to the Apocalypse.
First, USC has tendered a scholarship offer to a 13-year old! No more comments from me; just think about that one.
Second, the Big Ten is apparently considering the addition of Texas and who knows who else. Why? No doubt it's money. Do we learn nothing from the past, nothing? Have we not learned that "bigger" isn't synonymous with "better?" Is the greatest profit that which drives everything? And, sadly I think, my buddies who are always harping on the "greed" of big business like oil, banks, etc., think this (the "greed") is perfectly fine.
First, USC has tendered a scholarship offer to a 13-year old! No more comments from me; just think about that one.
Second, the Big Ten is apparently considering the addition of Texas and who knows who else. Why? No doubt it's money. Do we learn nothing from the past, nothing? Have we not learned that "bigger" isn't synonymous with "better?" Is the greatest profit that which drives everything? And, sadly I think, my buddies who are always harping on the "greed" of big business like oil, banks, etc., think this (the "greed") is perfectly fine.
Presidents' Day
On this Presidents' Day, something to think about:
George Washington left the Presidency after two terms. There were no "term limits." He did so voluntarily. Most Americans expected him to serve for life. At the end of the American Revolution, commanding a victorious Continental Armry, even George III, the king of Britain, asked, "What will George Washington do now?" He was told by John Adams, "I suspect he will go back to his farm." To which G III replied, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man on earth." Even when he reluctantly accepted political office, he waited until he was summoned by popular election.
Consider these two voluntary cessions of power. The 18th Century world was one where leaders had always grabbed for more power, more authority. Contrast Washington's behavior with that of a contemporary, Napoleon Bonaparte. To step down, again voluntarily, was the most majestic democratic move Washington could have made. He silenced a small, but growing Republican opposition that was warning of an American monarchy. He established an enduring legacy of limited Presidential terms, until the egocentric, self-anointed Franklin Roosevelt.
When you go out to your mailbox and find no mail delivery on Presidents' Day, ponder this.
George Washington left the Presidency after two terms. There were no "term limits." He did so voluntarily. Most Americans expected him to serve for life. At the end of the American Revolution, commanding a victorious Continental Armry, even George III, the king of Britain, asked, "What will George Washington do now?" He was told by John Adams, "I suspect he will go back to his farm." To which G III replied, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man on earth." Even when he reluctantly accepted political office, he waited until he was summoned by popular election.
Consider these two voluntary cessions of power. The 18th Century world was one where leaders had always grabbed for more power, more authority. Contrast Washington's behavior with that of a contemporary, Napoleon Bonaparte. To step down, again voluntarily, was the most majestic democratic move Washington could have made. He silenced a small, but growing Republican opposition that was warning of an American monarchy. He established an enduring legacy of limited Presidential terms, until the egocentric, self-anointed Franklin Roosevelt.
When you go out to your mailbox and find no mail delivery on Presidents' Day, ponder this.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Generosity
Americans, "The Ugly Americans," are the most generous people in the world--and in the word's history! I recently read some statistics, very gratifying ones.
Annually, Americans donate about twice as much money to charitable causes as they spend on things like cell phones, Ipods, and the other high-tech electronic gear. Lower income groups actually donate more, as a percentage of income, than higher ones. I know the math, but even with that considered, it's impressive.
Now, these are private donations, not government spending. Nobody is coerced into giving, like they are legally forced to do with taxes. A disturbing possibility is government actions coming in through several new proposals. One includes reducing or eliminating tax-exempt status for all but the largest foundations. Another might eliminate tax deductions for giving. Yet another includes the government oversight, that is, government determining if a particular charity is "worthy" of current exemptions, deductions. As if government is qualified to determine any of this.
Again, it is gratifying and impressive that my fellow Americans are so open with their wallets and pocketbooks. Good for us!!!!
Annually, Americans donate about twice as much money to charitable causes as they spend on things like cell phones, Ipods, and the other high-tech electronic gear. Lower income groups actually donate more, as a percentage of income, than higher ones. I know the math, but even with that considered, it's impressive.
Now, these are private donations, not government spending. Nobody is coerced into giving, like they are legally forced to do with taxes. A disturbing possibility is government actions coming in through several new proposals. One includes reducing or eliminating tax-exempt status for all but the largest foundations. Another might eliminate tax deductions for giving. Yet another includes the government oversight, that is, government determining if a particular charity is "worthy" of current exemptions, deductions. As if government is qualified to determine any of this.
Again, it is gratifying and impressive that my fellow Americans are so open with their wallets and pocketbooks. Good for us!!!!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Abraham Lincoln
On this, Abraham Lincoln's 198th birthday, it is good to ponder these words from W.E.B. Du Bois:
"I love him [Lincoln] not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed.... The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet became Abraham Lincoln."
"I love him [Lincoln] not because he was perfect, but because he was not and yet triumphed.... The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet became Abraham Lincoln."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Deceit
People often say a "study" can be found to support any argument. Of course one can. And, if there isn't one, just make it up.
I read a letter-to-the editor in the newspaper the other day that confirmed that. A week or so ago, the newspaper ran an op-ed piece claiming Michigan citizens were reluctantly amenable (is that oxymoronic???) to higher taxes. (Of course, anyone paying attention would find this pretty incredible.) The op-ed piece cited a study/survey taken at some conference (in Grand Rapids?) supporting this. The letter came from a conference attendee. He said, that in his "focus group" and other about which he was familiar, the opinion was heavily in favor, if not unanimous, of no higher taxes. He went on to say the "moderator," that is, the spinner, went on to rephrase things among the larger group to justify saying, "Michigan citizens will support higher taxes." C'mon, who would believe that????
It reminded me of the public schools. They make up crap all of the time--and, of course, people either believe it or don't care. I'll cite an example. The accreditation process for public schools is a sham. It's a scam that someone thought up years ago to make money. There's no other rationale behind it. Anyway, it has turned into a "self-evaluation" process. Oh, oh. I remember, in the "self-evaluation," one dept at our schools rated itself and the school pretty low in a number of areas. The "steering committee" then "steered" the survey back to the dept asking it to raise its ratings, that the place wasn't really that bad. The dept got the message and just filled out a bogus higher rating. My own dept had several, I think, honest evalutions that were "negative." The steering committee didn't even need to do anything about that. The dept head, who might have sat on the committee, merely didn't counted the negative ratings. Pretty good self-evaluation, huh? Sort of like getting to vote yourself a raise.
How have we arrived where we are? What went wrong?
I read a letter-to-the editor in the newspaper the other day that confirmed that. A week or so ago, the newspaper ran an op-ed piece claiming Michigan citizens were reluctantly amenable (is that oxymoronic???) to higher taxes. (Of course, anyone paying attention would find this pretty incredible.) The op-ed piece cited a study/survey taken at some conference (in Grand Rapids?) supporting this. The letter came from a conference attendee. He said, that in his "focus group" and other about which he was familiar, the opinion was heavily in favor, if not unanimous, of no higher taxes. He went on to say the "moderator," that is, the spinner, went on to rephrase things among the larger group to justify saying, "Michigan citizens will support higher taxes." C'mon, who would believe that????
It reminded me of the public schools. They make up crap all of the time--and, of course, people either believe it or don't care. I'll cite an example. The accreditation process for public schools is a sham. It's a scam that someone thought up years ago to make money. There's no other rationale behind it. Anyway, it has turned into a "self-evaluation" process. Oh, oh. I remember, in the "self-evaluation," one dept at our schools rated itself and the school pretty low in a number of areas. The "steering committee" then "steered" the survey back to the dept asking it to raise its ratings, that the place wasn't really that bad. The dept got the message and just filled out a bogus higher rating. My own dept had several, I think, honest evalutions that were "negative." The steering committee didn't even need to do anything about that. The dept head, who might have sat on the committee, merely didn't counted the negative ratings. Pretty good self-evaluation, huh? Sort of like getting to vote yourself a raise.
How have we arrived where we are? What went wrong?
"Hope and Change?"
What a bunch of malarkey!!!!
This Obama administration is as bad, or worse, than previous ones. "Transparency," "openness," (oh, how I dislike using those words!), etc. my bejabbers. This administration is as deceitful (or worse) as any of the past. Two things, perhaps, make it worse. One, the promise that things would be different. Two, theirs is a hidden agenda to change the fabric of American society/government.
And, what "defense" do I now get from BO supporters? The typical, "Well, Bush...." or "They all do it." Great, just great! When queried about the "change we can believe in," they start "talking Chinese."
Now, of course, there aren't any lies. They now, as the duplicitous and shameless media duly document, "misspoke." The Trans Sec "didn't really mean what he said." The Atty-Gen just tells people what they want to hear, ignoring the reality. The HS Sec just makes things up as she goes along. Obama, without the coaching of his teleprompter, proves what an "empty suit" he really is.
Again, remember, I am no Bush supporter or apologist. He, too, was a lousy President. That doesn't excuse the deceit, incompetence, etc. of Obama and his administration. I only hope that this country can rebound from these two--and their predecessor as well.
This Obama administration is as bad, or worse, than previous ones. "Transparency," "openness," (oh, how I dislike using those words!), etc. my bejabbers. This administration is as deceitful (or worse) as any of the past. Two things, perhaps, make it worse. One, the promise that things would be different. Two, theirs is a hidden agenda to change the fabric of American society/government.
And, what "defense" do I now get from BO supporters? The typical, "Well, Bush...." or "They all do it." Great, just great! When queried about the "change we can believe in," they start "talking Chinese."
Now, of course, there aren't any lies. They now, as the duplicitous and shameless media duly document, "misspoke." The Trans Sec "didn't really mean what he said." The Atty-Gen just tells people what they want to hear, ignoring the reality. The HS Sec just makes things up as she goes along. Obama, without the coaching of his teleprompter, proves what an "empty suit" he really is.
Again, remember, I am no Bush supporter or apologist. He, too, was a lousy President. That doesn't excuse the deceit, incompetence, etc. of Obama and his administration. I only hope that this country can rebound from these two--and their predecessor as well.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Fri Musings
I see some national columnists are exposing the Dems/libs. Charles Krauthammer, who is singularly good consistently, noted this. http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/02/05/the_great_peasant_revolt_of_2010
The Dems/libs are smarter than we are. They know what's best for us, better than we do. (I have no doubt that the Reps likely think so, too.) Their language, scorn for the common folks is readily apparent. They are "the anointed," sent here to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not.
For instance, I haven't heard from either of my US Sens since before Thanksgiving when, in essence I said, "No, you members of Congress are not smarter than I am. No, you don't know what's best for me and my family better than I do. And, even if you think you do, you have no right, no Constitutional authority to act on your false sense of superiority." And, one of them just a couple weeks ago said something like, "We worked really hard to give them [we peons] something [the health care bill] that is good for them." Really. This from the same women who, just last fall, sent me a reply to my queries about global warming, "The science is settled." Oh, this came after the Climategate e-mail scandals, where scientists were caught lying, fudging, etc.
Also, what's with all these Obama folks "misspeaking?" When Bush and his buddies said something that wasn't true, it was "lying." When BO and company are caught in, well, a lie, they are said to have "misspoken." Why does the media let this happen? I didn't (and often still don't) want people to know I was a teacher, esp where I worked, because I didn't want to be clumped in with the mediocrity, incompetence, lack of integrity/courage, etc. that was evident. It was, I imagine, a matter of pride, not self-righteousness--at least I like to think so. But where is a similar streak in journalists? Have they no sense of shame, embarrassment? Oh, I forgot...they don't. And they wonder why subscriptions/readerships are down.
The Dems/libs are smarter than we are. They know what's best for us, better than we do. (I have no doubt that the Reps likely think so, too.) Their language, scorn for the common folks is readily apparent. They are "the anointed," sent here to save us from ourselves, whether we like it or not.
For instance, I haven't heard from either of my US Sens since before Thanksgiving when, in essence I said, "No, you members of Congress are not smarter than I am. No, you don't know what's best for me and my family better than I do. And, even if you think you do, you have no right, no Constitutional authority to act on your false sense of superiority." And, one of them just a couple weeks ago said something like, "We worked really hard to give them [we peons] something [the health care bill] that is good for them." Really. This from the same women who, just last fall, sent me a reply to my queries about global warming, "The science is settled." Oh, this came after the Climategate e-mail scandals, where scientists were caught lying, fudging, etc.
Also, what's with all these Obama folks "misspeaking?" When Bush and his buddies said something that wasn't true, it was "lying." When BO and company are caught in, well, a lie, they are said to have "misspoken." Why does the media let this happen? I didn't (and often still don't) want people to know I was a teacher, esp where I worked, because I didn't want to be clumped in with the mediocrity, incompetence, lack of integrity/courage, etc. that was evident. It was, I imagine, a matter of pride, not self-righteousness--at least I like to think so. But where is a similar streak in journalists? Have they no sense of shame, embarrassment? Oh, I forgot...they don't. And they wonder why subscriptions/readerships are down.
Tired Day...Again
It's "Tired Day," again. And it's complicated by my first real cold in about 5 years. Hmmm...5 years, you say? I wonder if "5 years" has any meaning? BTW, NyQuil, Zicam, etc. haven't done diddly for me.
I've also been away for a while, about two weeks. Lots has happened and I have lots to say. But I don't know if I have time to do it all today on "Tired Day," what with grocery lists to compile, laundairy to do (the principals who used K's white tablecloths must be slobs!), dishes to clean, two reviews to type up and send, not to mention take care of the Codester, also battling a cold.
Sports! Several things have caught my attention. First, this Verlander gets $80 from the Tigers. OK, OK, it's over 6 years, but consider: that's like giving someone $80,000 a year for 1,000 years or $40,000 for 2,000 years. One might argue V is "worth it." Fine, I don't begrudge him his money. If someone is stupid, er, willing to give it to him in the name of winning at MLB, I don't care. What concerns me is the loss of moral compass here. C'mon...giving a guy playing a game this kind of money???? I noted also in the paper this AM a list of the top-paid Tigers of all time. In the list, there were several names I never heard of!!! And they were paid five or more million dollars a year. I think we have fallen off our rockers.
Second, someone said an NFL strike is inevitable for 2011. Am I the only one who thinks, "So what?" Why are they even thinking about a strike? How much money does one need? And all we hear is about big business, the Reps, etc., being "greedy?" What about these athletes (and, to toss in a few others, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock stars, etc.)? I know the arguments. We have to think about our families. Our playing/top earning span is such a short time. Right.... Have these guys ever heard of getting a real job after their playing days???? Apparently not. Yet, an NFL strike would be of far more significance to most Americans than, say, an out-of-control Congress.
Third, I guess U of M football signed some guy who ran into trouble with the law. It wasn't a DUI or a fight or even grass. Apparently the guy had a gun or was with guys who had guns for an armed robbery. Hmmm. So, the guy is a stud football player. I guess I believe in second chances, but.... Way to go U of M football. Once again, show us why you are better than everyone else by doing things the "Michigan way." BTW, some guy on a radio sports talks show was running down Michigan for the signing. Obviously, I agree. But then, when questioned about other programs, notably Florida, and their signings of "thugs," the guy said, "But they win." Ah, that explains it. Thanks for clearing up what a hypocrite and idiot you are.
Out to watch the Big Ten Network...not!!!!
I've also been away for a while, about two weeks. Lots has happened and I have lots to say. But I don't know if I have time to do it all today on "Tired Day," what with grocery lists to compile, laundairy to do (the principals who used K's white tablecloths must be slobs!), dishes to clean, two reviews to type up and send, not to mention take care of the Codester, also battling a cold.
Sports! Several things have caught my attention. First, this Verlander gets $80 from the Tigers. OK, OK, it's over 6 years, but consider: that's like giving someone $80,000 a year for 1,000 years or $40,000 for 2,000 years. One might argue V is "worth it." Fine, I don't begrudge him his money. If someone is stupid, er, willing to give it to him in the name of winning at MLB, I don't care. What concerns me is the loss of moral compass here. C'mon...giving a guy playing a game this kind of money???? I noted also in the paper this AM a list of the top-paid Tigers of all time. In the list, there were several names I never heard of!!! And they were paid five or more million dollars a year. I think we have fallen off our rockers.
Second, someone said an NFL strike is inevitable for 2011. Am I the only one who thinks, "So what?" Why are they even thinking about a strike? How much money does one need? And all we hear is about big business, the Reps, etc., being "greedy?" What about these athletes (and, to toss in a few others, Hollywood-types, hippy-rock stars, etc.)? I know the arguments. We have to think about our families. Our playing/top earning span is such a short time. Right.... Have these guys ever heard of getting a real job after their playing days???? Apparently not. Yet, an NFL strike would be of far more significance to most Americans than, say, an out-of-control Congress.
Third, I guess U of M football signed some guy who ran into trouble with the law. It wasn't a DUI or a fight or even grass. Apparently the guy had a gun or was with guys who had guns for an armed robbery. Hmmm. So, the guy is a stud football player. I guess I believe in second chances, but.... Way to go U of M football. Once again, show us why you are better than everyone else by doing things the "Michigan way." BTW, some guy on a radio sports talks show was running down Michigan for the signing. Obviously, I agree. But then, when questioned about other programs, notably Florida, and their signings of "thugs," the guy said, "But they win." Ah, that explains it. Thanks for clearing up what a hypocrite and idiot you are.
Out to watch the Big Ten Network...not!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
