Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:
Apparently some hippy rock singer, a woman, went to Dealy Plaza, where JFK was assassinated. In the middle of the day, with adults and kids around, she stripped. Yep, right down to au naturale. She wanted to publicize her new CD. Here's a clip, without the nudity:
http://www.comcast.net/video/singer-strips-at-assassination-site/1455845111/Comcast/1455302085/
First, look at the tattoos on her. That should tell us something. Second, why wasn't she arrested and tossed in the slammer? Is, then, public nudity all right now, perfectly legal? Couldn't a judge slap her in jail or, at least, fine her enough so that any money she makes from the CD is negated? Third, why doesn't her recording company drop her? (Oh, it expects to make money and that's everything--OK.) Fourth, why don't people refuse to buy anything she's done--that would certainly teach her a lesson, to make this nudity ploy turn her into a "starving artist" (although, if she's at all like the others making so-called "music" today, she is hardly an "artist").
Just one man's lonely thoughts.
http://www.comcast.net/video/singer-strips-at-assassination-site/1455845111/Comcast/1455302085/
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Just Curious
Suppose we all finally just said, "NO!" What if we decided not to pay our taxes until the politicians stopped spending like fanatics? What if we decided we wouldn't obey the laws the politicians, but most of us don't, want? Whay if we just said, "NO!"
What if we demanded that the "anointed," be they the politicians, the Hollywood-types, the mainstream media, the university intellectuals, or whoever knows what's "best" better than the rest of us do, live like they talk? What if we demanded that they live in houses like us, struggled to pay the bills like we do, etc. and live on the money we live on? I guess this can go to all those who favor government "doing something." Instead of raising taxes on everyone, what if we demanded that those who insist on "doing something" pay for everything or at least the "something?" Surely, then, they will spout something like "fair share," as if they had a monopoly on the definition of "fair."
I am not talking about charity here, not at all. But donations to charity should be voluntary, not coerced. (Perhaps, soon, it's time to look at the schools' new mandatory volunteer requirements, such as community service, for graduation. Although it's a laudable goal, that is community service, making it "mandatory" is wrong. And, if I do say so myself, it's not as if the schools do a good job at what they are supposed to be good at--education. Nope.) And, much of this gov't spending isn't "charity." Unless we've expanded the definition of the word, paying for the mistakes of others, silly and even stupid mistakes, isn't "charity." And, like the schools, it's not as if government has a great track record on what it does.
Out to play with the Codester outside--a beautiful early afternoon.
What if we demanded that the "anointed," be they the politicians, the Hollywood-types, the mainstream media, the university intellectuals, or whoever knows what's "best" better than the rest of us do, live like they talk? What if we demanded that they live in houses like us, struggled to pay the bills like we do, etc. and live on the money we live on? I guess this can go to all those who favor government "doing something." Instead of raising taxes on everyone, what if we demanded that those who insist on "doing something" pay for everything or at least the "something?" Surely, then, they will spout something like "fair share," as if they had a monopoly on the definition of "fair."
I am not talking about charity here, not at all. But donations to charity should be voluntary, not coerced. (Perhaps, soon, it's time to look at the schools' new mandatory volunteer requirements, such as community service, for graduation. Although it's a laudable goal, that is community service, making it "mandatory" is wrong. And, if I do say so myself, it's not as if the schools do a good job at what they are supposed to be good at--education. Nope.) And, much of this gov't spending isn't "charity." Unless we've expanded the definition of the word, paying for the mistakes of others, silly and even stupid mistakes, isn't "charity." And, like the schools, it's not as if government has a great track record on what it does.
Out to play with the Codester outside--a beautiful early afternoon.
Storm Rising?
Wow! Does this one (click the link at the end of my diatribe) hit the nail on the head!?!? Yes, this is why we are angry. We've done everything right, the way we are/were supposed to do it. Then we watch(ed) while those who didn't get rewarded. Meanwhile, the "anointed" (not only those mentioned, but Obama and our elected officials; "See Dick and Jane smirk") make fun of us, ignoring us because they know better. And, even if they do "know better" (and I obviously think they don't, not in the least), that's not what this [country] is all about.
I know a little history and their smugness reminds me of the British arrogance of the American Revolution. "Who are these peons on the fringes of civilization to demand 'no taxation without representation?' Don't they know that we'll do what's best for them, whether they know it or like it or not?" Apparently, the words "We the People" are an anachronism.
Opposition is dismissed as ignorant, stupid, or, more recently, extremist. We don't hear much of this from the mainstream media yet, but haven't the words "fascists" and "radicals" been used? How better, among the "anointed" to distract from the real issue--that they continually act against the will of the people?
I won't even start on the hypocrisy of their words and actions/lifestyle....
I hope we don't forget all this by November. If we do, we deserve exactly what we get. Unfortunately, our children and grandchildren deserve better! "Remember in November!"
http://spectator.org/people/james-p-gannon/article.xml
Hello!!! Is anyone here?
I know a little history and their smugness reminds me of the British arrogance of the American Revolution. "Who are these peons on the fringes of civilization to demand 'no taxation without representation?' Don't they know that we'll do what's best for them, whether they know it or like it or not?" Apparently, the words "We the People" are an anachronism.
Opposition is dismissed as ignorant, stupid, or, more recently, extremist. We don't hear much of this from the mainstream media yet, but haven't the words "fascists" and "radicals" been used? How better, among the "anointed" to distract from the real issue--that they continually act against the will of the people?
I won't even start on the hypocrisy of their words and actions/lifestyle....
I hope we don't forget all this by November. If we do, we deserve exactly what we get. Unfortunately, our children and grandchildren deserve better! "Remember in November!"
http://spectator.org/people/james-p-gannon/article.xml
Hello!!! Is anyone here?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Despair
No, I won't let this feeling, this lump of rocks in my stomach, get me down. I won't quit harping on these guys, these elected officials who continue to pass things in defiance of the obvious will of the American people.
They need to go, the sooner the better. If not, imagine the evil, the harm they will do to this nation and its heritage, tradition, and greatness.
No doubt, opponents of these bozos will be painted as some sort of extremists, Nazis or Fascists, even. The Tea Parties, Town Halls, and writers opposed to the massive, UnAmerican actions by Congress will themselves be characterized in pejorative ways. Note the Mallard Fillmore cartoon of last week, announcing that one of the major networks' news anchors will be absent for a few days recovering from a strained mouth--from smirking at a recent story about the Tea Parties. Expect no help from the mainstream media, notably television and newspapers. Apparently they never heard of Pastor Niemoeller (which doesn't surprise me, since they display an incredible lack of quality education).
Am I paranoid, an extremist? You decide. Catch this one.
Congressman Alcee Hastings, a Dem from Fla, said this the other day: "There ain't no rules here. We're tryin' to accomplish something.... All this talk about rules.... We make 'em up as we go along." (Should I add that Hastings was a Federal District Court Judge until impeached and removed about 20 years ago for financial improprieties? And then the idiotic voters of his district in Fla elected him to the House, again and again!)
If this doesn't scare us into finally standing up, get a load of this, from Mich's own John Dingell:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/dingell-it-will-take-a-while-for-obamacare-to-control-the-people/
And, I heard Dingell on the radio say that Congress is smarter than we are, that it knows better what's best for us.
Arrogance from the self-anointed. Bullying tactics, bribes, etc. Can anyone be a bigger sellout than Bart Stupak? He recently denounced a Republican proposal/amendment to the bill opposed to abortion that he himself suggested a while back! Is it true he was promised $700 million for his district--for airports???? Airports in the Upper Peninsula? And don't forget the prostitutes from Louisiana, Nebraska, etc.
"Ah, but it's always been like this," you say. I think I could argue it hasn't, at least not in such a debilitating way. And, besides, wasn't this supposed to be "Change we can count on?" You know, "transparency" (What happened to C-Span? Instead we get Sat night, Sun night, Chris Eve votes, backroom bribes/deals, etc.), bipartisanship (no need to address that one), no lobbyists' influence (Hmmm...who spends more time in the Obama White House than anyone else? Hint: it's a union known by its initials.), and "I'll read a bill for five days before I sign it."
It's time to get rid of them all--all the liars, cheats, arrogant asses (I know that term is usually reserved for the U of M). Let's vote in those who will repeal the bailouts, the health care, and, for a start, all the benefits these bozos in office have voted for themselves over the years. Had they been doing their jobs--you know, representing US citizens--I could live with the perquisites. But, they are so arrogant, they are the self-anointed, when we bounce them out of office, they should have no trouble taking care of themselves, making ends meet by themselves.
It's been nice talking to you, Ron and, no, the sinking feeling in my stomach hasn't abated.
They need to go, the sooner the better. If not, imagine the evil, the harm they will do to this nation and its heritage, tradition, and greatness.
No doubt, opponents of these bozos will be painted as some sort of extremists, Nazis or Fascists, even. The Tea Parties, Town Halls, and writers opposed to the massive, UnAmerican actions by Congress will themselves be characterized in pejorative ways. Note the Mallard Fillmore cartoon of last week, announcing that one of the major networks' news anchors will be absent for a few days recovering from a strained mouth--from smirking at a recent story about the Tea Parties. Expect no help from the mainstream media, notably television and newspapers. Apparently they never heard of Pastor Niemoeller (which doesn't surprise me, since they display an incredible lack of quality education).
Am I paranoid, an extremist? You decide. Catch this one.
Congressman Alcee Hastings, a Dem from Fla, said this the other day: "There ain't no rules here. We're tryin' to accomplish something.... All this talk about rules.... We make 'em up as we go along." (Should I add that Hastings was a Federal District Court Judge until impeached and removed about 20 years ago for financial improprieties? And then the idiotic voters of his district in Fla elected him to the House, again and again!)
If this doesn't scare us into finally standing up, get a load of this, from Mich's own John Dingell:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/dingell-it-will-take-a-while-for-obamacare-to-control-the-people/
And, I heard Dingell on the radio say that Congress is smarter than we are, that it knows better what's best for us.
Arrogance from the self-anointed. Bullying tactics, bribes, etc. Can anyone be a bigger sellout than Bart Stupak? He recently denounced a Republican proposal/amendment to the bill opposed to abortion that he himself suggested a while back! Is it true he was promised $700 million for his district--for airports???? Airports in the Upper Peninsula? And don't forget the prostitutes from Louisiana, Nebraska, etc.
"Ah, but it's always been like this," you say. I think I could argue it hasn't, at least not in such a debilitating way. And, besides, wasn't this supposed to be "Change we can count on?" You know, "transparency" (What happened to C-Span? Instead we get Sat night, Sun night, Chris Eve votes, backroom bribes/deals, etc.), bipartisanship (no need to address that one), no lobbyists' influence (Hmmm...who spends more time in the Obama White House than anyone else? Hint: it's a union known by its initials.), and "I'll read a bill for five days before I sign it."
It's time to get rid of them all--all the liars, cheats, arrogant asses (I know that term is usually reserved for the U of M). Let's vote in those who will repeal the bailouts, the health care, and, for a start, all the benefits these bozos in office have voted for themselves over the years. Had they been doing their jobs--you know, representing US citizens--I could live with the perquisites. But, they are so arrogant, they are the self-anointed, when we bounce them out of office, they should have no trouble taking care of themselves, making ends meet by themselves.
It's been nice talking to you, Ron and, no, the sinking feeling in my stomach hasn't abated.
Friday, March 19, 2010
NCAA Tournament
I know MSU squeaked one out tonight, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to watch any games.
For one thing, the officiating was pretty rotten. Even the announcers made a comment, something like, "Well, they're being bad at both ends of the court." (Does that make it OK, then?) Then, a short while later, a slight bump was called and they laughed. That said, the NM player did commit the lane violation. I noted it to Karen before the MSU guy even released his shot. It took guts for the official to call it.
For another, the announcers were also bad. They noted an MSU player, "getting his first action of the night," after he had not only been in the game, but had been at the free throw line for two foul shots! Then, a guy said, "Green (I think) has been a nonfactor in this game, not yet scoring...." (or something like that). At least the color guy noted, "But he's done some other things to play a role in this game." Yeah, like have about a dozen rebounds at that point. I guess 10 or so rebounds is a "nonfactor." But on the free throw lane violation, one guy said, "Boy, you don't see that called very often in college ball," with the other guy adding, "especially at this time of year" (or something like that). Great, just great....
Why don't we stop calling other things, like double dribble, three seconds, over and back, and, hey, maybe even some fouls (oh, they already don't call fouls?). Or, better yet, why don't we rewrite the rule book, eliminating free throw lane violations, at least during the tournament? There must be a reason for the rule, but if it's a sissy call, then why not just get rid of it?
No, my guess is I won't be watching Sat or Sun or whenever they play next....
For one thing, the officiating was pretty rotten. Even the announcers made a comment, something like, "Well, they're being bad at both ends of the court." (Does that make it OK, then?) Then, a short while later, a slight bump was called and they laughed. That said, the NM player did commit the lane violation. I noted it to Karen before the MSU guy even released his shot. It took guts for the official to call it.
For another, the announcers were also bad. They noted an MSU player, "getting his first action of the night," after he had not only been in the game, but had been at the free throw line for two foul shots! Then, a guy said, "Green (I think) has been a nonfactor in this game, not yet scoring...." (or something like that). At least the color guy noted, "But he's done some other things to play a role in this game." Yeah, like have about a dozen rebounds at that point. I guess 10 or so rebounds is a "nonfactor." But on the free throw lane violation, one guy said, "Boy, you don't see that called very often in college ball," with the other guy adding, "especially at this time of year" (or something like that). Great, just great....
Why don't we stop calling other things, like double dribble, three seconds, over and back, and, hey, maybe even some fouls (oh, they already don't call fouls?). Or, better yet, why don't we rewrite the rule book, eliminating free throw lane violations, at least during the tournament? There must be a reason for the rule, but if it's a sissy call, then why not just get rid of it?
No, my guess is I won't be watching Sat or Sun or whenever they play next....
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Beautiful Day!
Wasn't today just gorgeous?!?! I don't think we could have gift-wrapped a more perfect day! The sun was shining, with temps in the mid-60s.
I ran with my blind buddy this AM, a bit brisk out there, but better than it's been. Ashley and I watched jets "write in the sky." There were no clouds, none, making the jet streams stand out even more. She thought they were cool. I thought it was cool that she thought so. The Codester and I went for a walk--sometimes in the wagon, sometimes tottering all over the road (or on people's grass, on their driveways--he doesn't care). We had a great time all day long.
I ran with my blind buddy this AM, a bit brisk out there, but better than it's been. Ashley and I watched jets "write in the sky." There were no clouds, none, making the jet streams stand out even more. She thought they were cool. I thought it was cool that she thought so. The Codester and I went for a walk--sometimes in the wagon, sometimes tottering all over the road (or on people's grass, on their driveways--he doesn't care). We had a great time all day long.
"Jumpin' Up and Down!"
Four things that I'm, as one of my jr high teachers would say, "jumpin' up and down" about today. (Gee, you remember that long ago, the Ice Ages?)
One, I don't get it, not at all. Why do we acquiesce over Muslims commplaints when we, the West, draw(s) political/editorial cartoons about Islam or Muhammad, yet don't raise a peep when Christianity is defamed? The Dutch cartoonists drew Muhammad at the Pearly Gates. He greeted suicide bombers with the message, "Sorry, we've run out of virgins." There is a great deal of truth and thought in that. First, what kind of religion rewards suicide bombers, those who deliberately kill innocents, not as residuals, but deliberately? Second, what kind of religion offers virgins as rewards? (And where are the Western feminists? They are more concerned if I use the term "chairman" or "chairwoman" instead of "chairperson." How about "chairone?") Third, "Paradise" has used up its allotment of "virgins?" What does that tell us about the number of suicide bombers? Yet, we get all worked up, not about Islam, but about offending Muslims!!!!! Certainly we can't be offended at suicide bombings--nosireee. Yet, in the US, what masquerades as serious art has, recently, included "Piss Jesus" and "Dung Mary." Again, several things about this. First, is this really "art?" C'mon, no it isn't. Second, is this what we want to reflect on our society, its (and our) values? I have no problem with some perverts creating this junk. But, one, let's speak out against it, vociferously. Two, let's boycott any art studios/museums (and what studio or museum would display such crap?) that exhibit junk like this. Three, let's make sure no taxpayer dollars, NONE!, goes to these weirdos. Let's let them be, literally, "starving artists." Think about this--cartoons (with all kinds of lessons for us, the truth revealed) v junk using excrement. The scum bags get free passes with cries of "freedom of expression," while the Dutch get the fickey-doo. Folks, unless we speak up, this is us.
I am not a big fan of driving. I've never really enjoyed it and see it, mostly, as a conveyance. Rarely, have I ever just gone "for a drive" for fun. That said, why do people sometimes go so slowly? I am not a speed demon and people even make fun of how slowly I drive--they have for years. But, more and more, I see the Slows out on the roads. These aren't people adhering to the speed limit. They are fine and, indeed, should be commended. Those I'm talking about go 10-15 mph under the limit (for instance, this AM, doing 30 in a 45 zone). Isn't that dangerous, as dangerous as going 5 or 10 mph over the limit? And, it takes forever to get somewhere. It's not just going too slowly; it also means getting stopped at more traffic lights. My 50-55 min drive to Clawson more often than not now takes 70 mins or more. Grrr.....
And, last but not least, groceries. Twice in recent trips to the store, I witness people getting their groceries with food stamps, gov't checks, whatever they are. Why do I see so many with roasts, even steaks? Why are so many with name-brand cookies, cereals, etc.? Why aren't they buying the Meijers brand soda instead of the Coke or Pepsi, not even on sale? Again, I don't quite get it. When Karen and I were first married, a couple of times a week, dinner was Chunky Soup on rice (and not instant Minute Rice, but the cheaper stuff that has to be boiled for half an hour). That's what we could afford, esp if we wanted to save money. Her mother thought that was terrible, just terrible, and told me about it. I didn't let that bother me; besides, we didn't mind it. I guess it's easier to spend other people's money.
One, I don't get it, not at all. Why do we acquiesce over Muslims commplaints when we, the West, draw(s) political/editorial cartoons about Islam or Muhammad, yet don't raise a peep when Christianity is defamed? The Dutch cartoonists drew Muhammad at the Pearly Gates. He greeted suicide bombers with the message, "Sorry, we've run out of virgins." There is a great deal of truth and thought in that. First, what kind of religion rewards suicide bombers, those who deliberately kill innocents, not as residuals, but deliberately? Second, what kind of religion offers virgins as rewards? (And where are the Western feminists? They are more concerned if I use the term "chairman" or "chairwoman" instead of "chairperson." How about "chairone?") Third, "Paradise" has used up its allotment of "virgins?" What does that tell us about the number of suicide bombers? Yet, we get all worked up, not about Islam, but about offending Muslims!!!!! Certainly we can't be offended at suicide bombings--nosireee. Yet, in the US, what masquerades as serious art has, recently, included "Piss Jesus" and "Dung Mary." Again, several things about this. First, is this really "art?" C'mon, no it isn't. Second, is this what we want to reflect on our society, its (and our) values? I have no problem with some perverts creating this junk. But, one, let's speak out against it, vociferously. Two, let's boycott any art studios/museums (and what studio or museum would display such crap?) that exhibit junk like this. Three, let's make sure no taxpayer dollars, NONE!, goes to these weirdos. Let's let them be, literally, "starving artists." Think about this--cartoons (with all kinds of lessons for us, the truth revealed) v junk using excrement. The scum bags get free passes with cries of "freedom of expression," while the Dutch get the fickey-doo. Folks, unless we speak up, this is us.
I am not a big fan of driving. I've never really enjoyed it and see it, mostly, as a conveyance. Rarely, have I ever just gone "for a drive" for fun. That said, why do people sometimes go so slowly? I am not a speed demon and people even make fun of how slowly I drive--they have for years. But, more and more, I see the Slows out on the roads. These aren't people adhering to the speed limit. They are fine and, indeed, should be commended. Those I'm talking about go 10-15 mph under the limit (for instance, this AM, doing 30 in a 45 zone). Isn't that dangerous, as dangerous as going 5 or 10 mph over the limit? And, it takes forever to get somewhere. It's not just going too slowly; it also means getting stopped at more traffic lights. My 50-55 min drive to Clawson more often than not now takes 70 mins or more. Grrr.....
And, last but not least, groceries. Twice in recent trips to the store, I witness people getting their groceries with food stamps, gov't checks, whatever they are. Why do I see so many with roasts, even steaks? Why are so many with name-brand cookies, cereals, etc.? Why aren't they buying the Meijers brand soda instead of the Coke or Pepsi, not even on sale? Again, I don't quite get it. When Karen and I were first married, a couple of times a week, dinner was Chunky Soup on rice (and not instant Minute Rice, but the cheaper stuff that has to be boiled for half an hour). That's what we could afford, esp if we wanted to save money. Her mother thought that was terrible, just terrible, and told me about it. I didn't let that bother me; besides, we didn't mind it. I guess it's easier to spend other people's money.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
"We deserve better than this!"
So read the headline of an editorial in the newspaper this AM. Hmmm. Do "we deserve better than this?"
The editor, who is usually pretty much on the mark, raises an interesting question. He clearly believes that Detroiters (and, by extension, Michigeese?) have been given the shaft by their elected officials. I would agree with that, but why do Detroiters, Michigeese, or even Americans "deserve better?" Perhaps we get the politicians and policies we "deserve."
First, we elect our officials. If we elected them, then don't we "deserve" them, not something "better?" After all, we had choices. And, in most elections of recent vintage, the choices have been pretty clear cut. We chose what we have. So....
Second, why do we "deserve better?" Exactly why? We seem squeamish, even ashamed of what we have here in the US. It's almost like we apologize to the rest of the world for our success, properity, freedoms, and everything else. Consider that silliness called "multicultural diversity." It holds that all people are deserving of respect and acceptance. It believes that no people, no system is superior to the rest. Do those people ever, ever, think???? Consider what we teach our children in schools--that Columbus was an evil, evil man, undoing the idyllic lives of the Native Americans (erstwhile known as the "Indians"). Those denizens of the western Eden, however, practiced cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery, among other abominations. They had no concept of individual liberties or equal rights. (I know all about the attempts, for instance, to make the Iroquois the real Founding Fathers of the Constitution. It's all bull-puckey!)
Why do we apologize for our civilization, the freest, most prosperous (and most generous!) the world has ever seen? Why is our liberty, equality something, not to flaunt, but to be ashamed of? Why do we hold up, say, Islamic nations as cultures that are as good or better than ours? Why aren't we willing to say we have a superior civilization to theirs? Or do we secretly practice female genital mutilation, beheadings, honor killings, suicide bombings, etc. like the Muslims do? Do we require that our women where burkhas, veils, that they walk several steps behind men, not be allowed to drive or be educated? How can anyone in his right mind argue that we aren't superior to that?
Imagine someone in the US going on an anti-homosexual rampage? Oh, the diversity people would be all over that one! No doubt about that, is there? Then, on the other hand, those same folks "respect and accept" Islam, which has strict prohibitions and approbations against homosexuality. In fact, when a DutchMuslim published a book calling for Muslims to toss homosexuals off the roofs of buidlings and, if the thrown person wasn't dead from the fall, for the faithful to then stone him to death, nobody raised a peep to stop that book from being published there. It would be "intolerant" to restrict freedom of speech, I guess. Nothing productive is gained from such limitations. I suppose these Neanderthal Dutch can find something productive in throwing men from the roofs of buildings?????
Yet, we not only tolerate these things, never speaking out against them, but we hold up such civilizations/cultures as being "equal" to ours--or, at least, ours isn't superior to theirs. "Whose to say ours is right and theirs is wrong?" I don't know, maybe I'm the one to say it. Mutilating females, killing a female relative for her sexual activities, beheading one of another faith--yeah, I'm going to say our culture is better than theirs, that ours is right and theirs is wrong.
Go ahead, find a politician, a media wonk, an education-type willing to do that. Nah, don't bother. None exist. Imagine, after 9/11 we've held annual Ramadan dinners/feasts in DC for all the Muslim honchos. See, we're making nice with you! Gee, I wonder how many Christmas or Hanakkah festivities are held in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan...for Christian or Jewish honchos. After all, it wasn't some Jew or Christian who flew planes into....
Again, I would urge people to read about the fall of the Roman Empire....
The editor, who is usually pretty much on the mark, raises an interesting question. He clearly believes that Detroiters (and, by extension, Michigeese?) have been given the shaft by their elected officials. I would agree with that, but why do Detroiters, Michigeese, or even Americans "deserve better?" Perhaps we get the politicians and policies we "deserve."
First, we elect our officials. If we elected them, then don't we "deserve" them, not something "better?" After all, we had choices. And, in most elections of recent vintage, the choices have been pretty clear cut. We chose what we have. So....
Second, why do we "deserve better?" Exactly why? We seem squeamish, even ashamed of what we have here in the US. It's almost like we apologize to the rest of the world for our success, properity, freedoms, and everything else. Consider that silliness called "multicultural diversity." It holds that all people are deserving of respect and acceptance. It believes that no people, no system is superior to the rest. Do those people ever, ever, think???? Consider what we teach our children in schools--that Columbus was an evil, evil man, undoing the idyllic lives of the Native Americans (erstwhile known as the "Indians"). Those denizens of the western Eden, however, practiced cannibalism, human sacrifice, and slavery, among other abominations. They had no concept of individual liberties or equal rights. (I know all about the attempts, for instance, to make the Iroquois the real Founding Fathers of the Constitution. It's all bull-puckey!)
Why do we apologize for our civilization, the freest, most prosperous (and most generous!) the world has ever seen? Why is our liberty, equality something, not to flaunt, but to be ashamed of? Why do we hold up, say, Islamic nations as cultures that are as good or better than ours? Why aren't we willing to say we have a superior civilization to theirs? Or do we secretly practice female genital mutilation, beheadings, honor killings, suicide bombings, etc. like the Muslims do? Do we require that our women where burkhas, veils, that they walk several steps behind men, not be allowed to drive or be educated? How can anyone in his right mind argue that we aren't superior to that?
Imagine someone in the US going on an anti-homosexual rampage? Oh, the diversity people would be all over that one! No doubt about that, is there? Then, on the other hand, those same folks "respect and accept" Islam, which has strict prohibitions and approbations against homosexuality. In fact, when a DutchMuslim published a book calling for Muslims to toss homosexuals off the roofs of buidlings and, if the thrown person wasn't dead from the fall, for the faithful to then stone him to death, nobody raised a peep to stop that book from being published there. It would be "intolerant" to restrict freedom of speech, I guess. Nothing productive is gained from such limitations. I suppose these Neanderthal Dutch can find something productive in throwing men from the roofs of buildings?????
Yet, we not only tolerate these things, never speaking out against them, but we hold up such civilizations/cultures as being "equal" to ours--or, at least, ours isn't superior to theirs. "Whose to say ours is right and theirs is wrong?" I don't know, maybe I'm the one to say it. Mutilating females, killing a female relative for her sexual activities, beheading one of another faith--yeah, I'm going to say our culture is better than theirs, that ours is right and theirs is wrong.
Go ahead, find a politician, a media wonk, an education-type willing to do that. Nah, don't bother. None exist. Imagine, after 9/11 we've held annual Ramadan dinners/feasts in DC for all the Muslim honchos. See, we're making nice with you! Gee, I wonder how many Christmas or Hanakkah festivities are held in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan...for Christian or Jewish honchos. After all, it wasn't some Jew or Christian who flew planes into....
Again, I would urge people to read about the fall of the Roman Empire....
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Diversity
I've written about my aversion to "diversity" before.
How ironic that only the US diversity crowd holds its own culture inferior, or at least not superior, to any others. Only they "accept and respect" all other cultures and people as equals.
How ironic that only the US diversity crowd holds its own culture inferior, or at least not superior, to any others. Only they "accept and respect" all other cultures and people as equals.
Where Have All the Adults Gone?
This book has many, many ideas to consider.
Do we rob children of childhood, making them grow up too soon? Then, we abandon adulthood, maturity to remain children the rest of our lives?
Do we eradicate childhood, creating, not kids, but miniature adults? Consider preschool, "readiness" to read by kindergarten, homework for elementary students. Consider the styles of clothes in which we dress our kids, again more like miniature adults than children. Consider how their music mimics that of older folks (note I didn't say "mature" folks).
Do we explain away/rationalize by claiming children are "more sophisticated," "wiser beyond their years," etc.? I maintain not, but it's easier, isn't it.
Do we rob children of childhood, making them grow up too soon? Then, we abandon adulthood, maturity to remain children the rest of our lives?
Do we eradicate childhood, creating, not kids, but miniature adults? Consider preschool, "readiness" to read by kindergarten, homework for elementary students. Consider the styles of clothes in which we dress our kids, again more like miniature adults than children. Consider how their music mimics that of older folks (note I didn't say "mature" folks).
Do we explain away/rationalize by claiming children are "more sophisticated," "wiser beyond their years," etc.? I maintain not, but it's easier, isn't it.
Tocqueville
Almost 180 years ago, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville presciently wrote of the fledgling American democracy. His Democracy in America was uncanny in its assessments, esp those of the future. Toward the end of his work, Tocquevill wrote of gov't power and how it might evolve to the fall of "democracy in America," leading to a "soft" despotism.
Americans were free, free to choose how their lives would be. This freedom might lead to success or to failure, but, Tocqueville surmised, much more success than not. But the point was not necessarily success or failure, but the freedom to choose, unencumbered by gov't coercion. Americans were free to decide for themselves and he wrote what future might lead to the fall of this freedom, of American democracy:
“Over this kind of men stands an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate. Little by little [government] robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. [It]is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, retrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies [until free citizens are] no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as [their] shepherd.”
Gov't, Tocqueville, becomes powerful enough, large enough to coerce free people into just sitting back and enjoying what the large, powerful gov't can give them. They are lulled into giving up their freedom in return for comforts and pleasures.
And, imagine, Tocqueville envisioned this 180 years ago. And most of us can't see it now, right before our eyes. "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to do anything to protect it."
Americans were free, free to choose how their lives would be. This freedom might lead to success or to failure, but, Tocqueville surmised, much more success than not. But the point was not necessarily success or failure, but the freedom to choose, unencumbered by gov't coercion. Americans were free to decide for themselves and he wrote what future might lead to the fall of this freedom, of American democracy:
“Over this kind of men stands an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate. Little by little [government] robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties. [It]is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, retrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies [until free citizens are] no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as [their] shepherd.”
Gov't, Tocqueville, becomes powerful enough, large enough to coerce free people into just sitting back and enjoying what the large, powerful gov't can give them. They are lulled into giving up their freedom in return for comforts and pleasures.
And, imagine, Tocqueville envisioned this 180 years ago. And most of us can't see it now, right before our eyes. "I was too busy enjoying my freedom to do anything to protect it."
The Apocalypse
Yet, another sign that the Apocalypse has nearly descended on us:
This AM, on the boob tube, I heard (K was watching; I merely heard) some guy say of a problem, "We'll have to solution it." Uh-huh..."solution it."
This AM, on the boob tube, I heard (K was watching; I merely heard) some guy say of a problem, "We'll have to solution it." Uh-huh..."solution it."
Runners
Are there any better people to talk to than runners? I sometimes don't look forward to talking to them for articles/columns. But, invariably, I find, afterward, feeling much better about things, having thoroughly enjoyed my conversations.
The past few days I have talked to a number of people for an articles I am doing. What great fun, just chatting! In particular, I talked to the Ch 12 Flint-WJRT news anchor Bill Harris. Great conversation! He seemed like a wonderful guy.
The day before, I spoke with the first Crim race director, for about an hour or so. The time flew with the stories!
I'm glad I have three or four more calls to make the next few days.
The past few days I have talked to a number of people for an articles I am doing. What great fun, just chatting! In particular, I talked to the Ch 12 Flint-WJRT news anchor Bill Harris. Great conversation! He seemed like a wonderful guy.
The day before, I spoke with the first Crim race director, for about an hour or so. The time flew with the stories!
I'm glad I have three or four more calls to make the next few days.
Thoughts
"Nonjudgmentalism?" Is that even a real word? (It reminds me of Warren Harding's "Return to Normalcy." "Normalcy" wasn't a dictionary word up until the '20 campaign. "Normal," "norm," "normality," "normalness," etc. were, but not "normalcy.")
What is "nonjudgmentalism?" Isn't being so actually making a judgment? Isn't not taking a stand on an issue, be it gay rights, abortion, drug use, etc., actually taking a stand?
If one, for instance, in the extreme, is a pornographer and another says, "I don't want to be judgmental" about the pornography/er, isn't the other, clearly, standing up for pornography? It seems to be to be the case. (BTW, who got rid of the "e" in "judgment," as opposed to "judgement?" I believe the English still include it and, after all, isn't it their language?)
And, what about "drawing the line?" Why are we afraid to "draw the line?" Is that another instance of being "judgmental?" I read a column yesterday from a columnist I respect, but had to shake my head at his thesis, "the politics of fear." It seemed he was concerned about people being "judgmental," at "drawing the line." Maybe I misread his intentions, but that's what I picked up from his piece.
Using the extreme example above, why are we unwilling to draw the line at censoring pornographers? Are we willing to let our kids watch/read pornography? Is it that we think pornography is only for "mature" people/adults? What is "mature" about, say, watching women do pole dances or lap dances? (Is that any more "mature" than putting paper/cardboard in people's shoes at the door when they remove them? Insiders will know....)
Why are we so unwilling to stand up for what we believe? Or, don't we believe in anything any more? In schools, passing students who clearly don't deserve to pass (from "social promotions" to whatever reasons), giving out grades that students don't clearly deserve, etc. is being "judgmental." Think about that one.
Back to the article I read yesterday or Thur or whenever. "The politics of fear...." Hmmm. Do we have cause to be afraid, frightened? Maybe concerned is another word I could use, but that's just playing with semantics. And, maybe, just maybe, we should be playing "the politics of fear." How else to get Americans out of their doldrums? Does anyone really think we are headed in the right direction--economically, morally, etc.? Maybe some do; I don't know. My guess is most are not concerned, except for what's on American Idol or who wins the ballgame. The "I, Me, Mine" generations have taken roost and seem unwilling to move from their perches. It's not me I am concerned about--it's my kids and, esp, grandkids. What are we leaving them? The goal of past generations was to leave a nation in which their kids and grandkids could enjoy better lives than those generations had. And, it worked! They took two or more jobs. They sacrificed with one parent (mom?) staying home instead of earning a second income. They didn't take cruises and extended vacations, buy every toy out there, or spend, spend, spend. They did things for their kids' futures, not immediate gratification such as buying all the latest stuff. Yes, I do "fear" for the future. But, it's not for my sake. It's what we are doing to the future.
What is "nonjudgmentalism?" Isn't being so actually making a judgment? Isn't not taking a stand on an issue, be it gay rights, abortion, drug use, etc., actually taking a stand?
If one, for instance, in the extreme, is a pornographer and another says, "I don't want to be judgmental" about the pornography/er, isn't the other, clearly, standing up for pornography? It seems to be to be the case. (BTW, who got rid of the "e" in "judgment," as opposed to "judgement?" I believe the English still include it and, after all, isn't it their language?)
And, what about "drawing the line?" Why are we afraid to "draw the line?" Is that another instance of being "judgmental?" I read a column yesterday from a columnist I respect, but had to shake my head at his thesis, "the politics of fear." It seemed he was concerned about people being "judgmental," at "drawing the line." Maybe I misread his intentions, but that's what I picked up from his piece.
Using the extreme example above, why are we unwilling to draw the line at censoring pornographers? Are we willing to let our kids watch/read pornography? Is it that we think pornography is only for "mature" people/adults? What is "mature" about, say, watching women do pole dances or lap dances? (Is that any more "mature" than putting paper/cardboard in people's shoes at the door when they remove them? Insiders will know....)
Why are we so unwilling to stand up for what we believe? Or, don't we believe in anything any more? In schools, passing students who clearly don't deserve to pass (from "social promotions" to whatever reasons), giving out grades that students don't clearly deserve, etc. is being "judgmental." Think about that one.
Back to the article I read yesterday or Thur or whenever. "The politics of fear...." Hmmm. Do we have cause to be afraid, frightened? Maybe concerned is another word I could use, but that's just playing with semantics. And, maybe, just maybe, we should be playing "the politics of fear." How else to get Americans out of their doldrums? Does anyone really think we are headed in the right direction--economically, morally, etc.? Maybe some do; I don't know. My guess is most are not concerned, except for what's on American Idol or who wins the ballgame. The "I, Me, Mine" generations have taken roost and seem unwilling to move from their perches. It's not me I am concerned about--it's my kids and, esp, grandkids. What are we leaving them? The goal of past generations was to leave a nation in which their kids and grandkids could enjoy better lives than those generations had. And, it worked! They took two or more jobs. They sacrificed with one parent (mom?) staying home instead of earning a second income. They didn't take cruises and extended vacations, buy every toy out there, or spend, spend, spend. They did things for their kids' futures, not immediate gratification such as buying all the latest stuff. Yes, I do "fear" for the future. But, it's not for my sake. It's what we are doing to the future.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Education
Certainly a wrong turn was made in education when somebodies (the education-types) decided education had to be "relevant." This likely came from the '50s' and, esp, '60s' movements, was fostered in the '70s, and became established in the '80s.
First, what is "relevant?" What does that mean? Who decides what is "relevant" and what isn't? Isn't that handing over education to the students, who, without question, have no real idea what education is supposed to be yet? Haven't, then, the "education-types" relinquished, even abdicated, their obligations, allowing students to determine what is to be learned--under the guise of "relevance?"
Of course, the "education-types" would argue otherwise. They are believers in "relevance" or what they call "relevancy." (Like the use of the the word competency for competence, this, to me, grates like fingernails on the blackboard.) And, these "education-types" are those with the educational experiences that are least rigorous and with the least quality. And they are now making the decisions.
Woe is us!
First, what is "relevant?" What does that mean? Who decides what is "relevant" and what isn't? Isn't that handing over education to the students, who, without question, have no real idea what education is supposed to be yet? Haven't, then, the "education-types" relinquished, even abdicated, their obligations, allowing students to determine what is to be learned--under the guise of "relevance?"
Of course, the "education-types" would argue otherwise. They are believers in "relevance" or what they call "relevancy." (Like the use of the the word competency for competence, this, to me, grates like fingernails on the blackboard.) And, these "education-types" are those with the educational experiences that are least rigorous and with the least quality. And they are now making the decisions.
Woe is us!
Hippy Rock Music?
A book I'm reading lays much blame on hippy rock music (OK, she calls it "rock 'n' roll") for today's ills. Maybe, but I'm wondering if she's giving it too much credit (not blame, but credit).
For instance, she notes the openness rock has with sexual activity. OK, I guess. I was listening to "Blue Moon" on the radio yesterday and thought of this book. How different the sentiment in "Blue Moon" and, let's say, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road?" Does that make any difference? Again, I wonder. No doubt, "Road" is crass and, IMHO, not nearly the song that "Blue Moon" is. Yet, do songs/music make a difference?
Do people actually listen to the words? I guess, obviously, today they must. Since there is no real music in much of today's rap/hip hop, etc., they only thing is to listen to the words? Maybe. But earlier rock and even the screamin' stuff of today...can the words even be understood? "Louie Louie" is the usual example, but who can understand much of what the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, etc. "sing" (I'm using that term loosely)? So, if we can't understand the words, how can the word have an effect on us? Just asking....
Is this much ado about nothing? Or is it a small piece of a larger problem/phenomenon?
For instance, she notes the openness rock has with sexual activity. OK, I guess. I was listening to "Blue Moon" on the radio yesterday and thought of this book. How different the sentiment in "Blue Moon" and, let's say, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road?" Does that make any difference? Again, I wonder. No doubt, "Road" is crass and, IMHO, not nearly the song that "Blue Moon" is. Yet, do songs/music make a difference?
Do people actually listen to the words? I guess, obviously, today they must. Since there is no real music in much of today's rap/hip hop, etc., they only thing is to listen to the words? Maybe. But earlier rock and even the screamin' stuff of today...can the words even be understood? "Louie Louie" is the usual example, but who can understand much of what the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, etc. "sing" (I'm using that term loosely)? So, if we can't understand the words, how can the word have an effect on us? Just asking....
Is this much ado about nothing? Or is it a small piece of a larger problem/phenomenon?
The Queen's English
No doubt, we don't speak English the "English way," whatever that is. But is it a sign of the times that our command of the language seems to be on the decline. I'm not talking about our everyday, even street-level usage, but that used to convey so-called "important" ideas. Have we "dumbed-down" our language?
No doubt language is important. The list of reasons is practically endless. To lose the use of some of it would certainly be debilitating.
What brought this on was listening, briefly, to the radio this AM. I don't know the name of the author being interviewed or even the interviewers (I think they were sitting in for Bill Bennett). But all three of them just butchered the language. They mismatched verbs with subjects, overused the pretentious "whomever," etc. Can people who don't speak properly be taken seriously? Maybe they can, but maybe not.
It sure would eliminate that question if they just could speak properly.
I'm not going to even start on what is heard on television.
No doubt language is important. The list of reasons is practically endless. To lose the use of some of it would certainly be debilitating.
What brought this on was listening, briefly, to the radio this AM. I don't know the name of the author being interviewed or even the interviewers (I think they were sitting in for Bill Bennett). But all three of them just butchered the language. They mismatched verbs with subjects, overused the pretentious "whomever," etc. Can people who don't speak properly be taken seriously? Maybe they can, but maybe not.
It sure would eliminate that question if they just could speak properly.
I'm not going to even start on what is heard on television.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
What Have We Done?
Again, just considering some things from the past few days:
In a book I'm reading, the author contends that today's adults want to be teen-agers forever. This wish, she holds, leads us to dress, behave, etc. like adolescents, not adults. And, she writes, it is leading to the current demise of American culture. Hmmmm.... I was somewhat taken aback that, of current Sponge Robert Square Pants viewers, 23% are those older than 21! And, I think it's a silly thing, not good for kids and not funny enough for adults (as opposed to, say, The Three Stooges!). The author also talked about the clothes current adults wear, the Levis and sweats, backward hats, casual running shoes, etc., being extensions of the desire to remain teen-agers. I really have to think about that one. I wear Levis, sweats, and old running shoes because they are comfortable. She decries the lack of "dressing up" by adults, even in situations "requiring" dress-up. Maybe here I see it. I note at weddings, Chris functions, even funerals how few adults really dress up. Some do wear sweaters and nicer slacks, but few wear suits and ties, nice dresses, etc. And far too many come in sweatsuits (however designer-made!) and worse. My dad always wore a suit and tie to family functions and the above. I will usually wear a tie, always to family holiday gatherings (usually alone), to more formal gatherings and even somewhat less formal affairs. Now, I might have on Levis, but a collared, button-down shirt with a tie is usually the attire for me. I note walking into a school nowadays and seeing so few ties and coats, nicer dresses/pant suits and so many sweatsuits, Levis, etc. I wonder if that is reflective of other, more important matters--and I really think it is.
At the end of our 3rd-grade basketball season, one of our players asked me, "Where are our trophies?" Those who know me know my strong feelings on this--it's garbage of the worst sort. It's very destructive and serves no positive purpose. I don't blame the kid, much. Apparently he didn't remember we won 2 games of 16, that most of our defeats were by 10 points or more, to kids who can't shoot, dribble, rebound--frankly, can't play basketball very well. "Trophes?" Who started this crap, everyone gets a trophy? "Participation trophy" they are called. Hey, I played on three national championship baseball teams and we received black bats with all of our teammates' name emblazoned on them each year--that's it. And for winning state championships each of those years, we received diddly, squat. I don't think we were deprived of anything. Nobody thought anything of it. No wonder some many kids expect their high schools to have million dollar football fields, multi-million dollar field houses, etc. Again, what have we done?
An editorial this AM asked a good question, "How do we want to punish lawbreakers?" He differentiated between those who we fear and those at whom we are angry. I suggest, somewhat opposed to the editorial, that we need to imprison both. The editor thought we might save money by releasing or not even imprisoning nonviolent criminals. I don't like that idea. I might buy into his argument that we might not throw in jail those who otherwise have good records, but have made rash, stupid decisions. He noted that the cost for housing a prisoner each year is $40,000. Whoa! Why so high? I'd love to see a breakdown on costs. What food is given to prisoners? Anything better than hot dogs, sausages, etc.--government surplus--is not necessary and should be stopped forthwith. Do prisoners really get cable television, fitness facilities, opportunities for college degrees (do the professors work for free???), etc.? Why? And what is to stop, as a condition for parole, early release, garnishing wages to repay some of the $40,000 for each year? Why not take $3,000 or even $5,000 a year from these parolees until their total debt has been repaid?
I see where some community and technical colleges are offering guarantees to graduates--if they graduate and don't have jobs within a year, they are refunded their tuition. Well, OK. But, there are far too many variables. Did these graduates really deserve to graduate? Did they get through because, well frankly, as long as students put in their time, they usually get passing grades? Did their instructors hold them to rigorous programs/standards. Or, did they just hand out grades?
That was on my mind last week as I told students about an academic scholarship available to them, with some conditions. Two of the requirements were 2.5 overall GPA and 3.25 GPA in history courses. From what I understand, the 2.5, at least, would not be a concern for anyone, since the average grade at the school is 3.1 (or so I was told). I thought, "Doesn't the benefactor of this scholarship deserve to know that the 2.5 (or even 3.25) GPAs are legitimage?" I'd think so and I guess I'd be about the only one who did. But, that said, I know some top-flight students there who I'd hope would apply--they are deserving.
The next time you are at some little kids' games or activities, watch their parents. These cam be athletic contests or just play in a park. Check to see home many of their parents aren't paying the least attention to what their kids are doing. Note how many are on their cell phones, talking or tweeting or Internet surfing or anything other than giving their kids their attention. Isn't that pathetic? Oh, I again realize I might be the only one who thinks so. But parents can't even forget about themselves for a while and give some attention, real attention, to their kids? Are they so wrapped up in themselves or material things or gadgets or whatever to share in the ultimate joys of watching their kids at play????? Note above about "the death of adulthood," "participation trophies" (oh, I bet the parents are keen on those!), etc.
Out....
In a book I'm reading, the author contends that today's adults want to be teen-agers forever. This wish, she holds, leads us to dress, behave, etc. like adolescents, not adults. And, she writes, it is leading to the current demise of American culture. Hmmmm.... I was somewhat taken aback that, of current Sponge Robert Square Pants viewers, 23% are those older than 21! And, I think it's a silly thing, not good for kids and not funny enough for adults (as opposed to, say, The Three Stooges!). The author also talked about the clothes current adults wear, the Levis and sweats, backward hats, casual running shoes, etc., being extensions of the desire to remain teen-agers. I really have to think about that one. I wear Levis, sweats, and old running shoes because they are comfortable. She decries the lack of "dressing up" by adults, even in situations "requiring" dress-up. Maybe here I see it. I note at weddings, Chris functions, even funerals how few adults really dress up. Some do wear sweaters and nicer slacks, but few wear suits and ties, nice dresses, etc. And far too many come in sweatsuits (however designer-made!) and worse. My dad always wore a suit and tie to family functions and the above. I will usually wear a tie, always to family holiday gatherings (usually alone), to more formal gatherings and even somewhat less formal affairs. Now, I might have on Levis, but a collared, button-down shirt with a tie is usually the attire for me. I note walking into a school nowadays and seeing so few ties and coats, nicer dresses/pant suits and so many sweatsuits, Levis, etc. I wonder if that is reflective of other, more important matters--and I really think it is.
At the end of our 3rd-grade basketball season, one of our players asked me, "Where are our trophies?" Those who know me know my strong feelings on this--it's garbage of the worst sort. It's very destructive and serves no positive purpose. I don't blame the kid, much. Apparently he didn't remember we won 2 games of 16, that most of our defeats were by 10 points or more, to kids who can't shoot, dribble, rebound--frankly, can't play basketball very well. "Trophes?" Who started this crap, everyone gets a trophy? "Participation trophy" they are called. Hey, I played on three national championship baseball teams and we received black bats with all of our teammates' name emblazoned on them each year--that's it. And for winning state championships each of those years, we received diddly, squat. I don't think we were deprived of anything. Nobody thought anything of it. No wonder some many kids expect their high schools to have million dollar football fields, multi-million dollar field houses, etc. Again, what have we done?
An editorial this AM asked a good question, "How do we want to punish lawbreakers?" He differentiated between those who we fear and those at whom we are angry. I suggest, somewhat opposed to the editorial, that we need to imprison both. The editor thought we might save money by releasing or not even imprisoning nonviolent criminals. I don't like that idea. I might buy into his argument that we might not throw in jail those who otherwise have good records, but have made rash, stupid decisions. He noted that the cost for housing a prisoner each year is $40,000. Whoa! Why so high? I'd love to see a breakdown on costs. What food is given to prisoners? Anything better than hot dogs, sausages, etc.--government surplus--is not necessary and should be stopped forthwith. Do prisoners really get cable television, fitness facilities, opportunities for college degrees (do the professors work for free???), etc.? Why? And what is to stop, as a condition for parole, early release, garnishing wages to repay some of the $40,000 for each year? Why not take $3,000 or even $5,000 a year from these parolees until their total debt has been repaid?
I see where some community and technical colleges are offering guarantees to graduates--if they graduate and don't have jobs within a year, they are refunded their tuition. Well, OK. But, there are far too many variables. Did these graduates really deserve to graduate? Did they get through because, well frankly, as long as students put in their time, they usually get passing grades? Did their instructors hold them to rigorous programs/standards. Or, did they just hand out grades?
That was on my mind last week as I told students about an academic scholarship available to them, with some conditions. Two of the requirements were 2.5 overall GPA and 3.25 GPA in history courses. From what I understand, the 2.5, at least, would not be a concern for anyone, since the average grade at the school is 3.1 (or so I was told). I thought, "Doesn't the benefactor of this scholarship deserve to know that the 2.5 (or even 3.25) GPAs are legitimage?" I'd think so and I guess I'd be about the only one who did. But, that said, I know some top-flight students there who I'd hope would apply--they are deserving.
The next time you are at some little kids' games or activities, watch their parents. These cam be athletic contests or just play in a park. Check to see home many of their parents aren't paying the least attention to what their kids are doing. Note how many are on their cell phones, talking or tweeting or Internet surfing or anything other than giving their kids their attention. Isn't that pathetic? Oh, I again realize I might be the only one who thinks so. But parents can't even forget about themselves for a while and give some attention, real attention, to their kids? Are they so wrapped up in themselves or material things or gadgets or whatever to share in the ultimate joys of watching their kids at play????? Note above about "the death of adulthood," "participation trophies" (oh, I bet the parents are keen on those!), etc.
Out....
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Epiphany
I had an awakening in class the other day. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
I was going some "facts" about WW1 and, right in the middle of the lecture, realized that nobody at Amherst taught us the "facts" such as the sinking of the Lusitania, who the Central Powers were, etc. We were expected to already know them! After all, we did graduate from high school, didn't we?
My professors assumed we knew those things and took off from there.... How novel!
I was going some "facts" about WW1 and, right in the middle of the lecture, realized that nobody at Amherst taught us the "facts" such as the sinking of the Lusitania, who the Central Powers were, etc. We were expected to already know them! After all, we did graduate from high school, didn't we?
My professors assumed we knew those things and took off from there.... How novel!
Fact v Theory
Sometimes the line between fact and theory becomes obfuscated, blurred beyond recognition so that, indeed, theory becomes fact. And, how dangerous is that?
Who, but an absolute imbecile deserving of immediate dismissal, ridicule, and ostracism, would argue against "fact?" Of course, what is fact? Is man-made global warming a fact? Is even "global warming" a fact? Well, according to some people it/they are. My own US Senator, in a reply to an e-mail I sent her, dismissed my concerns with our gov't's rash reactions to "global warming" with "the facts are settled." And, as any first semester logic student knows, they are not. Theory is not fact.
The Depression was a catastrophe for the overwhelming majority of people. It devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Those are facts. The New Deal was FDR's attempt to end the Depression. And, the Depression did end. Those, too, are facts. Now, that FDR's New Deal ended the Depression or even eased it are not facts, but theories. I, then, remain amazed that when I present this is class students resort to "the New Deal ended the Depression." Somebody somewhere, a lot of somebodies in a lot of somewheres, must be teaching this. I know most textbooks hold this to be "a fact." And, since it is a "fact," to argue against it is, well, see above.
That I can present facts and figures that suggest the Depression wasn't ended by the New Deal, that, in fact, it may well have prolonged it, is not accepted by most of my students. (Note the answers on their essays!) I don't say, in class, that it did or didn't. I merely indicate that it isn't at all clear that the New Deal had a positive effect on the New Deal devastation. (Of course, I personally believe it didn't help much if at all, economically, and that, in other areas, was very deleterious, the evils we are experiencing to this day.)
The same goes for the Versailles Treaty and the standard "fact" that it led to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, etc. Those are theories, again, held by most textbooks, historians, etc. For me to present them as theories, not facts, is often met with skepticism by students (well, the handful who remember their other history classes in high school and college or who watch the History Channels) who have been told otherwise. That I present facts and figures to buttress my contention (a theory, not a fact) does little to persuade them.
The danger in this is obvious. Politically, well, note the "man-made global warming" argument. How many billions of dollars are invested (wasted?) in countering this "fact?" And, until recently with the discovery of the fraud among scientists, this is exactly what happened. What are the global warming alarmists doing to counteract the discovery of fraud? Yep, falling back on the "fact" of global warming. How many other instances/examples can we find of this? In the schools, try arguing against the latest folly being perpetrated as fact. In fact, most of these follies aren't just theories, but stupid theories. But to argue that isn't arguing against stupid theories, but against fact. That, certainly, leads to dismissal, riducule, and ostracism. What narrow, narrow minds! We find this even in some of our most prestigious universities. (U of M, are you listening? Of course not.)
Hence, the argument for a strong, rigorous, quality education--not the type most teachers have today. But, that's a dead horse I've been beating for decades and nobody believes my "theory."
See this in practice with the "health care debate," how much better the socialized medicine of European nations is than ours. Don't argue otherwise; that's a known fact. Even if you uncover the fallacy of this fact, you don't get anywhere. Who in his right mind can argue that Cuban medicine/health care isn't far superior than ours? After all, Michael Moore made a movie all about it! Speaking of "right minds," what American would opt to hop on a plane bound for Havana for treatment instead of even the hospital right down the road? I rest my case.... Where else do you want to go? Cap and tax? Raising taxes to increase gov't revenues and fix the economy? The list is endless.
Where is our vaunted college education? Why don't we see through such illogic? As I think I finally figured out, today's colleges (the majority of them, at least) are now doing the jobs that previous generations' junior highs and high schools did. That is, a college degree (the work required, the lessons and information learned) of today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of 30-40 years ago.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!
Who, but an absolute imbecile deserving of immediate dismissal, ridicule, and ostracism, would argue against "fact?" Of course, what is fact? Is man-made global warming a fact? Is even "global warming" a fact? Well, according to some people it/they are. My own US Senator, in a reply to an e-mail I sent her, dismissed my concerns with our gov't's rash reactions to "global warming" with "the facts are settled." And, as any first semester logic student knows, they are not. Theory is not fact.
The Depression was a catastrophe for the overwhelming majority of people. It devastated the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Those are facts. The New Deal was FDR's attempt to end the Depression. And, the Depression did end. Those, too, are facts. Now, that FDR's New Deal ended the Depression or even eased it are not facts, but theories. I, then, remain amazed that when I present this is class students resort to "the New Deal ended the Depression." Somebody somewhere, a lot of somebodies in a lot of somewheres, must be teaching this. I know most textbooks hold this to be "a fact." And, since it is a "fact," to argue against it is, well, see above.
That I can present facts and figures that suggest the Depression wasn't ended by the New Deal, that, in fact, it may well have prolonged it, is not accepted by most of my students. (Note the answers on their essays!) I don't say, in class, that it did or didn't. I merely indicate that it isn't at all clear that the New Deal had a positive effect on the New Deal devastation. (Of course, I personally believe it didn't help much if at all, economically, and that, in other areas, was very deleterious, the evils we are experiencing to this day.)
The same goes for the Versailles Treaty and the standard "fact" that it led to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, etc. Those are theories, again, held by most textbooks, historians, etc. For me to present them as theories, not facts, is often met with skepticism by students (well, the handful who remember their other history classes in high school and college or who watch the History Channels) who have been told otherwise. That I present facts and figures to buttress my contention (a theory, not a fact) does little to persuade them.
The danger in this is obvious. Politically, well, note the "man-made global warming" argument. How many billions of dollars are invested (wasted?) in countering this "fact?" And, until recently with the discovery of the fraud among scientists, this is exactly what happened. What are the global warming alarmists doing to counteract the discovery of fraud? Yep, falling back on the "fact" of global warming. How many other instances/examples can we find of this? In the schools, try arguing against the latest folly being perpetrated as fact. In fact, most of these follies aren't just theories, but stupid theories. But to argue that isn't arguing against stupid theories, but against fact. That, certainly, leads to dismissal, riducule, and ostracism. What narrow, narrow minds! We find this even in some of our most prestigious universities. (U of M, are you listening? Of course not.)
Hence, the argument for a strong, rigorous, quality education--not the type most teachers have today. But, that's a dead horse I've been beating for decades and nobody believes my "theory."
See this in practice with the "health care debate," how much better the socialized medicine of European nations is than ours. Don't argue otherwise; that's a known fact. Even if you uncover the fallacy of this fact, you don't get anywhere. Who in his right mind can argue that Cuban medicine/health care isn't far superior than ours? After all, Michael Moore made a movie all about it! Speaking of "right minds," what American would opt to hop on a plane bound for Havana for treatment instead of even the hospital right down the road? I rest my case.... Where else do you want to go? Cap and tax? Raising taxes to increase gov't revenues and fix the economy? The list is endless.
Where is our vaunted college education? Why don't we see through such illogic? As I think I finally figured out, today's colleges (the majority of them, at least) are now doing the jobs that previous generations' junior highs and high schools did. That is, a college degree (the work required, the lessons and information learned) of today is the equivalent of a high school diploma of 30-40 years ago.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
