Faceless Names?

I'm sure this is my fault more than anyone's, but....

In the past couple of weeks, my Comcast daily news is saturated with names I don't recognize: Ashton, Rhianna (spelling?), Heigl, and even some names I recognize, but only as names. I have no idea who these people are. Actually, I do have an idea. They must be some pseudo-celebrities: Hollywood-types or Hippy Rock Guys, something like that. Now, why are they the headline news? OK, I know why, but why do people care what happens to Ashton, Rhianna, Heigl, and the others more than matters of substance, perhaps, like the upcoming elections, the federal government deficit, the usurpation of individual right by those in DC, the sad state of affairs in Michigan, etc.? I suppose I have an inkling of an answer to that one, too, I suppose.

In the same vein, why was this Colbert guy invited to testify before a Congressional committee? Granted, the two or three times I've seen him, he seemed pretty funny. But, why is he testifying? Do the other comedians on the Hill need some comic relief? To his credit, John Conyers asked that Colbert leave, at least initially, but caved in when he found out one of his Dem colleagues had invited him. We certainly wouldn't want to make any of our colleagues "uncomfortable," even if they do foolish things.

Just curious, too: When will the history textbooks and teachers begin to at least give the side that maintains FDR and his New Deal not only didn't end the Depression, but likely lengthened and deepened it--at least give the side...?

And, with a move toward expanding our union involvement at MCC, I am once again torn between the current efficacy of unions. Hmmm....for me, there's really a double-edged sword.

It was nice that not a single one, nobody, from the local Huron Valley School board responded to my suggestion that we name schools after important historical (national or local personalities. That's just what we need another "Country Oaks" (with nary an oak around) or "Oak Valley" (at the top of the highest point around). Is this yet another example of the arrogance of the self-anointed elite, that they are smarter than the rest of us, that they know better, so don't bother them with matters?

Out....

Hypocrites

Two matters: Regarding my recent post about the three wealthiest members of Congress being Dems, not Reps, check out Michelle Malkin's column yesterday. She asks a lot of embarrassing questions, well, embarrassing to Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and even the President. Of course, the questions are embarrassing only if they become public. Why doesn't the mainstream media pick up on this? It's not that these guys have accumulated a great deal of wealth or even how they did so. Those might be interesting stories in themselves. The key here is their hypocrisy, how they continually criticize the "greedy" rich, the Republicans as the "party of the wealthy," etc., yet live very much unlike how they preach. I'm betting a lot of people would buy a lot of papers and magazines that could dig into that!!!! No, I'm not holding my breath.

How about academia? Those high-minded, principled educators are once again proving to be first-class hypocrites. See Cal Thomas' Fri column (and, those of you who know me, are aware Thomas isn't my favorite). It's very good. The federal DoE is attempting to force curricula, ideas, etc. on the colleges and universities. Not a peep from the overwhelming majority of college administrators and professors, nary a one. Imagine if W had tried this!!!! Oh, the cries of "Academic Freedom!" are hurting my ears. Remember the MSU professor who had the temerity to criticize the Islamists? Try being the one or two conservative professors at U of M or Harvard or Yale or Berkley. Oh, can you say, "Ward Churchill?"

Oh, while I'm at it.... I've certainly been lucky enough to have my own share of personal successes over my lifetime. I won't go into them here, but I've had the good fortune to be very successful at things I've done, won things, experienced things, etc. that the vast majority of people never do. That's not really the point. (In fact, I find them, most often, very humbling.) But we forever give people things they don't deserve. Oh, it can be grades, accolades (note the ubiquitous use of the term "classic"), etc. What has me worked up are several recent elections (or appointments?) to several halls of fame or things of that ilk. I have seen the lists of members and most don't belong anywhere near a hall of fame. Also note a recent magazine cover, citing a "beloved" actress, one who I never heard of! (Maybe that says more about me than others?) What was it Groucho Marx once said, "I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me for a member." (I think he also said, "I was married by a judge; I should have asked for a jury." How great are those!!!!)

Out to write....

Correction

I was notified that I blundered on Fri's post. John Dingell's opponent is Robert, not Rick, Steele. I don't know how I made that mistake, since I had the name right in front of me, written out. Maybe I was thinking of Rick Snyder??? But, it's good to be corrected; it helps one to remain humble and not arrogant. Yes, that's a paid political comment.

November is coming soon. Remember, this time, voters are not just electing our representatives. They are also sending a message, an important one. Don't let the arrogant, self-anointed elites win--don't give them the wrong message. They are arrogant and snobbish. They think they know better than we do. First of all, no they don't. Second, that's not the point.

The Apocalypse

Yet more signs that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us:

Is it true that a campaign ad for John Dingell is criticizing is Congressional opponent, Robert Steele, for being wealthy and, even worse, for how he earned his wealth. It surely can't be healthy to criticize someone for being successful, as long as the success was honestly earned. And Steele earned his money as a cardiologist, one who has performed thousands of cardiac catheterization procedures--you know, saving people's lives! Is this what it has come down to--class warfare? How can anyone, let alone a Congressman, criticize a doctor for making money? What is it, exactly, that members of Congress do to earn their money--and for more than 55 years? 55 years? Yep, that's how long Dingell has been leeching off the public teat!

I'm not certain, but I'll wager, if Dingell needed a life-saving heart operation, he wouldn't seek out a minimum-wage cardiolgist. I know I wouldn't. Great, now we are critical of those who are not only successful, but marvelously successful in a life-saving occupation!

And, mind you, this is the same Dingell who claimed credit for the ObamaCare bill, as an author, yet admitted on radio he hadn't read the entire bill. Then, one might ask, how did he write it? In fact, his answer was sneering, as if it was a stupid question, "Hey, did you even read that bill before you voted for it?" Yeah, I guess that is a stupid question. Dingell is one of those self-anointed elites, one who knows what's best for us better than we do ourselves. If anyone deserves to be bounced from office this Nov, he's right near the top.

And, the Democrats are using such ploys? Talk about hypocrisy and arrogance! I don't see them critical of their Hollywood-types for making a lot of money is something that is considerably less than life-saving. In fact, I might argue quite the opposite, but that's a topic for another post. And, of the ten wealthiest members of Congress, seven are Dems! What about them? (Of course, the hypocrisy reigns there, too. How many of those multi- multi-millionaires voluntarily give up much of their money--you know, to live like the rest of us!--to give to those they claim "need" it? Right, none of them. The arrogant hypocrites!) How about their President, the "community organizer?" His house is worth 30 or 40 times what mine is, yet (well, see the above).

I'm not against wealth, not at all, as long as it is gained legally and ethically. In fact, I like the idea of wealth for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is it's a measure of success.

And is it true the NCAA is going to allow college football teams with losing records (5-7) to go to bowl games? How fitting! Yep, the colleges are going the way of all of education: "Everybody's a winner!"

Why try? Why exert any energy, physically or mentally, if the laziest among us is rewarded equally?

It reminds me of a "discussion" I had with a woman a while back. She argued that everyone should "be equal." Her idea of "equality" was every has the same thing, like money, I guess. So, someone going out and getting, say, a college degree and three graduate degrees (any resemblance of that to me is purely intentional!), works at improving skills, etc. shouldn't be compensated any more than a lazy dreg who never completed high school (or has a high school degree courtesy of the milquetoast teachers who have no idea of what quality, rigorous education is)? Oh, I get it. There's more, but I am chasing the kids around this afternoon and they are both wound up.

Take-Backs

Talk about "just kidding!"

I see, last week, that Monica Conyers went to prison. She had pleaded guilty to bribery, corruption, and what else. When she received her 3-5 year sentence (?), she decided she really wasn't guilty and wanted to change her plea. How cool! Plead guilty until you find out what penalty you'll get and then, if it's not what you like, withdraw your plea!

Is that like buying a lottery ticket, losing, and then wanting your money back because you decided you really didn't want to buy the tickets in the first place? Sure sounds like it.

And isn't it more than strange that hubby John Conyers has been completely silent in all of this. That sure does make one wonder, doesn't it?

Comfort Zone

Here is an op-ed piece from the NY Post. It reflects what I've been saying, writing, blogging for quite a while. We have become complacent, too comfortable with our lives again. We choose not to recognize (and I believe it's a willful choice--we are more concerned with American Idol, the NFL, etc.) that there are some people out there who want to kill us, all of us. Once again, I believe "it's all about me." We are wrapped up in ourselves, not taking time to consider others. Hmmmm.... Isn't that "greed?" But that's a topic for another day (and one I've addressed before, surely). Here's the op-ed:





Updated: Sat., Sep. 11, 2010, 4:16 AM
What our grandparents knew
By ARNOLD AHLERT
Last Updated: 4:16 AM, September 11, 2010
Posted: 12:38 AM, September 11, 2010

Dec. 7 and Sept. 11 are iconic American anniver saries. Both days represent our greatest failures to understand the true nature of evil. And while each day will be treated with a similar veneration reserved for national tragedies, there is one aspect that truly divides them: resolution.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Four years later, they surrendered unconditionally. If one posits that the war against radical Islam began in 2001 (at least for us), we are in the midst of a nine-year-old conflict that shows no signs of resolution.
How is this possible? In terms of manpower and machinery, Japan was a far more formidable foe than the various umbrella groups that make up Islamic jihadism. Why are we having more trouble defeating them?

Because we've "sanitized" warfare. The same nation that detonated two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki no longer believes in victory, if such victory requires too much "collateral damage," a k a civilian casualties.

Sounds enlightened, does it not? Who could possibly prefer relentless onslaught and destruction over "winning hearts and minds" and "nation-building?"

Yet consider how out of phase such thinking is. How do you win hearts and minds or nation-build before the enemy is defeated? How do you convince Afghans during the day to risk their lives siding with us, when the Taliban kills them at night -- because they still can?

How do you maintain the morale and well-being of American men and women in harm's way by purposefully prolonging war? How many lives would be saved by military ruthlessness?

War is ostensibly a last-resort option. It's supposed to be something so dreadful that it should be avoided at all costs. Do Americans ever wonder how far Islamic jihadists would continue to go if their every provocation were met with an annihilating response? Our grandparents knew the answer to that question.

Dec. 7 is a day of remembrance. Sept. 11 is an open wound -- courtesy of Politically Correct Warfare.

atahlert@comcast.net

Sat columns

Leonard Pitts and Walter Williams, as usual, had very good columns this AM. Williams wrote of the disservice the diversity bean-counters have done to black students. Reminds me of "Everybody goes to college!" Brilliant, just brilliant--really of the former, sarcastically of the latter. Pitts wrote of the Fla minister who wants to burn Qu'rans. I think it's silly, but this is America; the minister can do what he wants as long as he isn't harming anyone. And, no, I don't think he's hurting anybody. Pitts rails, correctly, about the idiocy of this, and that we, perhaps idiotically ourselves, allow it to become a major story. But I think he misses a great opportunity to rail, not equally, but even more so, against Islamists who would use such idiocy to kill more people. The jihadists, those purporting to speak for "the religion of peace," have called for this minister's death. Will I see op-ed pieces condemning this? It's obviously a much more terrible thing, isn't it? That's where the anger and concern should really be focused. So some guy has a bonfire where he burns religious books. Others use this as an excuse to murder people. Hmmm.... Where should our real concern and anger be focused?

Still, it's good to see that these two fine columnists, often at odds with each other, continue to be well worth reading--insightful, thought-provoking, and reasoned. We can learn a lot from each of them.

Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is really very good. She really nails this one.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38938

Meanwhile, the major media just cave in. The Free Press, of course, and even the News kowtow to the likes of Victor Begg, Richard Nodel, and Imam Ali Sharia (or whatever his name is), allowing them to insist on Islam as "the religion of peace." Where is their concern, their protests, even any articles condemning all of the violence being wrongly (so they insist) committed in the name of their "religion of peace?" Where is their condemnation of the treatment of women, the use of children and handicapped persons as human bombs, even the beheading of Daniel Pearl and others????? Then, their silence is deafening, isn't it? I know I'm being insensitive, bigoted, racist, and all those other perjorative descriptions, but "it is what it is."

Hey, speaking of "insensitive...." OK, I believe that the Constitution, US and local laws, and our principles permit a mosque to be built near ground zero. Now, I don't think it should be for several reasons. One, what is the message being sent to the Muslim world? What wonderful propaganda fodder for the Islamists! Two, what about this "religion of peace?" Shouldn't it have some concern over the sensitivity of the 911 attacks, if it is, indeed, "the religion of peace?" And, how about those Americans who are pooh-poohing the "sensitivity" thing? Where do you think they might stand, for instance, on the waving of a Confederate flag at a civil rights march, as just one example? Right....

Now, I'm not at all in favor of waving the CSA flag anywhere nor the construction of the mosque. I believe the Constitution protects the rights to do both. But, just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. In both cases, concern for other people, their struggles and beliefs, should be enough to prevent them.

But, hey, what do I know????

Education

I knew Amherst grad Harold Varmus was a Nobelist in medicine. But I just found out that, at AC, he was an English major!!!!!

Yet, another strong argument for a broad, liberal arts education--for most people. Yet, that's not what our education-types are after now. Other than "test, test, test," it's science and math and computers, science and math and computers. Well, what would one expect when we let the people (the education-types and I say that with heart-felt insult) largely (but not solely, to be sure) responsible for our sorry state of education try to fix it.

The OCC adjunct meeting next week is to discuss "Academic Standards." I'd think about going, but I wouldn't get paid, like I would at MCC. I'd still think about going, but OCC pays its adjuncts like dog-meat. There's been no pay-raise in 10-12 years for adjuncts. One of the ajd was saying she gets about $12/hour for teaching there. I get a bit more, but not much, because I'm at the far right and bottom of the pay scale. But, I note, there's a lot of money to put televisions in the hallways and student-gathering areas, redundant technology, etc. Again, those in charge have no real knowledge, no respect for quality education or those who can provide it. I am left alone, however, for which I am grateful. And, in that, it's not a bad place to work, esp compared to HVS. And, I enjoy the teaching, a great deal.

Out to baste my ribs....

Labor Day

Today evokes mixed emotions about labor unions. I know the history of them, the advances in pay, safety, health, etc. that they brought, likely decades, if not never, before they otherwise would have come. I know how teachers' salaries were improved--the other day I reminisced to another how I took a $2-3000 pay cut to start teaching and that doesn't include regular overtime that usually doubled my weekly paycheck. I don't regret that move, but I do sometimes wonder what it would have been like to stay with my road construction job. I enjoyed it a lot, was paid much better than teaching, and was outside. I didn't want to quit it, but was sort of forced to do so by my father, who said something like, "I didn't pay for you to go to college so you could work construction." Fair enough, I guess--but I did enjoy the job. My first teaching job was about a quarter an hour, maybe a bit more. But, when I coached football and baseball, I was paid less than a quarter an hour, all tolled. So, I appreciate all that....

Yet, unions have become something else, something, I think, detrimental in many ways. I don't like the work rules, the stay-at-home-but-still-get-paid, etc. There have been, by necessity in recent years, changes in some of that attitude. But I've heard, still, union workers who sort of boast that "two people do one job," etc. In education, the unions have become a bulwark against quality (can I use "bulwark" and "against" like that???). They protect lousy teachers. They, illogically and ridiculously, maintain that all teachers are good, dedicated, etc. They aren't. So, I'm of two minds about unions.

I read an article about some Hollywood-type doing a reality show about teaching in a public school. My initial response was, "Here we go again: anyone can teach." I still have a bit of that thought, but the Hollywood-type did relate how difficult teaching, real teaching is. He might have focused on the "helping" part, the "self-esteem," "relevance," etc., far too much, though. But he did tell of the vast knowledge and thought that must go into teaching, although, again, the "feel good" aspect seemed to be the focus. OK....

I still wonder, as I did a week or so ago, before the radio shows began their blathering, what would have happened had a so-called "Tea Partier" held the Discovery Channel hostage. That the nut case was an avid follower of Algore and the global warming crowd, that he was a supporter and smuggler of illegal aliens apparently doesn't translate to the same fear-mongering and name-calling that "Tea Party" evokes. The article on the hostage crisis and ultimate shooting appeared on page 10 of the Detroit newspaper, of 14 pages in the section. That seems pretty far back. Why do I believe it would have been front page if a "Tea Partier?"

If so many take potshots at Sarah Palin's intelligence (and she may or may not be smart), why aren't there more at other women office holders? I'm thinking, mainly, of two pretty high profile Michigan pols. Nothing they've done, nothing they've said have led to anyone saying, "Wow! She's a genius!" In fact, when I have heard them on the radio, read their op-ed pieces, listened to their soundbites, I have had the exact opposite thought. I guess there is a double-standard.

You know, before I give any credibility to the arguments (even by Americans!) that people in third-world nations have legitimate grievances against the US--that they legitimately hate us--I want to see them rise up against their own. Why is the US the villain, but not the sheik, the emir, the dictator, the king, etc.? Who has taken all this American money and not given it to their people, not allowed it to trickle down to their people? Who live in mansions, palaces, etc., travel all over, lead jet-set lives, etc., while their people continue to exist often in subsistance manners? And how can Americans defend this anti-American silliness without first addressing what is happening in these other nations? How can they defend people, namely the Islamists (be they the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, or whoever), who treat their own the way they do? Where are the women's rights groups? (A woman slated for death by stoning in one of these Muslim nations for adultery was publicly flogged because a photo of her, without a veil, appeared in a London newspaper--a photo that was not of her it turns out! Death, lashes for these transgressions?) Where are the children's advocacy and other human rights groups? (Strap a bomb to a kid or a handicapped person and send him off to blow himself up--along with other innocents?) Of course, where are the anointed Nobel Peace Prize winners, esp Algore and Obama? Where are their protests? Surely their anointed positions create a pulpit for standing against this barbarity? Yet, they remain silent, very silent. Hypocrites! Of course, where is the Pope and other world religious leaders? Where are the so-called moderate Muslims? Maybe we should all get the equivalent of "Free Tibet" bumper stickers???? Oh, let's just trade more with Red China, Saudi Arabia, etc....

Grrrrrr.....

Just Some Lazy Thoughts

I saw quite a few students last week at a wedding. We shared some stories and had some laughs. I was flattered, I suppose, at the compliments I received, "best teacher ever," "favorite teacher," etc. That was nice of them to say so. But, although I'm not normally too concerned over these statements (although I don't mind getting them!), I was struck by two comments from former students, talking with me at different times, not together. Both are now teachers, higher education, and echoed each other's remarks. I've forgotten the exact words of one (LaBatts was on tap, which should explain my haziness), but the sentiment was the same as that expressed by the other. "I always thought you made things fun and interesting. But, now that I teach, I see what you were really trying to do. There's a method to your madness," she quipped. She added something else, even more flattering, but I hesitate to repeat it. Let's let it go at that.

I was reminded last week, too, at another social gathering (Karen and I are social butterflies yet again!), of something I almost never reveal. But I also laugh at it, esp when I consider what my Amherst schoolmates would think. I was whatever the graduate equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa is (I've forgottent the Greek letters, maybe the same?) and that, to me, is hilarious. I'm sure I know what my AC buddies would think!!!!! And, they'd be laughing, too--probably at me, not with me! And that's fine with me. I really don't take it too seriously.

Someone sent me a link to Forbes Mag's list of best colleges/universities in the nation. This study is unique in that it doesn't differentiate between small and larger colleges. Those dreaded Purple Cows got us again--the no. 1 position, followed by Princeton. Amherst was three, not too bad at all. (I'm kidding about Williams in first place. History seems to indicate the top three or four schools flip-flop places every year. AC has been #1 its fair share of times.) Amherst was ahead of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. I am usually skeptical of such ratings, e.g. the "best" high schools in the US based on the number of students who take AP tests relative to the school enrollment--not how well the students do, just those who take them!!!! What kind of measurement is that?!?! But knowing AC and its demands and rigors, its workload, the quality expected of students, the brilliant teachers (at least they were when I was there!) and schoolmates (osmosis?), I know Amherst provided and, very likely still does, a top-flight education. I know graduate school for me was embarrasingly easy and I've had other AC folks tell me med school, law school, business school (at the best places in the country) weren't as rigorous as our undergrad courses. Nobody who wasn't there believes that, but I think it's true. That said, how very humbling it is for me to consider I went there and graduated from Amherst. I thank my lucky stars daily for that.

Gotta run.... The girls decided, as a reward for all their walking and biking this summer, I should take them out for lunch and drinks. Fine with me...in fact, a great idea!!!!

Out.