Spring is knocking at the door. We had four or five really nice days over the past week. But, this AM, the realization hit me that winter is almost over. And, I'm probably the only one who feels this way, I was saddened. I don't mind winter and will miss it, esp its white beauty. I even appreciate the stark browns and grays of the winter landscape. And I'll miss shoveling snow--I know, "That's sick!" But spring will be beautiful, too. I'm looking forward to more runs through the state park on its trails and getting out on my bike! I can take the kids to "a park" more often, to0--Ash and the Codester and I went last week and had fun (at least it was a struggle to get them to leave!).
I wonder if the soda manufacturers have figured out that their sales are down quite a bit because they have increased the prices a lot????? A 12-pack on sale previously would run about $2 or maybe $2.5o. Now, the sale price is 3 for $12. No wonder people are turning elsewhere for their refreshments.
I suppose I should give them some time, but I haven't heard any of the war protests yet. We attack Libya--no direct threat, none at all to the US there--and nary a peep. Interesting how "Bush lied," he and American soldiers were likened to Nazis, Bush and his Cabinet were labeled "war criminals" among other things, etc. Now, Obama has launched his attacks. Is Khaddafy any nastier than Saddam Hussein and his sons? Is Libyan oil any different from that of Bahrain? Are demands for democracy/freedom from the Libyans any more compelling than those of the Iranians? Etc, etc, etc. So, what is the rationale for the current attacks? How do they differ from Bush's attacks? This isn't the first authorized use of US military forces by Obama, but I don't remember the massive protests of past years. Hmmm.... Gee, I wonder if the bogus Nobel Peace Prize has anything to do with it????? Surely that proves Obama is a man of peace? And, to digress a bit, how interesting that the UN asked for military intervention against Khaddafy when the UN installed Libya (read "Khaddafy") on its Human Rights Committee. Apparently loons can be found everywhere.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Chuckles
I'm still chuckling, more than 24 hours later.
In a conversation, I dropped a few words that I had a full-ride athletic scholarship to the University of Michigan, oh, 44 years ago. I was asked, "Then why didn't you go there?" I replied, "I went to Amherst instead." To which I was again asked, "Why would you go there instead of a Big Ten school?"
Why, indeed?
In a conversation, I dropped a few words that I had a full-ride athletic scholarship to the University of Michigan, oh, 44 years ago. I was asked, "Then why didn't you go there?" I replied, "I went to Amherst instead." To which I was again asked, "Why would you go there instead of a Big Ten school?"
Why, indeed?
The Media
I often think about it, but this week even more so than usual. How do some of these media-types get their own radio shows or newspaper columns? Seriously! I know they have large audiences or readerships, but the question remains "how" or, I suppose, "why?"
Listening to several this week and I was appalled at a couple of things. First, their use of the English language is atrocious, just plain lousy. I guess they must get their ideas (more about those in a second) or points across, but they do so with such a lack of precision. In fact, some of the them contradict what they are saying without even realizing it (at least I hope they don't realize it!). Second, their thinking is equally bad. One of my college professors, bless him, would write as a comment on papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed." My lord, some of these so-called "ideas" are fraught with holes.
This criticism goes across political/philosophical lines--Dem or Rep, Lib or Cons; it doesn't matter. There are a few out there who are good, whether or not I see eye-to-eye with them or not. Their communication skills are impressive. But most? The situation is distressing...
...at least to me it is. I guess it isn't to most people. I believe words mean something, that they can move people if used properly. Perhaps all this is reflected in our overall lack of concern with quality. Note, for one glaring instance, television shows. They are, for the most part, pathetic. The comedies aren't funny; the dramas aren't dramatic; the reality shows certainly have nothing to do with reality. Note our so-called "heroes" and "idols." C'mon, do I really need to go into our obsession with the Hollywood-types, athletes, and even celebrities who do nothing? Have our standards fallen to such low, low levels? Don't we care? Don't we know any better?
BTW, I was asked last night, while we were out, "Are you still blogging?" I know I was away for a while, but, yes, I guess I still am blogging. I've pounded out a few the past couple of days.
Listening to several this week and I was appalled at a couple of things. First, their use of the English language is atrocious, just plain lousy. I guess they must get their ideas (more about those in a second) or points across, but they do so with such a lack of precision. In fact, some of the them contradict what they are saying without even realizing it (at least I hope they don't realize it!). Second, their thinking is equally bad. One of my college professors, bless him, would write as a comment on papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed." My lord, some of these so-called "ideas" are fraught with holes.
This criticism goes across political/philosophical lines--Dem or Rep, Lib or Cons; it doesn't matter. There are a few out there who are good, whether or not I see eye-to-eye with them or not. Their communication skills are impressive. But most? The situation is distressing...
...at least to me it is. I guess it isn't to most people. I believe words mean something, that they can move people if used properly. Perhaps all this is reflected in our overall lack of concern with quality. Note, for one glaring instance, television shows. They are, for the most part, pathetic. The comedies aren't funny; the dramas aren't dramatic; the reality shows certainly have nothing to do with reality. Note our so-called "heroes" and "idols." C'mon, do I really need to go into our obsession with the Hollywood-types, athletes, and even celebrities who do nothing? Have our standards fallen to such low, low levels? Don't we care? Don't we know any better?
BTW, I was asked last night, while we were out, "Are you still blogging?" I know I was away for a while, but, yes, I guess I still am blogging. I've pounded out a few the past couple of days.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The World Turned Upside Down
Here we go again (or still?):
I see a federal judge has OK'd ObamaCare. The logic (if I can even call it that) is befuddling, convoluted, and, if unchecked, opens the door for any gov't control of our lives (see farther down). She said, in response to other judges' rulings that the gov't in ObamaCare can't mandate inaction (it can, presumably, control actions), that it can't make us do things, such as purchase health insurance, that "inaction" is "just semantics." That, in deciding not to do something, we are engaged in "mental activity." A conscious choice to do or not do something is "mental activity." And, gov't can control activity. So what if we decide not to buy a house, but the gov't wants us to buy one? What if we decide we don't want to buy this or that, but the gov't wants us to buy one? Can't, then, using this loon's reasoning (again, if I can call it "reasoning"), gov't dictate all of our activities (or inactivities)? "C'mon, that's a stretch...even for you." Is it?
Didn't the gov't mandate that you have a digital television set? Yep, it even gave people $40 of your money (those Wal-Mart coupons!) to do so. Think you have a choice in what kind of light bulbs you can buy after 2012? Think again. You'll have to get thos CFCs (or whatever they're called) ones--because the gov't said you must. It doesn't matter that many people find the light these bulbs emit less than ideal, certainly worse than incandescent bulbs. It doesn't matter that they cost 10 or 12 times more ("But they last longer!"). It doesn't matter that, if they break, there's toxic mercury all over the place and what HazMat team will clean up that mess? And, if the courts or Congress don't stop this unconstitutional usurpation of our liberties, you'll be forced to purchase health insurance, regardless if you want it. (That's the "Hope and Change" so many fools voted for!) How long before the gov't tells you what kind of car to buy? It's already giving thousands of your dollars for people to buy the electric cars. And, if they're so good, what to they comprise such a miniscule percentage of sales? For that matter, why do fewer than 5% of us buy the hybrids (are many of our eco-freaks really hypocrites?)? And what about the more and more reports about the electric cars coming out telling us what junk the technology is? Hey, the gov't has its own directives to depts not to buy the electric cars because, well, they're no good.
Yeah, "C'mon, Ron...." Just like we've already done with the schools, we're letting the loons run the gov't and see what they are planning for us.
I see a federal judge has OK'd ObamaCare. The logic (if I can even call it that) is befuddling, convoluted, and, if unchecked, opens the door for any gov't control of our lives (see farther down). She said, in response to other judges' rulings that the gov't in ObamaCare can't mandate inaction (it can, presumably, control actions), that it can't make us do things, such as purchase health insurance, that "inaction" is "just semantics." That, in deciding not to do something, we are engaged in "mental activity." A conscious choice to do or not do something is "mental activity." And, gov't can control activity. So what if we decide not to buy a house, but the gov't wants us to buy one? What if we decide we don't want to buy this or that, but the gov't wants us to buy one? Can't, then, using this loon's reasoning (again, if I can call it "reasoning"), gov't dictate all of our activities (or inactivities)? "C'mon, that's a stretch...even for you." Is it?
Didn't the gov't mandate that you have a digital television set? Yep, it even gave people $40 of your money (those Wal-Mart coupons!) to do so. Think you have a choice in what kind of light bulbs you can buy after 2012? Think again. You'll have to get thos CFCs (or whatever they're called) ones--because the gov't said you must. It doesn't matter that many people find the light these bulbs emit less than ideal, certainly worse than incandescent bulbs. It doesn't matter that they cost 10 or 12 times more ("But they last longer!"). It doesn't matter that, if they break, there's toxic mercury all over the place and what HazMat team will clean up that mess? And, if the courts or Congress don't stop this unconstitutional usurpation of our liberties, you'll be forced to purchase health insurance, regardless if you want it. (That's the "Hope and Change" so many fools voted for!) How long before the gov't tells you what kind of car to buy? It's already giving thousands of your dollars for people to buy the electric cars. And, if they're so good, what to they comprise such a miniscule percentage of sales? For that matter, why do fewer than 5% of us buy the hybrids (are many of our eco-freaks really hypocrites?)? And what about the more and more reports about the electric cars coming out telling us what junk the technology is? Hey, the gov't has its own directives to depts not to buy the electric cars because, well, they're no good.
Yeah, "C'mon, Ron...." Just like we've already done with the schools, we're letting the loons run the gov't and see what they are planning for us.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
"Scumbags"
No doubt you've heard of the Supremes' ruling today in the Westboro Baptist case. WB is that group of scumbags who protest homosexuality, often targeting military funerals with hateful signs, words, etc. Which of us, were the funeral of one of our loved ones, wouldn't want to do some serious damage to the faces of these scumbags?
Anyway, the Supreme were right, maybe. Purportedly, CJ John Roberts wrote, "Bags of scum have free speech rights, too." He's right, of course. The First Amendment is there to protect ideas we hate. It's easy to allow ideas with which we agree or are only minorly offensive. The real test of our beliefs in freedom of speech come in instances involving, well, scumbags.
The Supremes were right, maybe. Maybe? Why, then, are there still laws against "hate speech" and "hate crimes?" If what these WB scumbags are doing isn't hate, what is? Or do we prohibit such "hate speech" and "hate crimes" against certain select groups? More about asking uncomfortable questions in a minute.
Now, can someone come up with legal methods to combat these scumbags, short of punching them in their mouths? How about a little community pressure? What about protests and yelling and signs outside their "church" and their homes? What about refusing to do business with stores and companies who employe members of WB? I certainly would avoid any store that hired one of these scumbags. How about you?
Let them have all the free speech they want. But, in return for expressing themselves, let them also feel the weight of community pressures.
I'm not a big fan of Froma Harrup. I find most of her columns to be fluff. She describes herself today as a bit liberal. I would have said more than that, but.... Today's column might just get herself in trouble with the left. She said the left is locked in a time warp, unable to ask questions that deal with reality. A recent article in Nation took the US to task for the gap between the rich and the poor. It cited a number of poor folks and their plights. One of the poor is a black woman in NYC, a single mother, raising three kids. FH wants to know the answers to some questions before indicting our system, that supposedly created this imbalance between the wealthy and the poor. One is, in this woman's case, where is/are the father/s of these three kids? Do they pay to raise these kids? Have they fled, having nothing to do with them, esp no economic contributions? Another she takes to task, about a woman who is "locked" into poverty because of a lack of education. Of course, the question that immediately rises is, "Why doesn't she have an education?" Certainly, if she was or had been concerned, educational opportunities abound for her. Why didn't she take advantage of them? Why isn't she back in some school or training facility now? And, irony of ironies, the Nation favors illegal immigration, while decrying poverty. But study after study shows that illegal immigration keeps native undereducated people in abject poverty, at minimum wage jobs. So....
It's hard to care about the NFL squabble. The owners are mostly filthy rich looking to get even richer. The players make more money in a year than I have over the course of my life. The owners are, I guess, risking their money. I don't know if that's a point of sympathy, but it is their money. One guy on the radio tried to evoke some support for the players by citing that specious argument that the players have short careers, only about 3-5 years. Granted, 3-5 years, esp compared to other professional sports, seems short indeed. But, in those 3-5 years, those players make more money than 90% or more of the rest of us do in our entire lives. And, if they are worried about future disabilities, then don't play. They've already been given free college educations. They can't find jobs like the rest of us????? A pox on both the owners' and the players' houses. Cancel the season; I don't care. I'll still do what I normally do on autumn Sun afternoons: go for long bike rides, esp with Bopper; go apple- or pumpkin picking with my grandkids, take long walks. One thing I rarely do on autumn Sun afternoons is watch NFL games.
Who won the Super Bowl again?????
Anyway, the Supreme were right, maybe. Purportedly, CJ John Roberts wrote, "Bags of scum have free speech rights, too." He's right, of course. The First Amendment is there to protect ideas we hate. It's easy to allow ideas with which we agree or are only minorly offensive. The real test of our beliefs in freedom of speech come in instances involving, well, scumbags.
The Supremes were right, maybe. Maybe? Why, then, are there still laws against "hate speech" and "hate crimes?" If what these WB scumbags are doing isn't hate, what is? Or do we prohibit such "hate speech" and "hate crimes" against certain select groups? More about asking uncomfortable questions in a minute.
Now, can someone come up with legal methods to combat these scumbags, short of punching them in their mouths? How about a little community pressure? What about protests and yelling and signs outside their "church" and their homes? What about refusing to do business with stores and companies who employe members of WB? I certainly would avoid any store that hired one of these scumbags. How about you?
Let them have all the free speech they want. But, in return for expressing themselves, let them also feel the weight of community pressures.
I'm not a big fan of Froma Harrup. I find most of her columns to be fluff. She describes herself today as a bit liberal. I would have said more than that, but.... Today's column might just get herself in trouble with the left. She said the left is locked in a time warp, unable to ask questions that deal with reality. A recent article in Nation took the US to task for the gap between the rich and the poor. It cited a number of poor folks and their plights. One of the poor is a black woman in NYC, a single mother, raising three kids. FH wants to know the answers to some questions before indicting our system, that supposedly created this imbalance between the wealthy and the poor. One is, in this woman's case, where is/are the father/s of these three kids? Do they pay to raise these kids? Have they fled, having nothing to do with them, esp no economic contributions? Another she takes to task, about a woman who is "locked" into poverty because of a lack of education. Of course, the question that immediately rises is, "Why doesn't she have an education?" Certainly, if she was or had been concerned, educational opportunities abound for her. Why didn't she take advantage of them? Why isn't she back in some school or training facility now? And, irony of ironies, the Nation favors illegal immigration, while decrying poverty. But study after study shows that illegal immigration keeps native undereducated people in abject poverty, at minimum wage jobs. So....
It's hard to care about the NFL squabble. The owners are mostly filthy rich looking to get even richer. The players make more money in a year than I have over the course of my life. The owners are, I guess, risking their money. I don't know if that's a point of sympathy, but it is their money. One guy on the radio tried to evoke some support for the players by citing that specious argument that the players have short careers, only about 3-5 years. Granted, 3-5 years, esp compared to other professional sports, seems short indeed. But, in those 3-5 years, those players make more money than 90% or more of the rest of us do in our entire lives. And, if they are worried about future disabilities, then don't play. They've already been given free college educations. They can't find jobs like the rest of us????? A pox on both the owners' and the players' houses. Cancel the season; I don't care. I'll still do what I normally do on autumn Sun afternoons: go for long bike rides, esp with Bopper; go apple- or pumpkin picking with my grandkids, take long walks. One thing I rarely do on autumn Sun afternoons is watch NFL games.
Who won the Super Bowl again?????
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
