While we're all enjoying Dancing with the Stars, the NFL on CBS, etc., the regulators are at it again. According to George Will, a woman in Az started a business, investing $50K, in which people put their feet in a pool to have them nibbled by small fish. It sounds a bit weird to me, but apparently it's something that is enjoyed by some folks. Fine, if they like it, they can take advantage of this lady's business.
But, whoa, wait a minute! She was shut down, losing her entire investment by a state regulatory board. The board cited concerns that the "cosmetology equipment" must be sterile before being used on people and, obviously, it's not real easy to sterilize fish (unless we neuter them?). So the business was forced to close, money lost, several workers losing their jobs. Oh, the cosmetology board is composed of "professional cosmetologists," a group like to lose business by not enforcing such silliness.
And we wonder why people aren't starting new businesses, aren't hiring more people--why the unemployment rate refuses to dip?????? Let's not look too far for the answers.
Oh, and I heard today that some MIT economist figured that if Obama's "jobs plan" passes and creates the maximum number of jobs touted, the cost will be in excess of $200,000 per job!!!!! Now, there's a pretty good deal. It took me three and four years at my peak years of earnings to bring home $200K. And, the number was, what, ten times higher per "created" job with the original "stimulus!" That's some stimulus.
Here's an idea, instead of spending half a trillion dollars on this boondoggle, why not just give every adult $20,000 to do with as he/she finds fit?????? That will stimulate lots, esp buying, and will save a lot of federal money. Instead of spending all this money, how about a 40% tax cut? That would about equal $500 billion and still give people more money to spend. Surely their spending sprees would do a much, much better job of creating jobs than the feeble gov't attempts to do so have.
Gee, do you think I ought to float these ideas on Stabenow and Levin??????
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Running
After all these years of running, I am still surprised by it. First, I can't fathom that I really like it. I enjoy going out there so often and pounding down some miles. I never liked running as a kid unless it was chasing a ball. The idea of running track or cross country never, even crossed my mind. The track portion of gym classes were, next to gymnastics, the worst! Yet, here I am, running when I don't have to.
Second, I was out there the other day, getting in a 16-miler. I laughed to myself, "What are you doing out here running 16 miles? You're 62-years old!" Yep, and I'm glad to still be able to do it. I know there are other old guys out there running, too. I'm glad and thankful I'm one of them. When I registered for the Las Vegas Half Marathon, a question asked how many half marathons I'd completed. Hmmm...I wondered. One of the choices was "more than 10." Without really thinking about that or caring what I put down, I checked that. But, I still wondered. I figured I'd done about 10 or 12, but maybe a few less. Then I checked some old records and combed my (not my hair, since I don't have much) memory. I had forgotten about the West Bloomfield Half Marathons I had run in the past decade and about the Flushing Halfs and even the Dexter-Ann Arbor Halfs. How I managed to forget those, I don't know, but I had. In the final tally, I've run between 20 and 24 half marathons, likely closer to 24 since I may have forgotten a few. But I can account for at least 20. I impressed myself. They go along with my twelve marathons. Now, that is really something I can't believe!
Third, still sometimes running can be full of mind-games. I had run the other day about 7 miles and was at Proud Lake, a little more than 2 miles from home. I thought about "2 miles" and briefly thought, "Hey, I can't run 2 miles. That's a long way." Indeed, at one time it was. Maybe it still is. But, how funny, 2 miles seemed so long.
Second, I was out there the other day, getting in a 16-miler. I laughed to myself, "What are you doing out here running 16 miles? You're 62-years old!" Yep, and I'm glad to still be able to do it. I know there are other old guys out there running, too. I'm glad and thankful I'm one of them. When I registered for the Las Vegas Half Marathon, a question asked how many half marathons I'd completed. Hmmm...I wondered. One of the choices was "more than 10." Without really thinking about that or caring what I put down, I checked that. But, I still wondered. I figured I'd done about 10 or 12, but maybe a few less. Then I checked some old records and combed my (not my hair, since I don't have much) memory. I had forgotten about the West Bloomfield Half Marathons I had run in the past decade and about the Flushing Halfs and even the Dexter-Ann Arbor Halfs. How I managed to forget those, I don't know, but I had. In the final tally, I've run between 20 and 24 half marathons, likely closer to 24 since I may have forgotten a few. But I can account for at least 20. I impressed myself. They go along with my twelve marathons. Now, that is really something I can't believe!
Third, still sometimes running can be full of mind-games. I had run the other day about 7 miles and was at Proud Lake, a little more than 2 miles from home. I thought about "2 miles" and briefly thought, "Hey, I can't run 2 miles. That's a long way." Indeed, at one time it was. Maybe it still is. But, how funny, 2 miles seemed so long.
Words
I had a letter-to-the-editor in the News this AM. It was "edited," which is the newspaper's prerogative. But it was a lesson in the importance of words, how they can mean something or mean something less.
By cutting it down, the editor(s) changed my intent, I think. I can't tell if the letter now includes my original aim, sarcasm. It seems like a straight-forward letter. But the meaning of the letter, what I intended, isn't captured in what was printed today.
Perhaps, though, to credit the editor(s), I wasn't as clear in my original letter as I thought. Regardless, the editor(s) or me, it was an important lesson for me on the importance of using words properly. To me, this is significant because I think words are "game-changing."
In fact, I'm not even certain I expressed myself very well in this blog! Out to grade papers....
By cutting it down, the editor(s) changed my intent, I think. I can't tell if the letter now includes my original aim, sarcasm. It seems like a straight-forward letter. But the meaning of the letter, what I intended, isn't captured in what was printed today.
Perhaps, though, to credit the editor(s), I wasn't as clear in my original letter as I thought. Regardless, the editor(s) or me, it was an important lesson for me on the importance of using words properly. To me, this is significant because I think words are "game-changing."
In fact, I'm not even certain I expressed myself very well in this blog! Out to grade papers....
Friday, September 16, 2011
Here We Go Again
I see the White House has pressured Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and "sister" restaurant to cut down on portions, "evil" ingredients like salt, and offer substitutes for fries. OK, we have an obesity problem, no doubt. In fact, I think it's understated, but that's not the point here.
If Red Lobster and Olive Garden are going to cut back, will their prices also be lowered? Hmmm. Why do I think not?
And I see the schools are getting into the health stuff, too. They are discouraging cookies in packed lunches. Well, other "evil" foods, too, are being targeted. All this, like the White House initiative, is being done in the name of fighting obesity. Again, OK, we have an obesity problem and it's noble to be fight it, but the schools would have a lot more credibility if they didn't also cut their physical education requirements. (Of course, "We're there for the kids," except when that conflicts with money matters. "Money" always trumps "kids.")
I note that Wendy's has cranked up its prices. There are few sandwiches on the dollar menu. Instead, they are as much as $1.39 and $1.59. Just last fall and winter I was buying the dollar menu burgs--they aren't a dollar any more. But, 39- and 59-cent increases? Hmmm...who's going to be the first one to throw out the latest trendy word, "Greedy?" No, only Big Oil, the bankers, and Wall Street are greedy. The plumber who charged me $250 for a job that took him barely an hour (more than I make in a week--about 7 or 8 hours of work--at one of the colleges!) Now, is he, too, "greedy?" Or can only certain people be greedy? I'll have to look that up.
If Red Lobster and Olive Garden are going to cut back, will their prices also be lowered? Hmmm. Why do I think not?
And I see the schools are getting into the health stuff, too. They are discouraging cookies in packed lunches. Well, other "evil" foods, too, are being targeted. All this, like the White House initiative, is being done in the name of fighting obesity. Again, OK, we have an obesity problem and it's noble to be fight it, but the schools would have a lot more credibility if they didn't also cut their physical education requirements. (Of course, "We're there for the kids," except when that conflicts with money matters. "Money" always trumps "kids.")
I note that Wendy's has cranked up its prices. There are few sandwiches on the dollar menu. Instead, they are as much as $1.39 and $1.59. Just last fall and winter I was buying the dollar menu burgs--they aren't a dollar any more. But, 39- and 59-cent increases? Hmmm...who's going to be the first one to throw out the latest trendy word, "Greedy?" No, only Big Oil, the bankers, and Wall Street are greedy. The plumber who charged me $250 for a job that took him barely an hour (more than I make in a week--about 7 or 8 hours of work--at one of the colleges!) Now, is he, too, "greedy?" Or can only certain people be greedy? I'll have to look that up.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Cool Stuff
I think most people know my thoughts on prizes and awards given to institutions, schools, businesses, etc. OK, I'm not a real big fan of them, largely because they are based on inane criteria.
That said, I think it's pretty cool that Mott CC has been selected one of the top ten community colleges in the nation! And, I teach there! I don't know the criteria for this, although I guess I could ask. And, regardless of my normal aversion to such awards/rankings, it's a whole lot better being in the top 10 than the bottom 10. Good for Mott CC!!!!!
That said, I think it's pretty cool that Mott CC has been selected one of the top ten community colleges in the nation! And, I teach there! I don't know the criteria for this, although I guess I could ask. And, regardless of my normal aversion to such awards/rankings, it's a whole lot better being in the top 10 than the bottom 10. Good for Mott CC!!!!!
Tue Eve
Nolan Finley had an interesting column/editorial in Sun's Det News. No doubt, it was met with a lot of cluck-clucking from the diversity crowd, but I wonder how many people really agree with Finley's point. Those who bombed and continue to try to bomb the US seem to be getting away with it. That means the actual perpetrators, the nations which sponsor and even train them, and people who applaud/abet the bombings of the US.
If you missed his piece, here it is: http://www.detnews.com/article/20110911/OPINION03/109110309/1008/opinion01/Finley--Bombs-instead-of-bells-on-9/11
I know, I know, we have to "accept and respect all cultures and all people and their ideas," even if they are Nazis, Commies, etc., you know, those who have mass-murdered. And the Islamo-fascists must be included there, too, I guess. We have to try to understand their discontent and then change what we are doing to tick them off, I guess. They are perpetrating their actions because of what we do.
Why do we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? To what purpose have the lives of 6200 US military personnel been lost?
If these Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, etc. don't want the freedoms we have in our democracy, perferring to live under brutal regimes and tyrants, that's fine with me. It's like with teachers: If they won't stand up for themselves, then they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, there are others who don't deserve what the majority get, but get it anyway. If those countries want to be what they are, let them. But make it clear if they start to mess with us, again and in any way, we'll drop the big boys on them--read that as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Leave us alone or pay the consequences. Enough of this "Let's open a dialogue and talk out our differences." In theory, I suppose this is great. It worked just wonderfully in the 1930s with Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and the War Lords' Japan--didn't it? In fact, our insistence on talking instead of acting, led to bolder aggression on their parts. After all, "If all they are going to do is send us 'nasty letters,' let's keep up the plan!"
How soon and after 65 million deaths we forget.
If you missed his piece, here it is: http://www.detnews.com/article/20110911/OPINION03/109110309/1008/opinion01/Finley--Bombs-instead-of-bells-on-9/11
I know, I know, we have to "accept and respect all cultures and all people and their ideas," even if they are Nazis, Commies, etc., you know, those who have mass-murdered. And the Islamo-fascists must be included there, too, I guess. We have to try to understand their discontent and then change what we are doing to tick them off, I guess. They are perpetrating their actions because of what we do.
Why do we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? To what purpose have the lives of 6200 US military personnel been lost?
If these Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, etc. don't want the freedoms we have in our democracy, perferring to live under brutal regimes and tyrants, that's fine with me. It's like with teachers: If they won't stand up for themselves, then they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, there are others who don't deserve what the majority get, but get it anyway. If those countries want to be what they are, let them. But make it clear if they start to mess with us, again and in any way, we'll drop the big boys on them--read that as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Leave us alone or pay the consequences. Enough of this "Let's open a dialogue and talk out our differences." In theory, I suppose this is great. It worked just wonderfully in the 1930s with Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and the War Lords' Japan--didn't it? In fact, our insistence on talking instead of acting, led to bolder aggression on their parts. After all, "If all they are going to do is send us 'nasty letters,' let's keep up the plan!"
How soon and after 65 million deaths we forget.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Thoughts
The guy might do a good job; I don't know. But I cringed when I heard the latest "savior" of the Detroit Public Schools is a career administrator. I think, far more than the teachers' unions, that these career administrators are responsible for the lousy state of American education. They may or may not admit or even know it, but they are more concerned with perpetuating their jobs than anything else. They adopt the latest ineffective programs. Go ahead, name one and then look back to see how it's failed under another name. They want, not independent thinkers, but sycophants/bobbleheads, teachers willing to go along with the latest ineffective programs. So, I guess I wonder why yet another career administrator is chosen to "save" Detroit??????
Speaking of schools, why are the standards for state student tests being raised? This raises all sorts of questions. First, the state superintendent moans that the tests "reward average." So, what's wrong with "average?" Not everyone can be a superstar and anyone who thinks everyone can be is delusional. Remember how much people laugh at Lake Woebegone and its "above average" motif?????? Well, here it is in real life and we're supposed to take it seriously. Second, so, then, there was something wrong with the old standards? Hmmm.... If so, why did it take so long to identify the errors/weaknesses? Who was responsible for them in the first place? This stinks of a political move, doesn't it? Think about this for a minute or two and tell me it doesn't. And, once again, this shows the absolutely silly obsession administrators have with tests/testing. Oh, I know why they are. First, teachers have nobody to blame but themselves. They lowered standards while they raised grades. They weren't teaching a whole lot. Second, the politicians grabbed this and made it a hot potato, challenging the schools and education in general. Unwilling or unable to show any backbone, administrators just caved in to the calls for incessant testing. Think how much wasted time and money there are with testing--preparation, administration, evaluation. Remember when courses for administrators were called "Educational Leadership?"
And speaking of yet another career administrator being selected as the "savior," are Republicans going to select Romney as their "savior?" If so, why? Right next to the word RINO in the dictionary is Romney's photo. He's not a staunch conservative, one willing to stand up and fight to take back what the liberals have taken. What's he going to do about handouts and entitlements? Check his record--the answer is painfully obvious. Republican leadership reminds me of school leadership--it's lacking. The media tell us that Ron Paul is not electable and the Republican leadership buys it, hook, line, and sinker. I guess our two politcal parties are now the Democrats and the Media. If Romney is nominated, the Republicans deserve to lose. And that's too bad for the future.
How great to hear Robt Reich, the economist, on the radio today. He was very skilled at dancing around the questions and points made by Frank Beckmann. Hmmm.... And I think his history and/or interpretation of it is not so hot. Were FDR's New Deal jobs programs "marvelously effective" if they cut unemployment from about 13 million to 11 million in four years--oh, and tax rates of 75% and higher for those with the largest incomes, you know, those most likely to spend money to create jobs? Didn't, at least in part, John Maynard Keynes himself say Keynsian principles (more, more, more gov't spending) they didn't work? Was it really gov't spending in WW2 (hey, Mr Reich, what about that New Deal spending?) that ended the Depression? More and more evidence points to the post-war consumer spending, not any gov't programs. But he was very good at avoiding his host's questions.
Out for a thrilling lecture, I'm sure, on the early US colonies.
Speaking of schools, why are the standards for state student tests being raised? This raises all sorts of questions. First, the state superintendent moans that the tests "reward average." So, what's wrong with "average?" Not everyone can be a superstar and anyone who thinks everyone can be is delusional. Remember how much people laugh at Lake Woebegone and its "above average" motif?????? Well, here it is in real life and we're supposed to take it seriously. Second, so, then, there was something wrong with the old standards? Hmmm.... If so, why did it take so long to identify the errors/weaknesses? Who was responsible for them in the first place? This stinks of a political move, doesn't it? Think about this for a minute or two and tell me it doesn't. And, once again, this shows the absolutely silly obsession administrators have with tests/testing. Oh, I know why they are. First, teachers have nobody to blame but themselves. They lowered standards while they raised grades. They weren't teaching a whole lot. Second, the politicians grabbed this and made it a hot potato, challenging the schools and education in general. Unwilling or unable to show any backbone, administrators just caved in to the calls for incessant testing. Think how much wasted time and money there are with testing--preparation, administration, evaluation. Remember when courses for administrators were called "Educational Leadership?"
And speaking of yet another career administrator being selected as the "savior," are Republicans going to select Romney as their "savior?" If so, why? Right next to the word RINO in the dictionary is Romney's photo. He's not a staunch conservative, one willing to stand up and fight to take back what the liberals have taken. What's he going to do about handouts and entitlements? Check his record--the answer is painfully obvious. Republican leadership reminds me of school leadership--it's lacking. The media tell us that Ron Paul is not electable and the Republican leadership buys it, hook, line, and sinker. I guess our two politcal parties are now the Democrats and the Media. If Romney is nominated, the Republicans deserve to lose. And that's too bad for the future.
How great to hear Robt Reich, the economist, on the radio today. He was very skilled at dancing around the questions and points made by Frank Beckmann. Hmmm.... And I think his history and/or interpretation of it is not so hot. Were FDR's New Deal jobs programs "marvelously effective" if they cut unemployment from about 13 million to 11 million in four years--oh, and tax rates of 75% and higher for those with the largest incomes, you know, those most likely to spend money to create jobs? Didn't, at least in part, John Maynard Keynes himself say Keynsian principles (more, more, more gov't spending) they didn't work? Was it really gov't spending in WW2 (hey, Mr Reich, what about that New Deal spending?) that ended the Depression? More and more evidence points to the post-war consumer spending, not any gov't programs. But he was very good at avoiding his host's questions.
Out for a thrilling lecture, I'm sure, on the early US colonies.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Two Ideas....
I uncovered this the other day and I think it deserves more thought. I was reminded of the US fur trade of late 18th/early 19th Century, the first American industry to collapse after receiving a gov't subsidy and regulation--until saved by John Jacob Astor and his private market management. The parallels to today are relevant and remarkable. Gov't makes incredibly stupid decisions, ones that on face value can't work, in order to advance their own social, cultural, financial, etc. agendas. Oh, I believe in their own self-anointed minds of superiority, many of the gov't officials mean well, but they ignore history. They are blinded by ideology and, often, arrogance that they are smarter than anyone.
I also want to examine Henry Steele Commager's premise that society's greatest contributors (that's not the word I want to use, but I can't think of the right one) are its critics. I have an essay he wrote about it and want to re-examine it.
I also want to examine Henry Steele Commager's premise that society's greatest contributors (that's not the word I want to use, but I can't think of the right one) are its critics. I have an essay he wrote about it and want to re-examine it.
Hmmm....
It was suggested to me the other day by my brother-in-law that I write a book about my "heroes," those who I have respected, sort of Ron's "Profiles in Courage." Notions of a book aside for now, who would be my choices?
Certainly, A. Lincoln would be my first selection. I've blogged about him enough so that the reasons for that are out there. Thinking of Presidents, Washington and Jefferson immediately came to mind. But further thought makes them not so obvious. I might still include them, but they aren't anywhere near the league that Lincoln played in. It was suggested to me that Reagan might be one, but he's not a favorite of mine. The more I learn about him, Eisenhower might make the list, perhaps Truman, too. But of the Presidents, only Lincoln would be a certain inclusion.
The words and courageous actions (he risked and eventually lost his life for his ideas; how many of us would be willing to do the same, even risk our lives?) of Martin Luther King would likely get him serious consideration. So would Frederick Douglass, also a brave man in the face of personal danger.
I'd seriously think about the first Roman emperor, Augustus, too. He wasn't a democrat or a republican in his views and actions, but he was a remarkable man. Although he wielded immense power and control, he first and foremost thought about Rome. Times were different then and what he did doesn't seem so liberating (is that the right word?) today, but his rule was pretty enlightened. I'd also look at Churchill. He, too, stood up, but I wonder if I might include him so I could tell some funny stories about him??????
There are lots of historical figures to consider, but I find that I find very few definite inclusions. Maybe I should think about this.
I wonder if I would include some of my teachers. Prof Romer immediately comes to mind, as do a few others.
Just what I need, more things to think about! But, I think a worthwhile thing. Thanks, Jack.
Certainly, A. Lincoln would be my first selection. I've blogged about him enough so that the reasons for that are out there. Thinking of Presidents, Washington and Jefferson immediately came to mind. But further thought makes them not so obvious. I might still include them, but they aren't anywhere near the league that Lincoln played in. It was suggested to me that Reagan might be one, but he's not a favorite of mine. The more I learn about him, Eisenhower might make the list, perhaps Truman, too. But of the Presidents, only Lincoln would be a certain inclusion.
The words and courageous actions (he risked and eventually lost his life for his ideas; how many of us would be willing to do the same, even risk our lives?) of Martin Luther King would likely get him serious consideration. So would Frederick Douglass, also a brave man in the face of personal danger.
I'd seriously think about the first Roman emperor, Augustus, too. He wasn't a democrat or a republican in his views and actions, but he was a remarkable man. Although he wielded immense power and control, he first and foremost thought about Rome. Times were different then and what he did doesn't seem so liberating (is that the right word?) today, but his rule was pretty enlightened. I'd also look at Churchill. He, too, stood up, but I wonder if I might include him so I could tell some funny stories about him??????
There are lots of historical figures to consider, but I find that I find very few definite inclusions. Maybe I should think about this.
I wonder if I would include some of my teachers. Prof Romer immediately comes to mind, as do a few others.
Just what I need, more things to think about! But, I think a worthwhile thing. Thanks, Jack.
Wed AM
Wed is a great day for the newspaper puzzles!
The op-ed pages were, ahem, "interesting" this AM, too. First, the head of the UAW thinks we need more taxes on the wealthy and on businesses. Hmmm.... Fine, let's tax the bejabbers out of, say, the auto companies. That ought to lead to more jobs and higher pay for autoworkers--NOT! I guess I don't quite understand some things. Don't autoworkers know that healthy auto companies mean higher pay and more jobs? Of course they do. I think it's the leadership knows, too, but is too wrapped up in, well, being at the top than in representing the best interests of its members. The same thing happens with teachers' unions, likely many, if not most, of them. Maybe the autoworkers ought to think about some new "leadership."
A letter writer says, "Taxes are not evil." No, I suppose not. But our current situation of constant tax and spend, spend and tax is evil. C'mon, even this guy must realize that Congress has behaved very irresponsibly, that it wastes money because it's not theirs, and that its solution to practically everything is raising taxes. Maybe he doesn't, esp if he's one of the 47% who pays no taxes or even the 28% who get a net payment from the gov't.
Chas. Krauthammer has a good column today. He cites the President's reliance on the old "bad luck" excuse to explain why his policies haven't worked. CK refutes them all. In fact, he cites a number of things I've noted in the past. The hypocrisy of the left and Dems. The fallback on calling names when arguments are pathetic, specious, or just plain stupid. As CK rightly notes, name-calling "den[ies] the legitimacy to those on the other side.... [It] is the ultimate political ad hominem. It obviates argument, fact, logic, history." Yep. I wonder if there's a connection between these Dems/libs and those running the schools. They employ the same tactics, namely "name-calling" and bullying. I think there is.
So, why are all Detroit public school kids getting free lunches? I don't have a problem with feeding kids who are really in need of food. I do have a problem with gov't determining who is really needy. I do have a problem with taking other people's money to fund this. I do have a problem with yet another gov't policy/program that rewards bad behavior (parents having kids when they can't afford them, the epidemic of fatherless households, etc.), esp at the expense of the successful, those who play by the rules.
A nice letter about the obsession politicians and school leaders have with test scores. It's as if they are addicts! The author calls the rationales behind the need for higher test scores, "to prepare [students] to compete in a global market and that all our students should be college- and career-ready," "nice sound bites." But, of course, who will listen? What school administrators are courageous enough to stand up and say, "No!"? We all know the answer.
A not-so-good letter takes aim at "fast food." It is blame for "the increase in obesity rates." Look Lady, leave me alone. Let me make my own choices concerning "fast food." In fact, she contradicts her own argument in the first sentence, noting "families choosing...." That's the key, choice. She or the gov't acting as her surrogate shouldn't be allowed to make my choices for me. I will agree about "lowering...the cost of health care." Yep, not eating so much fast food will do that. And, to encourage that insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher rates for obese and even overweight people. Why should people who are in shape subsidize health insurance for those who aren't? Oh, that's discrimination? Hooey!
Well, it's Wed and still no comment from the LameStreams and the President about Hoffa's comments. Oh, it was all over talk radio yesterday, but we all know that talk radio is populated by "terrorists," "bigots," "racists," and "barbarians." Name-calling...it's so much easier than reasoned dialogue and debate.
The op-ed pages were, ahem, "interesting" this AM, too. First, the head of the UAW thinks we need more taxes on the wealthy and on businesses. Hmmm.... Fine, let's tax the bejabbers out of, say, the auto companies. That ought to lead to more jobs and higher pay for autoworkers--NOT! I guess I don't quite understand some things. Don't autoworkers know that healthy auto companies mean higher pay and more jobs? Of course they do. I think it's the leadership knows, too, but is too wrapped up in, well, being at the top than in representing the best interests of its members. The same thing happens with teachers' unions, likely many, if not most, of them. Maybe the autoworkers ought to think about some new "leadership."
A letter writer says, "Taxes are not evil." No, I suppose not. But our current situation of constant tax and spend, spend and tax is evil. C'mon, even this guy must realize that Congress has behaved very irresponsibly, that it wastes money because it's not theirs, and that its solution to practically everything is raising taxes. Maybe he doesn't, esp if he's one of the 47% who pays no taxes or even the 28% who get a net payment from the gov't.
Chas. Krauthammer has a good column today. He cites the President's reliance on the old "bad luck" excuse to explain why his policies haven't worked. CK refutes them all. In fact, he cites a number of things I've noted in the past. The hypocrisy of the left and Dems. The fallback on calling names when arguments are pathetic, specious, or just plain stupid. As CK rightly notes, name-calling "den[ies] the legitimacy to those on the other side.... [It] is the ultimate political ad hominem. It obviates argument, fact, logic, history." Yep. I wonder if there's a connection between these Dems/libs and those running the schools. They employ the same tactics, namely "name-calling" and bullying. I think there is.
So, why are all Detroit public school kids getting free lunches? I don't have a problem with feeding kids who are really in need of food. I do have a problem with gov't determining who is really needy. I do have a problem with taking other people's money to fund this. I do have a problem with yet another gov't policy/program that rewards bad behavior (parents having kids when they can't afford them, the epidemic of fatherless households, etc.), esp at the expense of the successful, those who play by the rules.
A nice letter about the obsession politicians and school leaders have with test scores. It's as if they are addicts! The author calls the rationales behind the need for higher test scores, "to prepare [students] to compete in a global market and that all our students should be college- and career-ready," "nice sound bites." But, of course, who will listen? What school administrators are courageous enough to stand up and say, "No!"? We all know the answer.
A not-so-good letter takes aim at "fast food." It is blame for "the increase in obesity rates." Look Lady, leave me alone. Let me make my own choices concerning "fast food." In fact, she contradicts her own argument in the first sentence, noting "families choosing...." That's the key, choice. She or the gov't acting as her surrogate shouldn't be allowed to make my choices for me. I will agree about "lowering...the cost of health care." Yep, not eating so much fast food will do that. And, to encourage that insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher rates for obese and even overweight people. Why should people who are in shape subsidize health insurance for those who aren't? Oh, that's discrimination? Hooey!
Well, it's Wed and still no comment from the LameStreams and the President about Hoffa's comments. Oh, it was all over talk radio yesterday, but we all know that talk radio is populated by "terrorists," "bigots," "racists," and "barbarians." Name-calling...it's so much easier than reasoned dialogue and debate.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Name Calling
Hey, I thought the political discourse was going to be "more civil." I thought the President asked everyone to "dial down" the rhetoric. After all, it was the nastiness of the Tea Partiers and other conservatives who, for instance, caused the shooting in Tucson, AZ.
Again, the hypocrisy of the Dems and libs is apparent, even glaring, to anyone willing to open half an eye. Rush Limbaugh (hardly my favorite) and other conservatives have created an atmosphere of hate and violence. But nothing the liberals do ever causes anything bad.
So, how do we treat Jimmy Hoffa's comments on Labor Day? Let's see, first he called, specifically, the Tea Partiers "son of b*tches." (I'll overlook the grammatical error.) Then, he said something about "taking them out." This, of course, is because his union members will be the Presidents "soldiers." Hmmmm.... Now, I heard Hoffa on the radio this AM, trying to backpedal his way out of this. He claimed, today, that "taking them out" referred to the next election. Gee, why wasn't he very convincing? What about the name-calling? To what did he refer with that? I suppose that's in line with the Vice President (I'm becoming convinced that his former colleague in the US Senate was right, that Biden was "the dumbest" guy in the Senate. And the media fell all over itself ripping on Dan Quayle. At least the media could play fair.) calling the Tea Partiers "barbarians." How about the recent referrals by Maxine Waters, I believe, of the TPs as "terrorists?" Well, I suppose that's toning down the rhetoric.
And the President says nothing, sitting on his thumb and spinning. Why doesn't he condemn such language? Why doesn't he tone down the rhetoric? Does he not know what others at his programs are going to say? If he does, then is he condoning the language? If he doesn't, I guess the question is why not? Do others not respect him or his views, do not give a hoot what he thinks or says?
Why does the media rip on the Tea Partiers, but I've seen nothing on the op-ed pages criticizing Hoffa, Biden, Waters, and the others?
I guess had Hoffa been on my radio show this AM I'd have asked him how he thinks the Tea Partiers are any different from his Teamster members who picket, protest, or go on strike. How are the TPs any different from the teachers who went to Lansing or Ann Arbor? I think I'd also ask Hoffa how much money he makes and what the average Teamster wage is. Yep, to me that is very relevant.
And don't Hoffa and his Teamsters think that Obama's policies have been harmful to them. So, why are they still supporting him? C'mon, can anyone argue Obama's policies have been of any benefit to workers? I suppose someone who is delusional, but an objective person couldn't say that, at least not honestly. (And I'm not blaming him solely. I just say he's been of no use to workers trying to get their jobs back, trying to protect their jobs, trying to earn more money. But I think I could make a strong argument that those policies have been detrimental. I just won't here.) So, if Obama's policies have hurt workers, why are union leaders so steadfastly supporting him? It sure makes one wonder why, doesn't it?
Yeah, how are the Tea Partiers any different from those protesting teachers, public sector workers, etc.? Why can some groups gather to protest, but not others?
What is disturbing to me is how, instead of debating, Tea Party opponents merely call names. All we hear is that "Tea Partiers are bigots, racists, terrorists, barbarians, even SOBs." Do any of the critics ever say, "The Tea Partiers are wrong! The gov't isn't spending too much money. People aren't taxed too much." and so on? Nope, never. They just call names. (Boy, isn't that one familiar!) It tells me a lot about, if not the Tea Party, at least the opponents--and none of it is flattering.
Again, the hypocrisy of the Dems and libs is apparent, even glaring, to anyone willing to open half an eye. Rush Limbaugh (hardly my favorite) and other conservatives have created an atmosphere of hate and violence. But nothing the liberals do ever causes anything bad.
So, how do we treat Jimmy Hoffa's comments on Labor Day? Let's see, first he called, specifically, the Tea Partiers "son of b*tches." (I'll overlook the grammatical error.) Then, he said something about "taking them out." This, of course, is because his union members will be the Presidents "soldiers." Hmmmm.... Now, I heard Hoffa on the radio this AM, trying to backpedal his way out of this. He claimed, today, that "taking them out" referred to the next election. Gee, why wasn't he very convincing? What about the name-calling? To what did he refer with that? I suppose that's in line with the Vice President (I'm becoming convinced that his former colleague in the US Senate was right, that Biden was "the dumbest" guy in the Senate. And the media fell all over itself ripping on Dan Quayle. At least the media could play fair.) calling the Tea Partiers "barbarians." How about the recent referrals by Maxine Waters, I believe, of the TPs as "terrorists?" Well, I suppose that's toning down the rhetoric.
And the President says nothing, sitting on his thumb and spinning. Why doesn't he condemn such language? Why doesn't he tone down the rhetoric? Does he not know what others at his programs are going to say? If he does, then is he condoning the language? If he doesn't, I guess the question is why not? Do others not respect him or his views, do not give a hoot what he thinks or says?
Why does the media rip on the Tea Partiers, but I've seen nothing on the op-ed pages criticizing Hoffa, Biden, Waters, and the others?
I guess had Hoffa been on my radio show this AM I'd have asked him how he thinks the Tea Partiers are any different from his Teamster members who picket, protest, or go on strike. How are the TPs any different from the teachers who went to Lansing or Ann Arbor? I think I'd also ask Hoffa how much money he makes and what the average Teamster wage is. Yep, to me that is very relevant.
And don't Hoffa and his Teamsters think that Obama's policies have been harmful to them. So, why are they still supporting him? C'mon, can anyone argue Obama's policies have been of any benefit to workers? I suppose someone who is delusional, but an objective person couldn't say that, at least not honestly. (And I'm not blaming him solely. I just say he's been of no use to workers trying to get their jobs back, trying to protect their jobs, trying to earn more money. But I think I could make a strong argument that those policies have been detrimental. I just won't here.) So, if Obama's policies have hurt workers, why are union leaders so steadfastly supporting him? It sure makes one wonder why, doesn't it?
Yeah, how are the Tea Partiers any different from those protesting teachers, public sector workers, etc.? Why can some groups gather to protest, but not others?
What is disturbing to me is how, instead of debating, Tea Party opponents merely call names. All we hear is that "Tea Partiers are bigots, racists, terrorists, barbarians, even SOBs." Do any of the critics ever say, "The Tea Partiers are wrong! The gov't isn't spending too much money. People aren't taxed too much." and so on? Nope, never. They just call names. (Boy, isn't that one familiar!) It tells me a lot about, if not the Tea Party, at least the opponents--and none of it is flattering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
