Sunday....

Is it Sunday again, already?  Wasn't it just Sunday?  Of course, last Tue (Chris Day) seemed like Sun.  And every other day seemed like Sat.

Yesterday was the Codester's birthday.  Is he four years old already??????  It was so great watching his excitement, both yesterday and on Chris AM, while he opened presents.  And Ash had me color with her with the crayons and coloring set (among other things that Uncle Matt gave her from Las Vegas).  The only thing about the crayons is, with so many colors (150 of them!), how to choose?  (I'll add another job I want in my next life, the one who chooses names for colors of crayons, like the guy who picks flavors of yogurt, salad dressing, etc.)  And Bopper and I went through his tons of baseball card cartons--and one football one.  There were quite a few cards of old playes, Mel Ott, Christy Matthewson, Jim Brown, etc.

What a downer for President Obama!  It must be.  His historic re-election is relegated to a spot far down the list of significant events of 2012.  One list had the re-election at about five or so, after the mass shootings, NYC storm, the "fiscal cliff" (Isn't that term grating?), and a couple of others.  For such a narcissist, it must be torture.

I will admit, as much as I dislike his policies and philosophies (not to mention his hypocrisy), Obama must have some brilliant advisers.  Congressional Republicans are always on their heals, always backing away from the pitch that curves over the plate for a strike.  That the President hasn't submitted a reasonable budget in several years (even the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected most of them unanimously) is overlooked and fingers are pointed at the Republicans in the House.  Of course, perhaps it's just that the Republicans are Bozos......

I've sent this along to several folks, who expressed a bit of astonishment.  If the fiscal cliff is not averted, K and I will likely pay several thousand dollars in more federal taxes.  I'm not sure exactly how much.  Different tables show between $2000 and $3000 and as much as $5000 more--and we don't bring home very much (certainly not six figures).  I admitted I'd be willing to swallow the increased taxes, conditionally.  (Of course, with the Bozos running DC, "willing" isn't a choice, is it?)  First, I'd like to see across-the-board spending cuts of at least 5% in the federal government.  C'mon, how much did the Obamas spend on Chris decorations and celebrations?  The military can't find 5% or more to cut from its inflated budget of hundreds-of-dollars screwdrivers, hammers, and toilet seats?  Federal bureaucrats and politicians can't take a 5% pay cut?  (K has been cut far more than that over the past several years and I haven't had a pay increase at one of the colleges in about 10-12 years.)  Second, the increased revenues must go to paying off the debt.  The current taxes can go toward running the government programs.  Extra, from the "cliff," pays down what is owed.  Of course, the Bozos still spend more than they take in, so will that do any good?  I don't know....  The figures are staggering.

I see MSU pulled out a bowl victory, whatever bowl it was.  I didn't follow very closely and I didn't watch the game--it started around 11 PM here. 

Round Three

I think I won Round Three, although it was a bit tougher than I anticipated.  We were hit with a mere 2" of snow and I figured shoveling would be a piece of cake.  Maybe it was because I ran first, then went out for a short walk--but it was a struggle, esp at the end.

Maybe, too, it was that the cars tamped down a couple tracks on each side, making pushing the snow a strain.  And, a friend parked over some unshoveled snow on Thur, most of which melted into ice.  That made it for difficult to move.

Still, it was a pretty nice, quiet AM to be out there.

But, we're getting some flow snurries now.  I'm not aware of any accumulation that is expected.  But, if we get any, bring it on.

Mary Surratt

If I recall correctly, Mary Surratt was the first woman executed by the Federal Government.  Of course, her sentence came as a result of her role in the Lincoln assassination.

Did she deserve to die?  Well, she always maintained her innocence, as if one might engage in murder, but would never lie.  I think the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates she was a conspirator.  That said, the question remains:  Did she deserve to die?

If we believe in process in this country--and we theoretically say we do, that rights cannot be violated in the search for justice, that the rules must be followed--I don't think she deserved the death penalty.  This sentence came after a trial in which she was found guilty; so the guilt is not in question here.

It's a bit hazy--OK, I'm losing some of my faculties!--but I recall that the military tribunal charged with determining her fate originally proposed life imprisonment.  Edwin Stanton, among others, heard and was outraged.  He likely was driven by two factors.  One was his anger at the assassination.  One of my favorite memorials about Lincoln was Stanton's words upon the pronouncement of Lincoln's death, "Now he belongs to the ages."  In the movie, I awaited those moving words and was rewarded.  The other factor was possible political motivations/aspirations Stanton had.  Stanton was not "a nice man," hardly.  He immediately went to work to get the tribunal to change its mind/sentence (however preliminary).  He concocted a compromise of sorts, one involving a certain Presidential commutation, one he himself, he assured the tribunal, would push on President Johnson.  He didn't and in the course of events, it is pretty clear he had no intention of doing so.  And, it is pretty apparent that there were many lies told along the way, from Stanton to Johnson.  Although I believe she was guilty in the conspiracy, as was Samuel Mudd, she was a victim.  She was a victim of Stanton's duplicity, deviousness, and aspirations.  She was a victim of the nation's thirst for revenge.  The North had just seen more than 300,000 deaths, maybe closer to 400,000.  Now, their beloved President, who they had only recently come to embrace, had been assassinated.  Surratt helped satisfy vengeful feelings.

Another interesting "what if" is "What if Lincoln hadn't been murdered?  What of Reconstruction?"  Johnson was no match for Sumner, Stevens, Wade, Chandler, and the other Radicals.  Lincoln, with his new-found popularity, I think was more than their equal.  I guess a further question would be "Would Lincoln have opposed the Radicals or embraced their agenda?"

Yet another episode of "History That Never Happened."

Round Two...

Yesterday afternoon's/evening's snowfall of 5-5 1/2 inches was topped off by another 2 1/2-3 inches overnight.  (I measured both times.)  This AM's shoveling was much easier--a lesser amount and I used a lighter shovel.  The lighter shovel carries less snow, so requires more shoveling.  Still, it was easier.

At 7:30 or so, it was still pretty quiet out there.  I did hear a couple of county plows out on Commerece Rd, but just a couple.  I managed to get in about half of the driveway before the snowblowers started up.  I'm thankful for that.  Like last night, again before the infernal snowblowers, the shoveling was peaceful and quiet and the view/scenery was beautiful.

I followed the shoveling this AM with a walk/run through Lake Sherwood.  There was a bit more traffic, but still not much.  And, there were more snowblowers.  Grrrrrr......  And, did I see a mechanized window scrapper/blower?  I couldn't be sure, but some guy cleaning his windshield was making an awful lot of what sounded like machine noise.

Bopper and I received headlamps for Chris from Grandma (who, it is widely believed, lost our other two; or, at least, they can't be found wherever she put them).  We are planning on heading out after dinner for a walk in the dark.  It should be cool, as in neat, not as in cold.  No doubt, Ash and the Codester will want to join us.

So far, I'd say, the first two rounds go to Ron, by wide margins.

Let It Snow, Let It Snow......

Our first significant snowfall of the season came today.  Oh, we had a half inch another day and about two or three inches on Mon.  Today/tonight was about 5 1/2 inches--and it's still coming down pretty hard.

I did shovel before--Bopper helped me once and the Codester helped the other time.  This time it was by myself.  K and I were out at the Lincoln flick when the storm started, clearing a couple of inches off of the car after leaving the theater.  We came home and I heated the leftovers for dinner, did some writing and e-mailing, and headed out.  I dressed pretty warmly, since it was very blustery when we came in two hours ago. But, the wind died down and the temp was about 22, not bad at all.

Everything went well.  I think I won round one--the previous two were just shadow boxing--handily.  There were only two glitches, one minor.  I had to negotiate the car tracks that packed down the snow.  They weren't too bad since the snow is pretty fluffy.  The other was a neighbor cranking up his snowblower.  Fortunately, I had already shoveled for about 15 mins, enjoying the peace and quiet.  And he finished before I did, giving me an extra 10 mins of peace and quiet while I "trimmed." 

I wondered, as I shoveled, at age 64, when is the time for me to stop doing this shoveling stuff.  But, oh I enjoy it--a lot.  Tonight reminded me why.

Round Two tomorrow AM.

Lincoln

Well, I did two things this week I very rarely do.  One, I bought petrol at a station that charges higher prices for credit purchases than for cash purchases.  I didn't notice until I had started pumping, but once I did I immediately stopped at $15.  The station, as a matter of principle, can charge whatever it wants.  But, also as a matter of principle, I can take my business elsewhere, which is just what I usually do--unless I don't notice.

Two, I went to a movie at a theater.  I was trying to remember the last time I went and I keep coming back to Brother Bear, to which I took Bopper about 9 or 10 years ago.  I can't recall any other movie since.  Much, much more often than not I feel like I've wasted two hours or more of my life afterward.  That's not to mention the wasted money.  Oh, I forgot, the Hollywood-types aren't greedy; they actually deserve what they are paid, even if movie tickets are now about $10 apiece.

The movie was, as noted in the post title, Lincoln.  My plan had been to wait until the DVD or pay-per-view on the boob tube.  I had heard many good things about the movie from colleagues and students and had read a number of very flattering reviews, even my historians.  But I went into Lincoln with some caution.  First, it was a Hollywood movie, the likes of which most frequently disappoint me greatly.  Second, I know what Hollywood does to history, either for the sake of entertainment or for a political agenda.  Third, and this was my greatest trepidation, I am an admittedly Lincoln superfan.  I can't say that I have many heroes in history, but if I have only one, it's Lincoln.  I fully admit I buy into the Lincoln mythology.  Any biography of Lincoln I wrote would undoubtedly be a hagiography.  Oh, I know the myths (I even had a student write on a final exam that Lincoln owned slaves.  Where do they hear that crap?  It's not remotely true.  Come to think of it, one of my son's high school history teachers repeated that garbage.) and I know Lincoln had faults.  Hey, he was human! 

So, what about Lincoln?  I thought it was great.  I suppose the acting was very, very good.  No doubt a lot of Oscar nominations, if not awards, are going to come out of this movie.  And the history was pretty darn good, too.  Oh, there were some errors and quite a few speeches or exchanges were pure fiction, as far as I know.  But the tenor was right!  What enthralled me wasn't the movie or the scenes or cinematography (or whatever it's called).  It wasn't the acting, good as it was.  It was the persona of Lincoln that hung over the movie. 

Here's an example.  Thaddeus Stevens, by most accounts hardly a likable guy, but rapier-sharp with his tongue, admitted after the passage of the 13th Amendment:  “[It] was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.”  I have never seen that comment in any of the histories I've read.  And, knowing him a bit, it doesn't seem like anything Stevens would even think.  But such a comment was stark and striking, capturing the esssence of Lincoln--at least to a Lincoln-lover like me.

There was this theme throughout the movie of a sort of Civil War bi-partisanship.  I think such a 20th and 21st Century notion would have been foreign to Lincoln.  Oh, he dropped the Republican Hannibal Hamlin of Maine (isn't that a great name!?!?!?) as VP to choose the very mediocre (and I'm being generous here) Democrat from Tennesse Andrew Johnson.  It would prove to be a horrible choice, but it was an attempt for Lincoln to put into action the words he would later utter in his Second Inaugural.  But this getting Democrats to vote for the 13th Amendment to show some sort of bi-partisan agreement on ending slavery is ridiculous.  Maybe that's Spielberg's present  political view showing through; I don't know.

But the movie clearly showed what many people forget or don't know.  Lincoln was a great politician.  A guy I used to work with told students that Lincoln never won an election until he became President.  That's another falsehood and a big one.  First off, he was "elected" captain of his militia squad during the Black Hawk War--that's how things were done then.  He, of course, was elected to Congress, the House of Representatives where he was a bitter and outspoken critic of "Mr. Polk's War," the Mexican War.  And, in Illinois, he was elected to the state legislature for several terms.  All this running as a Whig in a largely Democratic state, Illinois.  And, some historian tallied up the populations of the counties of Illinois in 1858, the year Stephan A. Douglas was re-appointed to the US Senate (that's how it was done then) after the famous Lincoln/Douglas Debates.  Had it been a state-wide, at-large election of the people, Lincoln likely would have defeated his Democratic opponent, too.  Clearly, Lincoln was a savvy, hard-nosed, brilliant politician, as even Douglas noted.  "He is the strong man of the [Republican] party."

Throughout, not at all far from my mind while watching, were these words from W.E.B. Dubois about Lincoln:  "I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."

Why Not?

Hey, why not "Sun Musings?"  I have "Fri Musings" and "Sat Musings......"

Interesting that two of my conversations this past week, with Matt and with one of my running buddies, centered on Bo Jackson.  Jackson might have been the best athlete ever--who knows?  He certainly must rank pretty high on any list.  He ran a 4.1 40; high jumped 6'8" in high school, was 6' 4" tall and weighed 240, and could throw and hit!  But, by all accounts, he's a good person, one who knows integrity, honesty, and charity, not to mention appreciation.  That leads me to two stories, one about Jackson.

I guess the Tampa NFL team (whose name I can't remember) invited Jackson down during the winter of his senior year at Auburn for a workout.  Since Jackson was eagerly finishing his baseball season,  he inquired about eligibility; that is, would the Tampa trip, the flight down and accommodations, have an adverse effect on his senior year of baseball.  Oh, no, said Tampa.  You'll be fine.  Once Jackson returned to Auburn, his baseball coach revealed this would make him ineligible to play baseball!  He was steamed.  According to my buddy, Jackson was drafted first by the Tampa team, but refused to sign with them.  He gave up millions of dollars because they lied to him.  Of course, he was later drafted by the Raiders, where he played, but for much less money than a first-rounder.  Good for Jackson!  I knew there was a reason I liked the guy.

And, according to Walter Williams, the CEO of Branch Banking and Trust, one of the ten largest banks in the US, is also a man of integrity.  John Allison refused to let his bank do any business, that is, lend money to, with developers who bought property by having government take it from people.  How cool!  No doubt there was a lot of money in there for BB&T, but because the government stole people's property (OK, legal stealing often called "takings" or "eminent domain"), he wouldn't let his company be a part of the theft and booty.  Yep, I now have another person I admire.

I read a nifty article in The American Scholar, "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education."  Wow, did some of it ring home for me!  The author, who spent 14 years at Yale and Columbia, noted the gaps in his education, the "disadvantages," what one of his friends calls "Ivy Retardation."

There are some stinging remarks here.  The Ivies and other "elite" institutions "leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it."  He noted two Ivy grads, Al Gore (Yale) and John Kerry (Harvard)--or did I mix that up?--"both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate."  I might disagree with the characterization, but not the conclusion.  I think I have blogged about his phenomenon and the people who have it--"arrogant elitism" I have called it.

Those who know me realize I am not Mr. Fix-it.  I am pretty much all thumbs when it comes to mechanical things.  I once scored in the 27% on a mechanical aptitude test.  Oh, when I was younger, I'd try, often taking four or five times as long to finish a job as it should have taken.  But I remember my days at Amherst.  How many times did I earn money for grinders or pizza by working on cars, for instance, changing the oil or replacing mufflers and tailpipes, for guys who had no idea how to do either?  Again, I'm mostly a klutz when it comes to handyman stuff, but far more than once I'd help the fraternity custodian/caretaker (Joe Zygmont, a great guy with not much education, but with whom I had a number of enlightening conversations) around the house.

Another comment in the article, again citing a "disadvantage" in less than flattering way, was "How can I be a teacher--wouldn't that be a waste of my expensive education?  Wouldn't I be squandering the opportunities...?  What will my rich friends think?"  Rich friends?  It was my own father who sounded those same thoughts.  Several times he asked Karen if she could talk to me about leaving teaching.  He made comments like, "You must be the only Amherst graduate who drives a Chevy."  I wonder what he thought when I bought a Horizon--and then drove it for nine years?

I think the author is wrong in his view about the lack of passion for ideas among students and graduates at the elite colleges.  In fact, I have found that to be exactly the opposite, especially among the teachers with whom I've worked.  Oh, there are some who are very passionate, including two of my current colleagues (I think they are great teachers!).  On the whole, though, ideas don't matter.  I remember how few of the high school teachers actually read books or subscribed to magazines or journals in their disciplines.  And, to get an in-service day (oh, how it pains me to write that!) devoted to discussing history?  Yeah, right--they much preferred getting Nerf balls tossed at them.  At one of the colleges, the department head and I tried to get a history newsletter, a journal of sorts, going among the history instructors on all five of the campuses.  The journal would allow for articles or essays about history or the teaching of it, book reviews, etc.  We were able to "publish" one issue.  That one issue had just a few submissions, all by the same few folks.  We tried to get the word out, encouraging others to write something, anything--to no avail.  Nobody wanted to do it.  I never understood and complained to my department head, "How can people who teach college history not have a passion for writing about it?"  We weren't looking for Pulitzer material, just an opportunity to share passions. 

He writes, "The disadvantage of an elite education is that it's given us the elite we have and the elite we're going to have"  These will be the people, dare I say arrogant people?, who "will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government." And they can't (or won't!) communicate with the common folks.  Of course, they or at least some of them might well think, "Why should we have to communicate with them?"

It's an interesting article and the author has some insightful views.  I went to one of these "elite" instutions.  But, I don't think I came away with many of these attitudes or "disadvantages" cite in it/by him.  I don't think I have "Ivy Retardation."  First, I never felt I was one of the elite, at least not academically (and certainly not socially!).  Second, my own background was far different than those described by the author and far different from many of my schoolmates.  Third, there were far too many people ready and willing to slap me down (figuratively, not literally) if I developed such an "elitism."  No, quite the contrary.  My Amherst education was one of the defining episodes of my life.  I wouldn't trade it for anything.  My professors, my studies, my sports, and, especially, my friends--all were the greatest.  I learned a lot, specifically and about life in general.  My Amherst education was special and I am forever grateful for it.

But, I still enjoyed the article....

Sat AM Musings

There's something cool about waking up in the middle of the night, to a quiet house (althought the wind is howling outside!), and getting some work done.  OK, I often pay for it later in the evening with a yawn or two. 

Cold?  I don't mind it as much as I used to.  Snow?  I like it, even the heavy/deep stuff.  It's fun to shovel.  Rain?  It's sometimes bothersome.  But wind?  Nope, that's one meteorological condidtion I don't like.  Strong winds make running tough, as I'll rediscover in a short while.  (It's still dark out there.)  Taking things from the car to the store or vice versa is a challenge.  Wind makes cold colder, although I disdain "wind chills."  Is it wind that makes airplane flights so bumpy?  I suppose it's good for flying kites, though.

An Amherst mate recently blogged about two things, Judge Bork and Senator Inouye.  He reminded me of Bork's role in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."  That was when Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.  Richardson, to his everlasting credit, refused.  Nixon then fired him, ordering Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus to get rid of Cox.  Likewise, honorably, the new AG refused.  Nixon canned him, too.  Bork, then Solicitor General, was next in line.  He was set to refuse Nixon's firing order, but was talked out of it by folks who promised to set the historical record straight.  That record was that Bork opposed the firing, but would do it only because Nixon would keep firing people until he found one who would axe Cox.  And "the folks" assured Bork that Nixon didn't care if he found an honorable man or not; so Bork should do the firing and the position would be filled by a man with integrity.  Bork's mistake here was trusting "the folks," the politicians, the Nixon politicians.  This episode later came back to haunt Bork in the Supreme Court hearings.  It's a tough call--I see both sides.

Senator Inouye was grilled for having served in the US Senate for far too long, anathema to "conservative principles."  I guess I'm not averse to "a career politician," any more than I'm averse to a career teacher or doctor or lawyer or millwright or......  What matters, to me, is performance.  Term limits are a mere political ploy.  They already exist.  Voters already possess them every time they enter the polling places--they can vote out the incumbent and vote in his/her opponent.  Term limits might well also limit my choices.  Maybe who is in office is better than any replacement, although that sure seems dubious!  I, then, am stuck with voting for an inferior candidate.  Again, I see the other side, especially with the power and the money/contacts that are involved.  Still, because voters are lazy, stupid, duped, whatever, I don't think my choices should be limited by term limits.

I thought of another anomaly concerning the "party of choice."  Again, abortion is a woman's choice, but people shouldn't have the choices of gun ownership or where their kids attend school.  And, workers shouldn't have the choice to join a union or not.  Hmmmm....  It almost sounds like the "party of choice" should be called the "party of no choice."  (BTW, why is it so difficult for me to type the word "choice?"  I most often omit the letter "i."  Hmmmm......)

Fri AM Musings

Several things are leaving bad tastes in my mouth--and not just last night's dinner.

First, how can a US Congressman, Gary Peters of Michigan, hire a former Kwame Kilpatrick aide?  Oh, this aide was recently released from prison, having been convicted of bribery.  It sort of makes one wonder about this Congressman's, ahem, judgment, doesn't it?

And what's the deal with the federal government giving a group of "experts" (?) $5000 each to go to Hawaii to study food and Mars?  Huh?  "You have to be kidding," but I'm not. One would think, in light of the current financial mess, things like that wouldn't happen any longer, but then one would be wrong. I know the retort is the same one several school administrators always gave me when I questioned spending there. "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." Well, how many drops until the bucket starts filling up? Like Everett Dirksen once said, "A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yep. But as Milton Friedman also noted, "It's easy to spend other people's money."

Also, Obama getting Time Magazine's "Man of the Year"award still rankles me.  It's just what the egotistical, narcissistic guy needs.  Oh well, I guess I take some solace in that it's not necessarily an award for "good," but for influencing events of the year the most.  I'm not sure he has, but....  And there's aways knowing that Hitler and Stalin (twice) also won the awards.  BTW, I read just yesterday, from an Obama critic, that Obama is "a highly polished and eloquent speaker."  You know, I just don't see it--and never have.  It must be me.

Still, in the wake of the most recent mass murder, there is no call for an investigation into violent video games and television shows/movies.  Surely they must play a role.  The army uses violent video games to desensitize soldiers before combat/killing.  But the "experts," the arrogant elitists who fill our airwaves on radio and television don't ever seem to mention the violence that is now part of many young people's lives.  If they do, I missed it (with the full admission I don't watch much television, almost never on my own).

OK, out to make a snowman with the Codester.....

Daniel Inouye

Senator Daniel Inouye died the other day, like Judge Robert Bork, with seemingly little fanfare.  Now, had they been hippy-rock stars or Hollywood-types who had overdosed on this drug or that, well things would have been quite different, I'm sure.

Inouye was a Democrat with whom I often found myself in disagreement. But I never failed to respect the man--his honor, his integrity, his courage. (Again, perhaps it says more about us that we lionize Kennedy--in fact all of them--and turn to Bill Clinton for endorsements rather than good, decent men like Inouye.) Inouye was on the Senate Watergate Committee, serving with dignity and insight. He also took on Irangate. And, if you remember, when nobody else would accept the defense of a Senate colleague accused in the Abscam scandal, Inouye took on the job. As a point of personal courage and integrity, it is mindful of John Adams defending the British soldiers in their Boston Massacre trial. Here is one of the few op-ed pieces I've seen on the death of Inouye; it's a good one.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-inouye-bob-dole-connection-6b834gf-184113311.html

I also like the tribute to Senator Philip Hart, the real "Conscience of the Senate."

Robert Bork

Robert Bork died today.  Few may remember he was the Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court so vociferously (and I'm being kind!) by the Democrats.  His nomination was rejected by the Senate, much, I think, to our detriment.

He was a brilliant man, perhaps far too conservative for some.  But in reading a few of his books, particularly The Tempting of America, I was struck at how much he was teaching from those books.  Reading them reminded me of being in some of my classes at Amherst.  I found my own thoughts and views being challenged--from a book.

His nomination was rejected, in large part, due to the efforts of Ted Kennedy, that scumbag of scumbags.  No, Ted Kennedy wasn't the Lion of the Senate, as he was so erroneously portrayed in his last days and at his death.  How quickly people forgot the little things, like Mary Jo Kopechne's death.  Kennedy's opposition to Bork was equally scummy.  One of the things he brought up was Bork's speaking engagements, engagements for which he took money while he was a federal appellate judge.  "Unethical!" among other things was the indictment.  Bork kept quiet and only later did it come out that his wife had cancer and was undergoing treatments.  The health insurance had run out and he was giving speeches to continue the treatments.  Yep, let's put that one in the same category as, say, "Mary Jo Kopechne."

The Democrats went to their black constituents, namely their black ministers, and spread lies about Bork and urged the ministers to spread those lies to their congregations during Sunday services/sermons.  Yep, tell me how dishonest and immoral the Republicans are again.

I read a book about the nomination of Judge Bork.  The author, in his forward, admitted he went into its writing with a bias, against Bork.  It didn't take long before the author changed his mind and discovered a good man, an honest man, although one with whom he disagreed.

Gee, I wonder if we'll order flags flown at half mast, like we did for Whitney Houston?  Shame on me.

Tue Eve Musings

After about 11 hours (4 last night and 7 today) of grading finals, I'm taking a break.  I'll just finish later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow AM.

Hey, after dinner tonight I actually read the sports section!  Yep......  I found out some things I didn't know.  The Lions lost Sunday.  I guess they were smacked around pretty well/good.  I didn't even think of them, being in Las Vegas.  Of course, last week they were on prime time Sun eve, but I opted to watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original!) instead--good choice.  BTW, I heard some guy as I was flipping through the radio on the way home from classes today.  He was either reading from someone else's op-ed piece or voicing his own view.  He bemoaned watching some NFL game, asking ESPN to "give me back those four wasted hours of my life."  Hey, why did the guy bother to watch?  Or, why didn't he just stop watching?  Back to the sports section, the Tigers signed a pitcher to some $16,000,000 a year contract--for five years, I think.  C'mon!  Give me a break.  I think he's slated, according to the article, to be the fourth or fifth starter.  (In a similar, but funny vein, I read an online article about the rich and famous.  No, I don't know why.  But this one family, with a home of 31,000 sq ft--you read that right--is adding on to the home because, as the article noted, it "needed the room."  True story......)  And some U of M football player, "basically a good person," was suspended from the team's bowl game for "violations of team rules."  This "basically a good person" was also suspended from the team in 2010 and 2011.  Yeah, right......

Some sociologist or psychiatrist on the radio this AM noted that the recent spate of mass shootings have been done by young men who expect things to be given to them and, when things aren't given to them, they resent it and react.  Boy, we might have big problems ahead!  What young men today don't expect to be handed things without earning them or working for them?  Isn't that the tenor of today's society--give me what other people have earned?  Don't make me work for anything?  (That reminds me of a very smart colleague of mine who insisted, years ago, parents' mantra had become, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it.")  How are we going to instill the idea of working, of earning, to get things after several decades of give-aways?  I understand, although I don't capitulate, students who are upset with bad grades in my classes, even when they do little or nothing.  They've never had to work before, never had to earn their grades before.  Why should things be different now?

I heard a caller on another show, maybe Bill Bennett's?, note that 40 and 50 years ago, kids went outside to play, at the park or playground, in the yard, on the street.  Now, he said, kids go home from school and immediately turn on the video game or some other electronic device.  Kids don't learn to interact with people/other kids.  Another caller talked about "The Peter Pan Syndrome" among our young adults--they don't want to grow up.  Growing up entails facing responsibilities, failing and having to get up and go at it again, looking out for others instead just oneself.  Hmmmmmm......  That's worth some thinking, isn't it?

I'm still laughing, although it hurts, at the state legislature.  Because of the results of Proposition 2, the house and senate (and governor) felt compelled to enact a "right-to-work" law.  That's because "the voters indicated what they wanted and we're giving that to them."  Yet, the Lansing Loons voted for another emergency manager law, after the voters rejected it in the election.  I guess the legislators and governor know what the voters want better than the voters themselves.  If all this weren't so serious and potentially damaging to self-government, it'd be funny to watch the hypocritical Republicans steal pages from the hypocritical Democrats' playbook.  And, anyone who doesn't see this is either a hypocrite, too, or very dense.  Maybe, though, they are just arrogant elitists. 

I wonder about those pro-choice people.  It seems to me those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are very much "anti-choice" when it comes to gun ownership and schools.  So, I guess, a mother can choose to kill her unborn baby, but can't choose what school her born baby can attend?  Need I say anything about guns and abortion?

Mitch Rapp.  Jack Reacher.  John Puller.  Are there any better characters out there today?  Rizzoli and Isles (in the novels, not the boob tube show) and Myron Bolitar (and his sidekick Win) are close runners-up.

Out to bake blueberry/banana muffins.  Ashley says, "I love to bake!"  If time, maybe Bopper and I can go for a walk--a mile or two in the dark to see the Chris lights.

Terras Irradient.

Politics, Not Economics

As if the hypocrites in Lansing needed anything to show that they are, well, hypocrites consider this.

The state legislature and governor rushed through the "right-to-work" law.  One of their reasons was to "follow through" on the Nov. 6 "mandate" of the people in defeating the "collective bargaining" proposition.  In other words, the legislature was merely following the wishes of the people, as indicated in the election.

So, then, why did these same people rush through an emergency manager law?  The voters, on Nov. 6, shot down the old emergency manager legislation by rejecting that proposition.  Hmmmmmm......

Apparently there is a bit of a disconnection in deciphering the "people's will."  And who said, "We are doing this for Michigan."  No, no...politics had nothing to do with either piece of legislation.

And, remember, this is a lame duck session.  Why do they never seem to be in any kind of a rush during the rest of the year?  As I said before, a pox on both of their houses.  Throw all the bums out!

Honesty and Tolerance

This, from a blog by Burton Folsom, historian and author of several books including FDR Goes to War:  "Historian Betty Glad, who wrote Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of Innocence, began her research 'with an investigation of Hughes’s public statements, which were then checked against his private papers for possible discrepancy between his public and private views. None was discovered. . . .' Imagine that—what Hughes said and believed in private is what he said and believed in public."

"Imagine that," indeed!  What's the old line?  "When can you tell if a politician is lying?  When he moves his lips." 

Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s.  It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition.  Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression.  But what he said publicly and in private were two different things.  And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression.  What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.

That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters.  You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win.  And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments.  It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades.  And, remember, I am not a Republican.  But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.

Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education?  Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn.  Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling.  But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities.  At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated.  And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place.  This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape."  According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive.  The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s.  Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject."  (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.)  A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class.  Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive."  They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race.  So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished.  Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?"  It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged.  This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today.  More on that in a near-future blog....

Sometimes I Just Wonder...

...what kind of people make decisions that affect all of us.  Recently the US Court of Appeals ruled that part of Michigan's bottle/can deposit law is unconstitutional.  The state law requires that bottles and cans be identified as being sold in Michigan, for purposes of the bottle deposits.  I guess there was some Steinfield episode that mocked this??????  Well, I hope there is a Steinfield episode that mocks this decision.

I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws.  What does that have to do with anything?  Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment?  Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best.  With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it!  If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.

And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce?  Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels.  Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes.  Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?

The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts."  Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!

And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned.  That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut.  Huh?  That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'"  As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10.  Therefore I lost 10 pounds."  Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.

Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others?  Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted?  I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game."  Ha Ha.  Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials?  Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies?  Do they have to give back the profits?  Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships?  Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships?  After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles.  Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere?  "Integrity of the game?!?!?!"  Ha Ha, what a joke!

Electoral College

There was a good op-ed piece in the newspaper by a columnist from the Washington Post.  It was good because it once again demonstrated the situation ethics/principles of many progressives.  First, the guy used the results of the Electoral College to claim that Americans want the federal government to do what Obama is doing.  He pointed to the 332-206 Obama margin, if not a landslide, then at least a sizable win.  How convenient to use the Electoral College results this way!  That 100+ vote margin shows what the vast majority of Americans want.  Gee, these progressives were whistling a far different tune in 2000 when their guy, Algore, won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College.  Yep, it was a far different tune back then.  And, how convenient to ignore the popular vote this time, the difference less than 2%!  Hmmmm.... That's a majority, but hardly a significant one.

And, I know what people will say when I write this (oh, how I know!).  I am not at all convinced the election was tainted by fraud, a lot of it.  Logic tells me that suburban precincts in Ohio, in Virginia, and elsewhere did not vote 100% for Obama, as reported.  You mean, Romney didn't get a single vote in some suburban settings?  I'll never believe that.  And how odd the screams about voter fraud were deafening in 2000.  I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway; I don't know.  I am saying I fully believe there was fraud.  Of course, I can't prove it.

Wed AM

Getting up at 5 AM (or earlier), as I most often do, is a great way to get things done.  I relish the quiet.  I even like going out to get the newspaper so early, seeing the early AM sky and all of the stars and planets that sometimes seem so close I can reach out and touch them.  Venus has become a good friend and I often greet Orion.  I still enjoy finding the Big Dipper and locating the North Star from it.  Sometimes I have to consult a star map for that AM/Day to identify other stars and planets--they move!

I don't really watch the Lions play, but does this Suh guy really play "dirty?"  If so, why does the league put up with it?  If so, where are the opposing players, who often "fix" things with dirty play?  If so, why do the fans still root for the Lions?  Is it that important to win?  Why did the Pistons' fans of the '80s root so hard the "Bad Boys?"  Weren't they "dirty?"  Was it that they won?  I guess in the same vein, why is there all of this recent talk of paying college athletes, esp football and basketball players?  Isn't the college education enough?  Is "generating income" all that important, all-important even?  How about just cutting all the garbage, since my inclination is to believe most of them really aren't "student-athletes," and create a new level of athletics?  Let the colleges continue with their programs, but have a minor league for football and basketball players who have professional aspirations?  Then, the athletes can be paid and we don't have to continue with the sham of "student-athletes."  And, then, by merit, we can see who really deserves to be paid.  BTW, I think banning players from selling their own memorabilia is ridiculous.  To prohibit a team from bowl games and rankings because their players sold their own property is stupid and, dare I say, hypocritical.  (At least that's my understanding of the Ohio State episode.  I could be wrong since, like professional sports, I lost interest in major college athletics years ago.)  The argument is that the "student-athletes" (it pains me to write that!) shouldn't be able to take advantage of things other students don't have.  Yeah, right......  Gee, what dorms do they have?  What about their training tables?  How about the tutors?  Did I mention the training facilities?  I'm sure "other students" can walk into the football weight room to work out any time they want.  I'll bet "other students" can sit down and have the steaks provided at the "training tables."  Do any of these people ever look in the mirror?  Oh, I forgot.  It's all about winning and the money, so of course they can look in the mirror.  I still get a kick out of the alumni of these colleges, those whose degrees are maligned and diminished, who see nothing wrong with all of this.  In fact, they remain the biggest boosters.  Wouldn't they also root for their teams if real "student-athletes" competed?

Why does everything today have to be about sex?  OK, not everything is.  But watch some of those TV shows, esp the dancing and singing ones.  Can women wear skimpier clothes?  Little is left to the imagination.  Why do the guys have to rip off their shirts?  I see the kid who starred in that "Two Gentlemen and a Boy" or whatever it's called said the show is "filth."  Gee, after how many years, what took him so long to realize it?  The paychecks?  "Filth?"  Perhaps, since I guess the kid was not yet an adolescent when he/the show began, it might be called "child pornography" or, at the least, "child abuse" or "endangerment?"  Maybe not, but I refused to ever watch the show.  But enough people did, people who would be appalled if I suggested that they were watching "kiddie pornography."  And is there a comedian out there who doesn't do the same, even one who doesn't swear up and down?  You know, "F-bombs" aren't inherently funny.

I also noted that Barack Obama and his wife took advantage of a tax loophole to avoid paying some taxes.  I think, but I won't swear to it, that each gave "$48,000" to each of their two daughters.  Some White House lackey explained it was to pay for the girl's college educations.  I don't have a problem with taking advantage of the loopholes--it's the law and is fine with me.  If we don't want the loopholes, change the laws.  But isn't it Obama who's the one always talking about "the rich have to pay more?"  Yep, it's the same guy.  One would think (that is, if one is thinking) that he'd be more than willing to pay more in taxes, that is, not take advantage of the loopholes.  He could set an example for the rich.  (Gee, I wonder if Warren Buffet, instead of hypocritically telling people his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does, takes advantage of loopholes?  And, don't forget, his secretary earns about five or six times what I do.)  And, if Obama's government programs and policies are so good, are so worthy of funding, why isn't he thrilled to pay more in taxes?  I know why and so do you.  By the way, wouldn't one think that $800,000 a year (about what the Obama's made this year, not to mention the book deals and speaking engagements once he leaves office) could pay for their daughters' college educations?  How the heck did I manage to put a kid through college??????

"Why don't we buy electric cars?" a newspaper headline asks.  How about the price tags on them?  (And, why do taxpayers have to pay $7500 for somebody to buy one?)  How about the inconvenience?  What if one doesn't have a garage?  What about the limited mileage and speed?  Why is the federal government so concerned for us to buy electric cars?  (Well, why does it--and local and state governments--also mandate what kind of televisions, toilets, light bulbs, fried foods, etc. we can have?)

I can't stand the emergency manager law(s)?  It/They reek(s) of elitism, of arrogance.  I know history isn't important, but if there's anything it teaches it's that the elitists who gain control of government far more often mess things up than make things better.

Random Thoughts on a Snowy Sunday

OK, the snow barely dusted the ground. But, it stayed all day.  Even the roads were snow-covered for a few hours this AM.  It made for a beatiful run today.

What an odd list (three pages!) of obituaries today!  So many of the names were alliterative.  "Bob Bean," "Bob Balfour Blanchard," "Betty Boguszewski," "Gene Gebala," "Guerino Giombetti," "James Jensen," "Harold Howell," "Ken Kosky," "Louis Loch," "Mary Meyers," "Stephen Sims," "Stanley Stepinski," and "Thomas Tarantine."  I didn't include first and middle names, such as "Betty Barry" and "Gary Bordon."  And one woman who died married a guy with the same last name as her maiden name.  Another was said to have the life ambition "of being James Bond."

Especially in the Free Press, but also among a lot of people, there are no bounds to the criticism of the leadership, past and present, in Detroit.  Fair enough.  But then many of these same people and the Free Press then support what Obama and his administration are doing in DC, to the US.  It all seems a little incongruent to me.

Of the "fiscal cliff," a lot of talk is centered on a balanced budget.  To balance the budget we need to cut spending and cut spending a lot.  Living on a budget means to live within one's means, that is, unless we have redefined "budget"/"budgeting."  Budgeting, as an op-ed piece correctly noted today, does not merely mean to increase the means by which one lives.  "The root cause" of our deficit predicament is spending--government borrows too much to spend more and government taxes too much to spend more.  The key is to spend less.

Imagine if some inhuman nut jobs started launching missiles, hundreds or thousands of them, into American cities from, say Mexico or Canada.  Then imagine that Mexico and Canada let them.  I wonder what the response from and within the US would be.  What would any other nation in the world do in response?  Yep, I think so, too.  So, as Nolan Finley suggests in an editorial, "Why shouldn't it [Israel] level Gaza, if necessary, to silence the rockets forever?  These same countries, which would react "with a terrible, swift sword" if they were being attacked for years, are the ones who sit by and watch this happen, with nary a word of protest.  Oh, when Israel is hit with wave upon wave of rockets, the international silence is deafening.  Then, when Israel responds--as any other nation in the world would respond--it is criticized for killing civilians.  Why wouldn't Hamas continue to bombard the Israelis??????

I don't know if there's a direct correlation or not, but....  It seems to me the schools and American education in general became worse and continued to get worse once the federal government (and, in Michigan, Lansing/the state government) became more involved.  Now, I do understand that many states, for instance, in the South, continued to teach the hatred and bigotry that marked far too many years.  Still....  Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Is the shoe on the other foot?  Back in the '60s and '70s, the right, ridiculously, told the left, "America--love it or leave it."  Now, equally ridiculously, some of the left are telling the right--those who I hope only jokingly talk about seceding--"Self-deport to any country of your choice."  Brilliance exhibited by both sides.

Interesting how some are critical of business anticipating the costly effects of ObamaCare.  Some national restaurant chains are already cutting work weeks to 29  hours, to avoid the mandating health insurance costs of the new law.  At least one college has cut professors' hours to avoid the same debilitating effects.  (Of course, to take care of the increased costs, I suppose the college could raise tuition.  But, no, we can't do that, can we?)  Others, small businesses, are cutting back to 49 workers, since the law applies only to those with 50 or more employees.  The hues and cries have started.  But it seems those protests are coming from people who have never run a business, never had to meet payrolls, never faced the prospects of bankruptcy/going out of business.  (My limited experience comes from having do dole out a limited amount of hours--a payroll of sorts--to workers in a dining hall.  It was often easy.  It was sometimes difficult.  But it had to be done.)  I wonder what some of these critics would do if they had to balance a budget, meet payroll, turn a profit--or face the dire consequences.  What they say and what they do might be two very different things.  They've shown their true colors in Massachusetts, where the wealthy, liberal elite don't check off the box to pay a voluntary higher state income tax, and in Michigan, where retired teachers have bitterly groused about paying pittance of state income tax on their pensions (which were untaxed before).

Out to back cookies with Ash....

There were three or four very good and sensible letters-to-the-editor in this AM's paper--none from me. One focused on a new state Supreme Court Justice who is "passionate about social justice." The letter-writer was very correct in citing, "I would [feel] better if our newest justice expressed a passon for the rule of law. What we have now is another jurist who will ignore what the law requires to satisfy her own version of 'the right thing.'" He goes on to call such legal actions "well-intentioned, but misguided." He cites Sir Thomas More, in A Man for All Seasons: "When you are rid of all of the laws to get to the Devil and the Devil then turns around to confront you, what will you have left to defend yourself?" Yes, indeed....

Another letter, ignorantly, said, "The coalition that formed a majority to elect President Obama..are [sic] not demanding that government provide for them, but rather that government not work against them." C'mon. There is no political party today that will ensure "that government not work against them."

A third noted how the US 6th Circuit Court ruled Michigan's ban on affirmative action to be unconstitutional. The people approved of this at the ballot box. Now, as this letter correctly states, "A group of people (the justices on the 6th Court) outside of this state decided what was [sic] best for us." That's not what the courts are supposed or authorized to do. (See two paragraphs ahead.)

Emergency Manager Laws, elitist Courts?  Why bother to vote?

"Defining Deviancy Down"

So stated Daniel P. Moynihan back about 20 years ago.  We have lowered our standards of what is acceptable. 

Walter Williams, long one of my favorite columnists, noted last weekend that television newscaster gave this account, "Two gentlemen were taken into custody for raping, sodomizing, and then murdering an 80-year old woman."  "Two gentlemen??????"  You must be kidding.  What do people have to do to be called "monsters?"

When I walked in from class the other night, Dancing with the Stars was not yet quite over, much to my great disappointment.  As I put down my briefcase and took off my shoes, I noted the very skimpy clothes one of the dancers was wearing.  A very derogatory word came to my mind, a four-letter one that begins with an "s" and ends with a "t."  "She's dressed like a...," I thought.  Yet, at the end, the show concluded with a recap of the night's efforts.  One dance looked like a sex escapade with clothes on.  I wondered, "Is this close to pornography--on prime time television?"  No doubt, though, my thoughts make me a prude, thoroughly out of date....

Perhaps not quite the same, but still a sign that the Apocalypse might be near....  A college professor noted that some of his students admitted that they had not yet bought the book for his course.  Therefore, I assume they were behind and not doing well.  But, they explained, they were waiting for their federal financial aid money--their "free money"-- to come.  Oh, OK...except they had spent the money they had on "tattoos, body-piercing, and cell phones."  Again, perhaps it's just me and my antiquated principles, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with this.

And, I see, another child in Detroit has been murdered.  Oddly, along with the tears that brought, I wondered how many other murders of children go unreported.  That is, nobody knows that the kids have been killed.  I don't know, but am just wondering.  I am reading a novel right now, whose author is worthy of Hannibal Lecter-stuff.  Her plot opens with the murder of several children and I was moved to visible tears.  I stopped reading for the night.  It was far to close to home/reality.  Some time soon, we must do more than say we are "outraged" and realize we are doing something wrong.

Thirty years ago, 18% of all children were born out of wedlock.  Today, that number is approaching 50%!  Half of all kids are born to mothers who aren't married??????  Now, tell me, what chance do these kids have? 

Fri AM

How cool that Miguel Cabrera won the MVP.  He deserved it.  I'm not running down that Trout guy, whatever his first name is.  Trout had a terrific season and, in most years, would have won the MVP. But Cabrera had a Triple Crown season, the first in 45 years.  I know there were a lot a folks who are hung up on the sabermetrics stuff and that's fine--for them.  But Cabrera's season was about more than leading the league in average, HRs, and RBIs.  Listen to other teams' managers comments throughout the season and how their game plans were altered because they were playing against Cabrera.  I have no doubts Trout affected the game while it was being played, but Cabrera had managers planning days in advance.  And when did Cabrera's hits come?  You guessed it--at the ends of games!  I think he hit quite a bit higher in the last few innings than he did earlier in the games.  Again this is not to denigrate Trout; he just had bad timing.

And, to ensure this wasn't a hometown vote for Cabrera, the guy who won the Cy Young Award deserved it.  Verlander, as close as it was, would have been deserving, too, but the right guy won it.  But there are lots of things to consider in the CY as in the MVP.  Verlander is widely recognized as the best pitcher in the game.  But the CY winner had a slightly better season and deserved the award.

Obama has challenged the two US Senators who have been critical of the UN Ambassador.  He intimated they were bullies and told them to "come after me."  They should.  First, I will not even pursue "The Buck Stops Here," because with Obama, it doesn't.  He is blameless.  Remember, "It's Bush's fault."  Second, I guess my question is this:  Why, if she can't be scrutinized, did Obama send her out there to do his work?  Third, why did she continue the charade, two weeks later, of the phony anti-Muhammad movie trailer on You Tube?  From even the CIA's own timeline, it was well-known the trailer had little to do with the Benghazi attack--and, no, it wasn't a spontaneous riot!  That is, did Obama and the State Dept. feed her lies without telling her they were lies?  Was she used as a dupe?  (I'd certainly resign in that instance, but as I've noted here in the past the concept of shame has long been outmoded.)  Of course, Obama and the State Dept. could have told her these were lies, but to repeat them anyway.  That's a whole different story and it's a legitimate question to ask her if she knew they were lies, why she perpetuated them.  But this is all pointless if Obama is regarded as the Messiah.

I listened to some nationally known TV analyst the other day on the radio.  I can't stand it when the locals just fawn over these guys.  And here's one reason why.  The guy, in about five minutes, made two egregious errors, inexplicable for one considered so knowledgeable.  (As senile as I'm getting) I have forgotten the one (it was three days ago, after all!), but the other was a complete error.  He said, "If President Clinton had been impeached...."  He was impeached!!!!!!  I know, I know....  But I expect my "experts" to at least know what they are talking about, even though I may or may not agree with their views.  Boy, I wish I could remember the second mistake, but I can't right now....

I don't know much about the particulars in this General Petraeus affair (no pun intended).  But I wonder why his boss, the commander-in-chief, wasn't held to the same standards that military personnel are held.  Namely, I'm talking about Bill Clinton.

Speaking of Clinton, what does it say about us, or at least a majority of us, that the Democrats can pull out this scumbag for endorsements of candidates and propositions?  And we, apparently, buy into it?

I wonder why there hasn't been a reality show titled "Hypocrites."  The material for such a show is endless....

Let's See....

I see the President, just a couple of days after the election, said the "rich will have to pay more taxes."  Is it "conniving and dishonest" that he waited until after the election to announce that?  Of course, who would be at all surprised by this?

More interesting to me will be the reaction of some people.  Retired teachers reacted with great anger toward Governor Snyder and the Republicans for taxing their previously untaxed pensions.  As I noted earlier, most folks will pay less than $400 in state income taxes.

Now, with an Obama-led tax increase, these same folks might well face a tax increase, on the federal not state level, of five or more times this!  I am very, very curious to see the reaction of these teacher retirees.  Will they be as vehement toward an Obama tax as they have been toward a Snyder (Michigan governor) tax?

I'm almost willing to get such a federal tax increase just to be able to ask these people about this.  Paying $2000 more in taxes is OK, if the right person is sponsoring the tax.  But paying a few hundred due to the efforts of the wrong person is objectionable.

Oh, I can't wait....almost.

Forgive any typos--I just came home from a wedding.

Post-Election Blues

I never bought into some of the analyses that had Romney beating Obama.  It wasn't going to happen.  If anything, I am surprised the popular vote was that close.  I don't believe a lot of that crap going around about Romney being a liar any more than I believe Obama was born in Kenya.  I do wonder, however, if Romney has that same feeling George Bush Daddy had after losing to Clinton in '92.  It was something like, "It's not losing.  It's losing to someone like him [Clinton]."  (And, those who know me well enough realize I don't mind losing as much as to whom I lose.)

I understand why Obama won.  I still don't understand--and likely never will--why a large percentage of the voting population ever considered voting for him and, in fact, did.  It's as if we preach one thing, but lead completely different lives.  An example:  A couple of fellow teacher retirees', before the election, were jumping all over the Republicans.  (Remember, I am not a Republican!)  They kept harping on, "They taxed my pension!"  I asked each, perhaps not in so many words, but just as clearly, this:  Wait a minute!  You only pay 4% on less than 20% of your pension.  That's not burdensome.  And, people like you who think government is the solution to all the problems should be glad to give more tax money to find those solutions that government will provide.  In fact, I'd think you'd voluntarily pay taxes!  Of course, I got no responses and I expected none.  It's like the Obama voters; they want things, but other people should pay for them.

And someone who knows I don't like Obama sent me a pre-election e-mail with a link to "a list of Obama's achievements."  Two things:  one, he had achieved things, but they aren't desirable things; two, the link was to Obama's election Web site!

I know a lot of people have surmised the Republicans will be obstructionist again.  I know I kept hearing that in the last few weeks of the campaign.  Obama didn't accomplish all he intended because the Republicans didn't play ball.  Gee, isn't that what the opposition party is supposed to do--oppose?  I would say that, over the past several decades, the Republicans have more than compromised, more than reached across the aisle, were more than bi-partisan.  In fact, I could make an argument that they sold out!

Of course, that's me.  As Karen has always said, I could never be a school administrator because I "would never play the games."  That is, I wouldn't sell my soul or cave in on my princples.  If something is wrong, it's wrong.  (But an old dog can learn new tricks.  I read a good article about global warming today.  It wasn't an alarmist screed, but a reasonable argument that I didn't agree with at first, but it is winning me over.)

How interesting that the "reindeer farmer" is now in the US House.  Except, he's no longer the "reindeer farmer."  Now he's portrayed as Santa Claus because he dresses up as Santa for the holidays.  Now there's a bad thing!  I was sent an e-mail by a former teacher and Dem who worked for Santa's opponent; it had a link to an article in which Santa's brother called Santa "conniving and dishonest."  An establishment Republican sent me the same article.  First, where was this brother a few months ago.  This reporter couldn't find him then, but could five days before the election?  Second, what better qualities for a seat in our current Congress than "conniving and dishonest?"  if true, he'll fit right in and, in fact, might have a head start on other freshmen.  I had wavered in voting for Santa, but after these scurrilous e-mails, I voted for him.

I also changed my mind on Proposition 2, although I am, in principle, opposed to changing the state constitution to remedy matters than are legislative in nature.  But the radio ads were so dishonest, even by today's standards, I changed my mind and voted against the principle.  C'mon, if the Prop passed "child molesters will be in your child's classroom?"  If it passed, "adult drug dealers will deal drugs to your children?"  And I sent the group responsible an e-mail noting that their ads changed my mind on voting, just not the way they wanted.  How despicable!

And I voting against my general principle, too, on Prop 5.  This would have required a 2/3 vote of each state house to raise taxes.  Again, I am opposed to this, except today's politicians can't be trusted.  They spend, spend, spend, even if they promise not to spend.  Gee, isn't that "conniving and dishonest?"  Nah, it's like wanting gov't stuff from the other guy. 

Similarly, a Cal guy who makes well over $250,000 a year voted against the Prop there that would have increased state taxes on such high incomes (more than $250,000) from 10% to 13%.  That's fine.  I would have opposed it, too.  Except this guy is one who wants gov't to fix everything.  Of course now it's plain.  He wants gov't to fix it with someone else's money!

Out to get the kids from school....

Hmmmm......

I often don't have a lot of answers, but I do have lots of questions.

Why should I vote for the Democratic candidate for the US House because he's a caring, compassionate, and successful physician, one who's helped a lot of people?  That's the gist of a Democratic ad I recently heard.  Wasn't it just two years ago that the Democrats were lambasting the Republican candidate running against John Dingell for the same thing(s)?  Rob Steele is a successful cardiologist who's performed hundreds and hundreds of open-heart operations (that is, has saved hundreds and hundreds of lives).  But, the Dems averred, we shouldn't vote for him because he was wealthy.  I think I also remember allusions to his big house, but I'm not sure.  Gee, I wonder in what kind of house and lifestyle Dr. Syed Taj, a successful doctor, lives.  His opponent, Kerry Bentivolio, is always portrayed as "a reindeer farmer," as if that's a pejorative and somewhat odd.  I also wonder if the demand for "reindeer" makes Bentivolio a wealthy guy, too.  Somehow I don't think so.  Some Democrats openly assert that Romney "will say anything to get elected."  Well, HELLO!  He's not the only one, apparently.  What's it called?  Situational ethics?  Hypocrisy?  What was it Diogenes went looking for--an honest man?

There was an article I read recently that American manufacturers are looking to hire more skilled workers, but can't find enough of them.  Where are all those "Everybody goes to college!" people now?  I'm a big believer in a college education, just not one for the sole or even primary purpose of job preparation.  But I also believe that college isn't for everyone for a variety of reasons.  And this from one who makes his living teaching college history.  Still, if so many of these folks are concerned about "jobs for the future," where are their calls for training skilled labor?  Is this yet another incidence of unintended consequences--or merely not thinking?

Why don't we name more schools after people who have positively contributed to society, locally or even the bigger picture?  I've noted this here in the past.  What better way to teach people about history?  What better way to send the message that we value those who have improved people's lives, in whatever manner?  Then, the other night, I saw the futility of this idea.  The Waterford schools have three junior highs--Mason, Crary, Pierce.  Mason was the first governor of the state of Michigan and Crary and Pierce were the architects of Michigan public school system.  I asked a class of students, 37 of them, how many had attended one of these schools in Waterford.  More than half a dozen hands went up.  I was encouraged until I also asked, "Did you learn about these guys back then?"  The unanimous response was "No."  You mean, you were never told about the person whose name your school bore?  Nope, I guess not.  I could expect one or two to just not have paying attention or maybe even forgotten.  But more than half a dozen, some pretty good students?  So much for my idea....

Just a Little Bias....

A column in this AM's newspaper focuses on "undecided voters."  I agree in questioning, "Who can be an undecided voter at this point?"  Beats me, but....

The columnist writes, "The choice is pretty simple."  And then her true colors bleed all over the page.  "If you want less government and presumably lower taxes, vote for Romney."  "Presumably" is the troubling word.

"If you believe government is the only way to properly educate and provide health care for the majority of people and to protect the environment and civil rights, vote to re-elect the President."  Let's see, "only," "properly," "majority" are all loaded words in this context.

She also notes, "Obama is a mild progressive and  Romney is an arch conservative."  "A mild progressive??????"  Yeah, right.  "An arch conservative?"  I suppose it can be argued that Romney is not at all a "conservative" in the traditional sense, but to emphasize with "arch" is a bit too much.

But, this is an op-ed piece, "op" meaning "opinion."  Fine, I don't have a problem with the column and columnist as long as the writer fully admits to a bias.  This is America; people have a right to their opinions.  That's one of the things that makes this America.  But don't try to come off as a neutral party.  I'm not saying the columnist is claiming that, just that there is a media bias, which, again, is fine as long as she admits it.

I do agree with her, that, at least in the instance of Romney, "It appears this is another 'hold your nose and vote....' election."  And, I'm getting tired of these types of elections.  I resent it and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm going to "hold my nose" on Nov 6 or with an absentee ballot.  I am that upset that the parties, esp the Republicans, continue to think they can hold me, well, my vote, hostage.  Perhaps if enough of us said, "Enough" and voted that way, we'd get some legitimate candidates.

I know it's another question, but maybe we can't get legitimate candidates.  Who in his or her right mind would run for office?  Who would subject him/herself to the blatant and ever-present lies?  And, neither party shows any shame at their deliberate lying.  In fact, lying is why I've changed my mind about one of the propositions on the state ballot--the radio ads are patently dishonest.  And I intend to let the perpetrators of those lies know that they influenced my vote, but not the way they wanted.

Monday Moanin'

Just a lazy Mon AM today--yeah, right!  Nothing's ever lazy around here.

I see the Taliban has vowed to kill that teen-age activist.  Gee, what a nice group, that Taliban.  Hey, where's our State Department condeming that?  It and its Secretary were very quick to denounce that nutty anti-Islam video trailer on You Tube.  Where's the Bully Pulpit of the President?  He, for two weeks, continued to slam that silly You Tube trailer.  It would seem to me, that to be The Beacon on the Hill, American leaders have to step up and make strong, forceful condemnations of the Taliban and others.  "Making nice" doesn't always work, esp when "making nice" to some people is a sign of weakness.  Check your history....

Here's one of the things that's wrong with government.  The state issued a report that Michigan can save (although I sincerely doubt it; when has gov't saved anything?) $1 Billion by expanding Medicaid coverage.  Wow!  That sounds terrific--until reading the article.  The $1 Billion would be paid, then, by the federal gov't.  So, it's not a savings after all; it's merely a transfer of gov't spending.  And, from where does the gov't, state and federal, get its money...?  Maybe, with such headlines, that's something wrong with newspapers, too.

I heard a lady say that the first installment of the ObamaCare tax will cost the company she works for about $800,000 to $1,000,000--as of now.  Her company employs 600 people.  She feared the ObamaCare costs will devastate her company.  Options?  One, she lamented, is to lay off workers.  Another is to cut pay.  I suppose a third is to go out of business.  I don't know if this is an anomaly or is common.

In the same vein, it appears to large national restaurant chains have announced they will now make many of their current full-time employees part-time to avoid the ObamaCare tax.  And, others, they will fire and hire back, not as employees, but as private contractors, again to avoid the tax.

Hey, what's in that bill you're passing?  We don't know, but let's pass it and find out.

Outrage?  The word--and the emotion--have become trite, overused to the point of becoming meaningless.  Outrage at the murders in Detroit (and other places)?  This AM's newspaper have a couple of more weekend murders in Detroit buried on page six or eight, in a very small paragraph at the bottom of the page.  Why not make each of these the headline every day?  Of course, then that might also trivialize the murders, seeing the same thing daily, leading to a "What else is new? blase attitude.  Something must be done other than "I'm outraged!"  Maybe we could make more and more violent video games, television shows, and movies?

Teaching

I know, I think too much about teaching, even after 42 years of it.  But I was reminded yet again of it with a pamphlet I received the other day.  It is an essay about one of my Amherst professors, particularly his leadership [as department head] of...one of the core courses in the College's Curriculum." 

I knew Professor Moore only in passing, having attended several of his lectures on the humanities.  Although I was hardly the best of the best students, I think I realized just how good he was then.  I also realized that of many of my other professors.  But, the longer I have taught, the greater my realization of just how good they were.

I recalled how many of my students would tell me, often frustrated, "Just give us the answer!"  In fact, several of my former students have since also noted that.  "You never just gave us the answer."  As I read about Professor Moore, I realized how important to an education that is.  And, how difficult it is.  Professors (teachers) are too often intent on sharing their knowledge, their expertise, with students.  But it's hard for them (us) to "check our acadmic robes at the door," that is, to suppress our academic egos.  Professor Moore insisted that professors (teachers) must rid themselves of the notion that they are scholars first and teachers second, especially when entering classrooms.

Of course, lecturing or "giving us the answer" is sometimes, often even, necessary.  He wrote, "To develop points in discussion might well take forever," especially with students who've never read the required assignments or, if they have, only read them and didn't think about them.  (I plead guilty, too.)  But, as he notes, we've often given ourselves only a short time to teach--a day, an hour, even a term.  "I don't think this is a bad thing to do once in a while...and a single day of it can hardly hurt them [students]."  I laughed, though, at the thought that, for a "conscientious" teacher, a single class can seem "like an awkward race against the clock."  There is never enough to do more than merely scratch the surface.  How often do I look up and find my current class periods are over--and we've just begun!  (Surely my students feel otherwise!)

There's more, much more, in this pamphlet.  For instance, Professor Moore notes, Ancient Greek literature (tragedies and poems) are "as full of ideas as a well-peppered St. Sebastian is full of arrows."  (Oh, how a broad and deep education helps!)  Students, if not at the moment, appreciate connections, connections between different eras, between different peoples, between past and present.

My classmate has done a great service in writing this pamphlet, reintroducing us to Professor Moore and, I'd submit, the memories of our other great Amherst teachers.  One of the reading requirements for all teachers, regardless of discipline or level, should be the book Teaching:  What We Do, about a dozen essays by Amherst professors of years past.  These essays give detailed plans for the organization and implementation of lessons in a variety of areas. 

This essay on Professor Moore is a great reminder for me to continue to appreciate the many great, great teachers I had at Amherst.

The Auto Bailouts

A reminder, just in case the debates don't clarify the issue of the auto bailouts:

Obama didn't originate the bailouts.  Bush did with about $27 million of TARP money.  Obama merely continued them.  Now, I think the bailouts were wrong, regardless of the President.  They were especially wrong the way they were continued.

Of the tens of billions of dollars, the amount the US taxpayers have lost on the bailouts is approaching $27 billion--and increasing. 

Romney did write "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."  But he didn't mean let GM and Chrysler go belly up, not at all.  He wanted just what Bush and Obama did, except he favored a private bailout, one that was guaranteed by federal money.  It was what was done to save Chrysler in the '80s and worked just fine.  And the US taxpayer wasn't out a penny--very much unlike today.  Nobody, under Romney's plan, would have lost a job, well, at least not any more than under the Bush and Obama bailout.  And, remember this, the Delphi retirees, the other suppliers, white collar workers, and dealerships wouldn't have received the fickey-doo.  What the bailouts did was, in essence, bailout the UAW, which, as far as I can see, didn't do a whole lot to strengthen the auto companies other than hire new workers at lower pay.

Dare I be so cynical to think the bailout of the UAW, at the expense of non-union workers, was political?  Let's not be naive; of course it was.  So, US taxpayers lost $25 billion or more for the benefit of the UAW. 

On another topic and to show how nonpartisan I can be:  A recent audit showed that prices for goods have gone up since the individual item pricing law in Michigan was repealed.  The Republican governor, Snyder, promised repeal of the law would save Michigan taxpayers/consumers about $2 billion a year.  Yeah, right!  Not only have prices risen, but the repeal caused workers to be laid off and/or, if they weren't, had their hours reduced.  Great, Governor!  It's like the repeal of the Michigan Business Tax, with no conditions.  No, unlike the governor's claims, repealing the business tax didn't result in lower prices (or, if they did, they missed the grocery stores and other places I shop) and didn't result in more employment.  Again, just great!

They may have different philosophies, Democrats and Republicans, but neither seem to be working in the best interests of the majority of Americans.  Throw the bums out--all of 'em!  I may well go back to my former voting practice of voting against incumbents, regardless of party.  They become part of the establishment, more concerned with keeping their jobs and party/ies in power than with what's best for the US or Americans. 

In addition to higher grocery prices, if Congress doesn't extend the tax cuts, middle class Americans will experience a pretty heft tax increase.  Yes, it's an  increase if I pay more next year than I did last year!!!!!!  No, it's not just the rich who will pay more.  In fact, if my estimates are near correct, I am looking at a $3,000 to $4,000 increase.  That's a lot of green.

If Proposal 3 passes, the cost to Michigan taxpayers is estimated to be about $12 billion.  I don't know over how long.

You see, Dems and Reps, they are all the same in this regard--taxes and prices go up.  Throw out all the bums.

Triple Crown

Stunning that nobody has won the Triple Crown in the AL since 1967 and before that in the NL.  Yet, Miggy is right there.  As of now, he leads in all three categories, with two games remaining. 

And, if he isn't the MVP, it's a travesty and, like the Nobel Prize for Peace, should be discontinued.

I really enjoyed the Tigers' color man last week noting that Cabrera was in "a bit of a slump."  The was the night after he had a HR taken from him, drill a frozen rope to center field (getting there, I think, before he could drop his bat), and saw the third baseball dive to his right and grab a ball that had passed him to make the play at first.  So, with any modicum of luck, Cabrera could have had three more hits and this batting race would be over.  Yeah, "a bit of a slump." 

There was another piece of silliness that came from either the television or radio color guy, I forget which one, that I couldn't remember Sat eve to relate.  And, I still can't remember what it was, other than it was just plain silly.  The other night, unless the angle on the boob tube really skewed what we were watching, the Tigers' pitcher (I don't know which one it was) had a change-up that dipped and faded--if the tube was right, a whole lot.  The color guy said, "There's not much movement on that change," holding that the decreased velocity was getting the outs/swings and misses.  They should work on those camera angles??????

Go Miggy!

John Dickinson

John Dickinson opposed the radical strategies of the Adams cousins, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and others.  He wanted American independence, but not at the expense of a war.  The Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congresses spoke against the measures that, he knew, would lead to war.

Yet, he was the one asked/assigned by the Continental Congress to write the first document of governance of these new United States, the Articles of Confederation.  Why, if he had steadfastly disapproved of what most of the delegates had advocated, that is, war for independence?

The reason is a lesson for all of us today.  Dickinson was reasoned and respected.  He opposed the others, but they realized he was an honest man, one committed to independence and freedom, but through other tactics.  He was an opponent, but was treated with respect because of both his own integrity and that of his opponents.

Look at how others--the "99%," the "Tea Partiers," etc.--are disparaged.  See how they are belittled, often ignorantly, erroneously, and dishonestly.  See how they are called names, unflattering names.  Note how there is no dialogue, just name-calling. 

Then remember the story of John Dickinson...more than two hundred years ago.

Fri Musings

There was an article in yesterday's newspaper about the U of M President.  The headline read, in part, "President strives to sustain academic excellence and affordability at U-M."  I don't know about the "academic excellence," but the rest of the article leaves me wondering about the "affordability."  Later, the article informs us that, when she took over, tuition was $7,298 a year.  Now, it's more than $12,800 and "the increase for out-of-state students has been even greater."  Affordability?  I guess our definitions of "affordability" differ.

Another article, in this AM's newspaper, notes that one of five families is burdened with college loan expenses.  As I've noted in earlier posts, I wonder how many of those students went to college with cars, big screen televisions, the latest cell phone gadgetry, etc.  Again, just wondering....

Yet another sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.  NYC schools are offering girls 14 and older the "morning after" birth control (abortion?) pill.  Of course, the rationale is that "it provides relief and solace to a young woman or man" (yep, those are the exact words, not a kid, ah, but we do so much to have our kids grow up sooner and sooner) "who has made a mistake...." 

And the NFL referees, the regular ones, received an ovation upon their return last night--or so the newspaper recounted.  I don't watch much NFL, so I'll have to take its word for that.  How cool a couple of letters-to-the-editor said, "Who cares?"  Oh, yeah, I forgot, the "integrity of the game."  Silly rules, drugs, increasingly violent play, numerous players in trouble with the law...yep, the "integrity of the game."

Again, outside of those who get "freebies," that is other people's money from the government, and most teachers (the "sheeple" that they are), I can't imagine anyone voting for Obama.  The evidence of his ineptitude is ubiquitous.  (It's great to use that word!)  His arrogance is written all over his face and is loud and clear in his words.  His dishonesty and disingenuity are readily apparent.  His disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law are well documented--just look around at the appointment of so-called "czars" (an odd name to use in a democracy!) and the grotesque use of executive orders to circumvent the legislative process--that is government of the people, by elected representatives.  But, I guess, as Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time...."

As I look around and see what is going on, I am again reminded of Lincoln, who once said in the darkest days of the Civil War, "I'm too old to cry, but it hurts too much to laugh."

School Testing

I went over my grandson's English homework (can I still call it "English?) last night.  I almost laughed, but it was too serious.  I assume the work reflected what will be on the test, the state test.  What teacher, whose evaluation depends on the results of the test, wouldn't teach to the test?  It was more than a little ridiculous....

There were action verbs and linking verbs and helping verbs and verbs that were two of the above.  Some of the verbs fit more than one category....  OK, I understand knowing tenses--past, present, future--but all these types of verbs, why?  I don't need to know how a computer works to use one.  I don't need to know how a car works to drive one.  I would think that actual writing, using verbs instead of identifiying "helping verbs" or "linking verbs" would be better learning.  Ah, but what's on the test?

I guess it's like the NFL and receptions--it's a process.

Coincidence?

How coincidental that the guy who made that anti-Muslim film trailer and posted it on You Tube was arrested for "parole violations."  There were, I read, "eight violations" of the guy's terms of parole.  But, they were only discovered after the film trailer appeared??????  Doesn't that seem just a little tough to believe?  So much for free speech in this country....

Funny, how a guy can put a crucifix with Jesus on it in a beaker of urine and call it art and it is defended as freedom of expression.  A guy can smother a representation of Mary in dung and call it are and it is defended as freedom of expression.  As despicable as this junk is--and I won't call it art!--I agree it is protected, no matter how offended Christians are.  This nut case in California deserves the same freedom of expression, unqualified support in firm terms from the Obama Administration and State Dept.  BTW, why doesn't the President condemn the Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon?"  Gee, I wonder if Christians started killing themselves and Mormons started rioting, would that bring any reaction?  No, I don't think so....  Hypocrisy reigns.

BTW, does anyone believe the Presidential polls, that is, anyone other than Kool-Aid drinkers?  OK, Obama may be ahead of Romney (and I stillt think Obama will win--dread, dread) in the polls, but by 10 and 12 points?  C'mon!  Tell me that isn't a biased trick trying to seal an election victory. 

I wrote about media accuracy or inaccuracy a while ago.  I mentioned the "Pinocchios" awarded by the Wash Post for the most blatant of lies, er, misspeaking.  It was great to read something from the Post itself the other day that criticized the "fact checker" himself for being, if not dishonest, at least deception and/or disingenuous.  One of the examples was spot on--starting with a false premise.  As my math buddies often said, "Start with a false premise and you can prove anything."  There are reasons why newspapers are dying and the national TV networks are losing viewers.  One of them is stuff like this--lots of people don't like being lied to or deceived.

Several sports writers were critical of the NFL for the replacement officials.  I didn't see the big bad call from the other night.  I don't care.  I almost wrote to each of these sports writers, who wrote as if the replacement officials and the cry-baby responses from players and coaches was as big as World War 3.  C'mon.  I, for one, couldn't care less about the "integrity" of the NFL.  I don't care who wins.  The NFL, like so many of the professional sports, has become like the WWF, more entertainment than competition.  The NBA is the best example.  But let's get real serious..."integrity" and the NFL?  I turned on the Lions Sun and there was a review of a play, a reception by a Lions receiver.  He cleanly caught the ball, near the sideline, but clearly had both feet down in time and was never bobbling the ball.  He was tackled out of bounds, still not bobbling, still with those feet in bounds. When he hit the ground, he lost the ball and it was called "incomplete."  I wondered why.  The network brought on "an expert," a former NFL overseer of officials.  He said it was the right call, because "a reception is a process."  I had a process, too--I turned off the tube and quit watching.  Mowing the back grass was preferable to watching this "process."  By the way, why is it not a fumbled when a back is tackled and loses the ball when he hits the ground?  If the ground can't cause a fumble, how can it cause an incomplete pass?  I guess carrying the ball isn't a process.  And people still watch this stuff??????