The Greatest Artist?

Does anyone put on a greater light show that Mother Nature? Or produce greater art than She does? It's hard to imagine that, but maybe Michelangelo came close.

Thurs AM, out for a run in the dark as usual, I felt as if I were in a bowl. (This was before the nasty tornadoes that struck 30 miles from here.) Overhead, the sky was starlit, but clouds surrounded the horizon in all four directions. And, behind the heavy clouds--thunderheads they were--pulsating lightning bolts lighted up the sky. It almost appeared as strobe lighting. I had to, several times, catch myself from running off the road as I watch the sky. It was very, very cool!

This, this AM, out there just after sunrise, fog enshrouded everything. Oh, what an eerie phenomenon, but so beautiful. The same scenery, neighborhoods that I see daily looked very different.

This afternoon, while tossing batting practice to Bopper, I asked him to stop and count the clouds in the sky. There were none! It was just, well, sky blue from horizon to horizon. Imagine--mid-70 degree temperatures on St. Patrick's Day! I remember, in my lifetime, two gargantuan snow-storms on this day/date, each dropping nearly 20" of snow. One year K and I were dating. Smitten, I refused to let a little thing like 20" of snow ruin a night out, esp since we were going to an Irish bar! I had to park three blocks from her mom's house, on a main drag that was deserted, plod through the piled snow, to get her. We had a great time!

Yet, Thur night Mother Nature reminded us that She's not always nice. How very fortunate nobody was killed in those storms! I haven't seen actual figures, but someone told me winds were in the 135-150 mph range. Wow! Wonder and Awe....

Hypocrisy?

I don't mind opinions that are different from mine. Oh, I don't think I relish them, but like A. Lincoln, I find reading and hearing different opinions to be healthy. Hence the book by Susan Jacoby, The Age of American Reason. But I am not fond of hypocrites. Opinions have to be thoughtful, insightful. I don't always agree with what Leonard Pitts writes in his columns--in fact, sometimes think he is dead wrong--but he always expresses himself, well, thoughtfully and insightfully (is that a word?).

But this recent flap over Limbaugh's comments takes this month's cake for hypocrisy. Anyone who knows me realizes I'm not a fan of his--hardly. He's bombastic, a blowhard, and more--but he's in the entertainment business. I cringe that so many take his word for the right path, particularly when he often cannot defend himself against callers who disagree. Instead, he merely hangs up on them and calls them names, such as "typical lib." I don't listen to him often, but occasionally do just to pass time in the car. So, he's hardly a beacon to me....

So, his comments about this Fluke woman.... What's the big deal? He called her some names. I hear people get called names every day. I was called names, inaccurate names, by people (like Limbaugh?) who, when they couldn't defend their ideas/programs, resorted to name-calling. I would never have, at least not publicly, made comments like this about Fluke. But aren't there more important things the media should attend to--how about the US Senate's failure to pass a budget for more than three years? And, of course, there are other things. (No, the return of Dancing with the Stars isn't one of them!)

There are lots of things I could say, but won't. Hmmmm.... Why would a woman, not accurately portray by the way, endeavor for unlimited access to contraceptives? If I had a daughter, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want her parading before the US House and a national audience as it turned out to advocate for something that encourages unlimited sex. I suppose I'm "out of touch," "behind the times," etc. But promiscuity doesn't seem to me to be a desired attribute. (I really have a tough time accepting that she was advocating for a friend with some illness given then nature of Fluke's history.) And, how would people react if a Jew or Muslim advocated that a school he/she attended be forced to serve pork, you know, against their religious beliefs? Apples and oranges? Maybe; maybe not.

Yet what really irks me isn't that Limbaugh is criticized for being boorish, among many other things. No, that's not it. It's how some people, often the same people, are allowed to get away with the same "boorish" behavior with not a peep said, withouth any consequences. Gee, the Tea Parties are called "racist," "bigoted," etc. Palin and Bachmann were/are called names much worse than those delivered Fluke's way. Hey, Palin's daughter was even attacked verbally. What about Michelle Malkin and other conservative women writers? (Black conservatives, such as Sowell and Williams, are off limits. They don't get criticized, just ignored.) How do the media- and Hollywood-types get away with calling conservatives names, names just as bad and, in most cases, perhaps not as a propos? In fact, instead of calling for boycotts, for sponsors to pull their ads, the "right-thinking people" take contributions from name-callers of the "right side."

And, so this Fluke lady was insulted. OK, I've noted this is boorish behavior, something in which I'd never engage. Limbaugh is correctly castigated. What about the boorish behavior of Bill Clinton? C'mon, wouldn't, say a former state superintendent of Michigan schools, be "boiling" with anger, as he recently wrote of Limbaugh's comments, if Clinton had pulled a "Monica" with "my daughter?" Well, he should be. And wasn't Monica dragged through a lot more, a lot more, than Fluke? Why didn't this former state superintendent--and others who are now so self-righteously offended--speak out against Letterman, Maher, etc.? There are only a couple of logical reasons, neither very flattering.

I don't have time, but I could then go on about the type of people who have led and are leading our schools. (BTW, if really surprised me to see/read the liberal Susan Jacoby in "Unreason" so critical of the schools, what they've become, and how they've so become.)

Anyway, more time later--midterms to grade, chapters to revise, and articles to write. Happy Pi Day today and "Beware the Ides of March" tomorrow!

More "Unreason"

From "The Age of American Unreason," which I am enjoying a great deal and
recommend for reading, even though I don't agree with some of it and am dismayed
at the one-sidedness of the author's use of examples in derogatory manners:

"There cannot be anyone in the country who believes that Bush's brain would
have gotten him anywhere near Yale, Harvard Business School, or the ownership of
a baseball team--much less the presidency--without the family name and
connections," she writes. I'd certainly agree, but there is more I'd add.
First, would she deign to also write, later, the same sentence, but substituting
the words "Obama's" for "Bush's" and "affirmative action" for "family name and
connections?" I highly doubt it. Obama may not be as stupid as Bush, but he's
far from being smart. Second, would she also take aim at the many, many
athletes who are admitted,despite glaring academic deficiencies, to so-called
"prestigious" colleges like the University of Michigan, which likes to portray
itself as "the Harvard of the West;" the University of North Carolina; and many
others?

I'd certainly concur that Americans should consider intelligence when
measuring candidates for President. We usually don't, for reasons that seem
pretty stupid to me. It's as if we have a negative view of intelligent people,
distrusting them as a group. (Of course, that might stem from the arrogant
elitists we constantly view in public affairs, those who claim to know what's
better for us than we do and aren't shy about telling us. That they are often
pretty shallow themselves is apparent, but not to themselves.) But how then to
explain the failed or very mediocre Presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Herbert
Hoover, among others? Bill Clinton is a pretty sharp cookie, very bright, but
he left much to be desired as a President. (And, I think, history will show his
Presidency to be much more harmful than currently recognized--or, as it is, not
recognized. But I likely won't live long enough to say, "I told you so.")

Was Bush elected, not once but twice, because, as the author says, "Americans
would have rather sat down for a beer" with him than either Gore or Kerry?
Maybe; maybe not. Perhaps, though, it is more than that. Maybe Gore and Kerry
were seen as lousy candidates. Perhaps Bush was elected for the same reason I
think Obama will win re-election. He's a lousy President, but consider the
alternatives. (But I think the Republican candidates are better, but still
rotten alternatives. In fact, I've said that I refuse to hold my nose and vote
for one of them because they are the lesser of two evils.)

She also thinks the media have been lacking in this regard, that candidates
for "high public office" should be evaluated by intelligence. Are they "smart
enough" to do the job? I don't think we should consider only Einsteins for
office (see above), but it's certainly something we should consider. Again,
though, the author only picks on Republicans and conservatives, when there are
certainly plenty of Democrats and liberals to share this less-than-desirable
stage. And, I can name quite a few, most very conveniently ignored by the
media.

I guess I'm aware of it and have written of it before, but it's still
disturbing to read about our turn away from, almost a snubbing, something to
avoid, being smart or, at least, knowlegeable. As the author notes, it's as if
Americans have become favorably attached to the slogan, "I'm Ignorant and Proud of
It." Now, wouldn't that make a nice bumper sticker?

But, as I was telling my running buddies yesterday, this is a good book--on
many levels. Even if I don't particularly like the constant partisan/one-sided negative
images used to illustrate the author's points, I am struck by how smart some
people, this author included, are. I could never come up with many of the ideas this author has.
Where and how does she get them? How do some minds do that?

The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. It's a very, very good
book--one of the best I've read in a long while. I'll bet some folks who know
me, who might also read the book, would be surprised to hear that. People who really know me wouldn't.

American Unreason

I'm reading a book, The Age of American Unreason, which is very, very good. No, it's not a novel. And, remarkably, my guess is the author and I don't share political or economic views. Nevertheless, Susan Jacoby has written a thought-provoking, insightful book. And, in keeping with that, I'm thinking a lot about what she's written.

The examples she uses to further explain her ideas are always the cads of the right, never the cads of the left. But that's a minor matter. It's pretty easy to find substitutes.

Among her bogeymen is television/videos. Of course it's a cause of "unreason," despite all of the good intentions, the claims of grandeur, and the promise television once had. There's a reason many of us call it "the boob tube." Television and videos, "restrict their audiences intellectual paramaters not only by providing information in a highly condensed form, but by filling time...that used to be occupied by engagement with the written word." Yes, indeed, these media screen out ideas, subjecting "audiences" to one side or another. Regarding our children, television makes "it unnecessary for young children to entertain themselves, but also discourages them from thinking and fantasizing outside the box...." For all of us, television is deleterious to our own thoughts. "Without memory," [note how you can tune in to any television show and within seconds know precisely what happened before you tuned in] "judgments are made on the unsound basis of the most recent bit of half-digested information."

I must have had a premonition about this book, months before I read it. I continue to be amazed, and not in a flattering way, at people's continued hagiographic depictions of contemporary songwriters as great poets--or poets of any quality for that matter. The one I always think of is Bob Dylan, but we can add Lennon and McCartney, Paul Simon (as Jacoby does), and others. Have we forgotten what real quality poetry is? Do we even know who Keats, Byron, Tennyson, and Frost are? Jacoby notes a speech by Robert Kennedy upon the assassination of Martin Luther King. His source for comfort was Euripides and Jacoby includes relevant excerpts from the moving words. No doubt, she adds, today's politicians (dare we say "statesmen?) would drag out words from Bob Dylan--to avoid sneers of "elitism" and "arrogance." (There's plenty of room to use those terms with our leaders out there; this isn't one of those fitting times.) We can extrapolate that to music as well. OK, I much prefer listening to Aretha or Smokey than Beethoven. But I don't ever equate what they do/sing to what Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc. have written. They are two very different matters, sort of like the Dairy Queen League and the Majors.

My math buddies are fond of saying, "If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything." Yep, and Jacoby writes of our current predilection for doing so. She calls it "using logic in a closed-system...cloaking anti-rational premises in the language of philosophy and science." A continuing theme for her in this regard is the use of the term "theory" to defend creationism vs evolution. The everyday definition of "theory" is quite different from the scientific definition of "theory." I saw that last weekend, before I read the book, in an op-ed piece by an ACLU lawyer regarding the flap over ObamaCare, contraceptives, insurance coverage, and Catholics. In her very first paragraph she made a statement that she asserted as fact, when, in fact, it was not so. It was her belief, but certainly not fact. That made the rest of her argument moot, not worth the newsprint it was written on.

Speaking of that flap, Jacoby has some things to say about "Cafeteria Catholics," you know, the ones who claim they are "good Catholics," but pick and choose which Church doctrines to follow. Claiming the Church is "out of touch," "outdated," etc. is not a rationale. Either one believes what the Church teaches about artificial birth control, homosexuality, remarriage after divorce, etc. or one should find a new church. The Church holds that those who don't follow its teachings on these matters have committed mortal sins. "Cafeteria Catholics'" contentions that they aren't mortal sins doesn't make them not.

Speaking of religion, many Americans are, correctly, concerned with the appearance of some Shar'ia law in our courts. Hmmm.... How does this measure up with well over 50% of fundamentalist Christians and Black Protestants believe that the Bible should be the basis of our system of jurisprudence? Toss that one around in your mind for a few minutes.

Can there be personal morality? Or is God the ultimate authority? Of course, that begs the question of "whose God?" Can just government be based on things other than Christianity and/or the Bible?

Is a college education intended to challenge or to reinforce the values that students learned as children? Hmmm....

Jacoby is thought-provoking indeed.

Thur Thoughts

Wow! Can you imagine the tornadoes threatening the Midwest again? The forces of Mother Nature are awesome and, frankly, can't be stopped, can they?

That said, I still want to be a television weatherman. How wrong can they be, so often, and still come on and tell us with their self-asserted correctness what the weather will be? Some guy tonight was comical. K was watching and I was listening from the other room. I came running into the living room and asked, "Did that guy just say we are going to get thunderstorms tomorrow afternoon or evening--or we might not?" Great; just great. And then, from the other room, I wondered, "Why do coaches let their college athletes talk to reporters?" They sound so darn stupid. Is there a cliche they don't use? Do they every really say anything? Of course, why do reporters have them? It must be just to fill time slots; they add nothing to anything. For that matter, why do some TV shows end with sappy music, songs with singers who have terrible voices and words that mean nothing? Is it to evoke some sort of emotion--I suppose other than laughter? And when did comedies become not at all funny? Some folks recommended some of these sit-coms as "really funny." I had seen some of their advertising and found them to be anything but funny--and aren't these teasers supposed to be the funniest parts to attract viewers? Well, I didn't last ten minutes. I have better things to do with my time and felt like I wasted ten minutes.

What took so long for the feds to come to Wayne County and Detroit? After all, for decades rumors have swirled about corruption, "pay to play," etc. And, what's preventing them from tackling Chicago? The rumors about the corruption in the Windy City are older than those in Detroit/Wayne County?

Salmon is pretty good food! I like it. Funny, as a kid, I didn't like fish a whole lot. Oh, there was one restaurant (Brown's) that had great deep-fried whitefish, but it was so expensive we had it once or twice a year. I didn't even like fishsticks, which many claim is a staple for kids, or tuna very much. The salmon we could afford then was the canned stuff, mixed with egg and breadcrumbs, and shaped into patties. Yuck! Now, I did like sardines! I think my first real taste of fish (other than Brown's) that I liked was at Amherst. Some of that stuff was pretty good, esp the scallops, which I never had before.

Speaking of food, imagine eating pemmican, an old Indian "energy bar" made with bear (or other animal lard) so thick the fat stuck to the roof of the mouth (like tallow of a candle!) and had to be scraped off with a knife? Oh, yuck!

I thought Cadillac, the found of Detroit, was the most scurrilous noted fellow in the history of Michigan. But, he has some rivals for that ranking. One is John Jacob Astor, head of the American Fur Company and the supposed first American millionaire. Another is Lewis Cass, a Michigan politician at the high levels and almost elected President.