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??????

Words for the Season

From Dictionary.com's Word of the Day have come some very timely words lately.  In light of the election season, they draw laughs and then resigned sadness.

One recent word was "pharasaic."  It means "hypocritical; self-righteous."  Ha!  Another was "palter."  It's meaning is "to talk insincerely or deceitfully."

On a related note, a recent newspaper article noted the reliance on "fact checkers" in various newspapers.  Candidates'/parties' claims are "checked" for accuracy.  One newspaper even gives "Pinocchios" for lies or at least deceit.  The article, though, indicated that some of these "fact checkers" need to be "checked" themselves.  In fact, it cited an instance where the "Pinocchio" newspaper deserved a "Pinocchio" itself.  Now, why isn't that a surprise?

Glee?

Now, not this movie or television show, although I haven't seen a minute of it/them--and have no plans to do so.  But glee as in joy and, in some instances, even giddiness.

I was thinking of this the other day, handing back papers/essays to students.  How disappointed many of them looked.  And, I noted, even some with Bs and Cs looked like they weren't too happy.  Hmmm.....  There was a day when I almost shouted with "glee" when I received a paper back with a B or even B- on it.  And, to get a B+?  That was almost sheer giddiness. 

How times have changed!  Now, a B is a let-down for many students.  Back when, my classmates practically exulted over Bs on papers; certainly we bragged about them.  I suppose it's the times.  Of course, it may also be the schools.

For a long time I was under the impression I had about the worst GPA among my classmates and friends at Amherst.  Only much later, maybe 25 or 30 years, did I discover it wasn't.  My GPA wasn't the best, but I was far from being the anchor.  My B- average was about, well, average. 

I remember being struck, hard, at how easy graduate school was--three different universities over the years.  I'm not sure it was that easy or if it was merely comparatively so.  I wondered, but appreciated it, when my advisers gave me graduate credit, up to three courses if I recall correctly, for my Amherst undergraduate courses.  Hmmmm....  It save me time and, at the time, money when it was very tight for us.  It all added up.

If I remember correctly, for the first two degrees, I only had to do 18 hours of credit.  And the third one, I think, I did 24 hours.  Each degree "required" 30 or 32 hours.  Yep, that's a lot of time and money.

And, not only was the work much, much easier, but grading was much more lenient, in all but one or two cases/classes.  I laugh when I think how my classmates at Amherst would react if they knew I was a Phi Beta Kappa (or whatever the equivalent is) in grad school--they don't.  In fact, before this admission, I think the number of people who knew this could be counted on one hand. 

Yes, I remember looking at my returned papers or even my report card at the end of a term at Amherst and thrilling at Bs and B-s.  I never had an A there, at least never for a course grade.  I was proud of the half dozen or so B+s I received.  I still have a few of those papers.  I look at them--and the B grades--and compare them to the B grades my students get...they don't match up too well.

 But, as I realize, times and places change.  I don't know if that's for the better or not.  It just is, I guess.

An all-A average v a B- average?  Nah, I wouldn't trade at all; I wouldn't even consider it.  I was a very, very lucky guy.

Differing

The editor of the Detroit Free Press retired last week.  Ron Dzwonkowski will be missed.  Oh, I often disagreed with what he wrote.  But he was always reasoned in his arguments.  His columns/editorials were thoughtful, insightful, and sometimes humorous.  He was an editor who, even though most often held views different from mine, I looked forward to reading and who I respected.  Perhaps as much, whether I wrote to him in support or in opposition, he always replied.

I didn't know Dzwonk had retired when I heard Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an interview.  Just coincidentally, he talked about a similar thing--differences and disagreeing.  His example was his colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  He noted, as everyone must know, that he and Justice Bader Ginsburg have very different views.  Yet, he said, "We are good friends."  He acknowledged that they differed, often greatly.  (He also made a joke, saying there was one category of cases on which they always agreed--unanimous decisions!  I thought it was funny.)  But, he also stressed, each recognized that the other, in his/her own way, was working to try to make things better.  That, Justice Thomas clearly stated, is what it is all about--doing one's best to make things better.

Yes, we can differ.  After all, this is America.  I don't think it's the differences that bother me very much; it's the hypocrisy.  That's a very different matter.

No matter one's political persuasion, we all can learn a few lessons from Ron Dzwonkowski and Clarence Thomas.

Hmmm......

I recall back in the '60s and '70s the righteous calls for boycotts of South Africa; the Sullivan Plan I believe the boycotts were called.  Companies were coerced into selling their interests in South Africa due to the evil apartheid.  Countries pressured the South African government to end this vile practice of segregation and discrimination.

I also remember than a number of US companies were criticized for having done business with Nazi Germany in the '30s, before the war.  They, it was claimed, put profits ahead of principle, namely dealing with an evil regime.

I certainly agree with the sentiments and, in part, success of the above.  We should walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  If we believe in freedom, liberty, and independence, our actions should follow our beliefs.

So, I ask, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China?  Companies, from automobiles to electronics, are lauded for entering the Chinese markets.  States, Michigan most recently, are scurrying to get their slice of the Chinese economic pie.  There's an article today about how the Michigan governor is looking toward China to help Michigan's economic situation.  A former state superintendent of schools, now a consultant and op-ed writer, constantly reminds us of how great the Chinese are and what opportunities we have over there.

Wait a minute?  Aren't these the same Chinese who ordered that guy run over by a tank in Tianenmen Square?  Aren't these the same Chinese who are all over the rights of the Nepalese and Tibetans, among others?  Aren't these the same Chinese who order abortions or infanticide for more than one kid, esp if it's a girl?  Aren't these the same Chinese who imprison and otherwise punish people for their ideas and words?  Aren't these the same Chinese who are helping to undermine our economy with their own government practices and policies?  OK, the point is clear.  So, the question remains, why are we so intent on doing business with Commie China?  Why are we now characterizing them, not as brutal and tyrannical ideologues, but as coveted business partners, nice guys, etc.?

Do I once again sniff the stench of hypocrisy? 

While I'm at it....  I noted a number of letters in today's newspaper regarding Mitt Romney's "47%" comments.  I note that many of those critical of Romney, often calling him names ("lap dog," "pampered," "spoon-fed," "silver spoon," "lord," etc.) live in places like West Bloomfield, Lake Orion, Rochester, Farmington Hills, and Grosse Pointe.  Hmmm......  Is this another case of talking the talk, but not walking the walk?  They criticize Romney and his wealth and position, but never take account of their own standing.  Living in places like they do strongly suggests these folks have money, a lot of it.  How about this?  Instead of being so vocally critical, why don't they lead by example (sort of like Zachary Taylor, the southern President who was in the process of freeing his slaves when he died unexpectedly in 1850, you know, to lead by example)?  How easy it would be for these critics to do.  First, they could move from their rather exclusive suburbs (my father and mother could never afford to live in places like those), live in Pontiac, Detroit, or even a suburb like Dearborn or Trenton?  Then they could donate, either directly to charities or voluntary extra taxes, the difference in their monthly mortgage payments.  That would come to a tidy sum to help, as so many of the letters suggest, "those people in need."  And, to further help "those people in need," perhaps these suburbanites could forgo their SUVs, their big screen plasma TVs, their trips to Disney World, not to mention their vacation homes Up North and whatever they also spend on themselves.  After all, who are the ones talking about "greed?"  Isn't it "greedy" to spend all this on themselves when they could be donating it?  (In full disclosure, as those who know me well know, I walk the walk with donations and giving, believe me.  But I still resent paying taxes.)

Today's word of the day from Dictionary.com is "pharisaic."  It's meaning is generally "hypocritical."  Ah, how fitting....

Headlines!

Maybe it's a sign of the times; maybe it's a sign that the Apocalypse is nearing.  This AM's headline, main headline, didn't have to do with the election, didn't have to do with the spate of murders in Detroit, didn't even have to do with the Tigers or Lions.  Nope, it had to do with none of them.  It was something about the issue of a new I-Pod/I-Pad or whatever it is called...the main headline.  OK, I guess I am something of a 20th and 21st Century Luddite, but that seems a bit much to me, yet another paean to the god of Technology.

I was listening to Clarence Thomas today and he mentioned the Articles of Confederation and its difficulties.  He said, "The congress wasn't working."  There were some quick titters in the audience before everyone caught on and burst into laughter.  Justice Thomas merely smiled and said, "That was inadvertent."  I found something he said to be quite worth consideration.  We should keep Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, etc. "close at hand to remind us of our obligations" to freedom and democracy.  Yes, we should.  I know people are critical of Justice Thomas, notably his supposed lack of intelligence.  Bologna/Baloney!!!!!!  He is one of us, down-to-earth and common sensical.  He sounded very intelligent to me all evening, discussing a variety of topics related to the Constitution--its writing, its meaning, its authors, its time, etc.

I also watched Julie (Nixon) and David Eisenhower this evening.  They were discussing their recent book on his grandfather and another author's new biog on Eisenhower.  It was nice to see them.  They both look pretty good.  He sounded quite knowledgeable and I picked up a few things about, if not Ike, then about Harry Truman.  I self-congratulated myself, without breaking my arm, when I heard some Yale history professor explain the relationship between the Gettysburg Address and Declaration of Independence in terms that I use in class--the exact same ones.  Hmmm....  I think I am older than that guy, at least I think I look it, so I will still claim I "invented" that explanation.

How cool!  I just noticed I haven't yet done the Saturday Stumper, the Sat crossword that is much more difficult than the Sun NY Times crossword--as is the Sat NY Times crossoword.  Out to give that one a shot....

Motown, Redux

A couple of weeks ago I noted my admiration, to this day, of the music that came out of Motown.  I was reminded of that several times this week.

Listening to, esp the Smokey, I again realized how great the Motown Sound was.  (Of course, there were several labels, Motown, Gordy, Tamla--whose name somewhat oddly came from Debbie Reynolds singing "Tammy's in Love" from that movie--and others, such as Chess.)  The Motown Sound included great voices--Smokey, Levi, Diana, Marvin, several of the Temptations, Martha of the Umbrellas, and more.  But the music can stand on its own.  It's not just the singer or singers who make the music so great, but the band(s), too.  In the '60s, Choker Campbell and Earl Van Dyke, whose bands played the music for Motown in the studio and at concerts, released instrumental versions of Motowns hits.  They, without the words, were well worth listening to, as I did for hours and hours.

I think most, likely most of most, of the singers of "rock and roll" can't carry a tune and that it's the bands (well, some of them) that make the sound.  I can't imagine where Springsteen would have been without the E Street Band or Madonna without whoever was playing for her.  But my guess is not at the top of the charts.

One of my college classmates noted taking a date to a Wilson Pickett concert in Hartford, CT.  He noted something about being "the only whites in the crowd," but never felt threatened.  Of course not.  It reminded me of the Motortown (the original name, not Motown at first) Revues.  Taking dates there, we, too, were "the only whites" at the Fox Theater, next to Louis the Hatter (on 1440 WCHB, "Soul Radio," were the Hatter's commercials, "Does Louis the Hatter have hats??????") an we never felt threated.  There were shows in the late AM, mid-afternoon, and evening--and we often attended multiple shows in a day.

It never fails.  No matter when or where I listen to my Motown music, I start to feel a whole lot better and happier.

Why is Islam so easily offended?

Here are a couple of good articles that we should consider in light of the most recent Muslim outrages over supposed slurs of their prophet/messenger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=174022

Of course, the apparently wrong-headed You Tube video didn't cause the riots that led to destruction and deaths.  It was merely an excuse, like the cartoons of Muhammad, "Tickle Me Muhammad," etc. were excuses.  (That the Administration and State Dept were slow to recognize or at least admit that is disturbing and should be a reason for concern.)  But, why is Islam so easily offended?

More to the point, why is Islam so offended that murdering people is considered the lesser evil when compared with insulting the prophet/messenger?  I wonder, if Muhammad was such a saintly person, to be revered (although not as a god, as Allah), what he would think of another human being killed merely because Muhammad had been slurred.  Is an insult count more than a human life?  If so, then what kind of religion is that?

Of course, we know the Islamists merely use these things to precipitate violence, actions against the US and West.  Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a fascist.  He didn't advocate using the state to "dominate," as he thought Islam should.  Rather, it was religion, Islam, that was to be used to extend power and impose laws on the rest of the world.

I know history isn't important, but here are some other things to consider.  Muhammad did marry an older widow, one with a lot of money.  He apparently never held a job.  I don't know what that says, but he ran afoul of many of the citizens of Mecca.  So much so, he was forced to flee to Medina (Yathrib), the Hijira  The explanation of Islam is that the rich people drove him out because he was exposing their greedy, corrupt ways.  Hmmmm....

Islam also spread very quickly and very wide.  The Islamic Empire, although it had several "houses" such as the Umayyads and Abbasids, was bigger than that of Rome, extending from India to Spain.  It lasted for four or five centuries and, in some areas, a thousand years.  It did this--spread and lasted--through military power, conquest and control.  It was not very tolerant of differences.

Which leads to my last point, one I've made before.  Islam has not accepted the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment.  Of course, why should it have, seeing it was a European movement and the Europeans were the onces who began the Crusades?  Still, by the 20th and 21st centuries?  Principles such as those propagated by Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others never gained footholds.  Granted, many of those ideals were slow to spread in the West (note "all men are created equal" took decades and more to apply to blacks, women, Indians--and too often not to gays).  But we've, if too slowly, worked at expanding them.  We, mostly, tolerate differences.  (I am concerned that we have begun taking backward steps in this regard.)  But we believe in free speech.  Voltaire infamously said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it."  The key to this, as I point to my students, are the pronouns.  Muslims, at least the Islamists and those who do their dirty work at the slightest beck and call, don't embrace this idea, not in the least.  It's OK to murder people, to take human lives, but it's not OK to draw funny pictures of their prophet/messenger.  (Yes, I am aware that Christianity was--and in many ways still is--intolerant in much of its history.)

Anyway, the articles are worth reading and pondering.  Do they offer any kind of hope?  I don't know, but they can help us to understand a bit better....

Fri Musings

Well, I guess it's September.  The leaves are just beginning, barely, to turn.  I hear the gunshots from the nearby woods (although it was a bit unnerving yesterday AM, long before sunrise, to hear several).  And, of course, classes have started.  But, gee, do we need frost already?  We had to scrape car windows the other day before K went to work.

The shootings and deaths from shootings continue to pile up in Detroit.  They are running ahead of last year.  And, I wonder, do these numbers include murders from weapons other than guns?  Yesterday, a factory worker was stabbed to death on the job.  I've asked it before, but how has the value of human lives become worth so little?  What is it?  Is it the violence of television, movies, video games, etc.?  After all, if the messages of advertising work, so must the messages of violence (and, for that matter, casual sex).  The consequences, apparently, aren't considered.  After all, "It's only a television show."  Is it the "I, Me, Mine" mentality fostered several decades ago and perpetuated in later generations?  Is it the casual and callous use of abortions, under the guise of "a woman's right to her own body?"  If we can dispose of a person that way so easily (And I've never heard a pregnant woman say, "I'm carrying a fetus."  No, it's "I'm carrying a baby."), why not another way of another person?

I noted the six major state proposals on the ballot.  Once again, after viewing the latest poll numbers, I find myself most often on the minority side.  Some, I just don't understand.  Oh, I understand the proposals; I don't understand how people can support (or not support) them.  Maybe I'm out of touch.

I see the White House finally admitted the anti-Muslim film trailer on You Tube isn't/wasn't the cause of the most recent fanaticism of the Islamic mobs.  At least, today's newspaper cites the President finally saying the video was just the excuse.  That only took a week or more to switch positions.  It was great (facetiously so) to hear the White House press secretary last weekend say the last rounds of murders and destruction by the Muslim mobs was "in reaction to [the] video."  That seemed to be the view of the Administration and State Department until the past day or two.  Such a view is based on ignorance or delusion.  I often wonder if it's willful ignorance or willful delusion.  Can these people be that stupid?  Or are they so self-righteous (that is, full of themselves)?  I really don't know....

I'm not sure on the specifics, but why would the Detroit City Council not approve of the state taking over Belle Isle (once called "Hog Island")?  What would be a reason for opposing it?  The only things I can think of are the lack of specifics of a deal and, yet again, willful ignorance/stupidity (ego).  I can understand it if there are no terms yet on the table.  I don't trust the politicians in Lansing, including the governor.  They are more of the arrogant elitists--they are in both parties--who know what's best for us, better than we do ourselves.

Speaking of not trusting politicians, Karen was watching the tube when I arrived home from class last night.  A commercial was running about one of the proposals (see above).  A voter, in considering one of them, was adamant in saying, "I just don't trust the politicians."  Amen....

Just asking department....  In the obits, do people really not know that James is also known as Jim or Robert is Bob or William is Bill?  Why do the listings, so very often, have Joseph "Joe" Blow?  Speaking of death(s), I read a good French view of death in a book.  It seemed to be a very good approach. 

Miguel Cabrera!

The guy is a great, great hitter!  I think he's the best I've seen outside of Ted Williams.  His hip action and swing are perfect.

I love the games in which he lines three lasers somewhere and then flies out to centerfield--410 feet away!  One guy noted he leads the league in hitting into double plays.  Of course he does!  He hits the ball harder than anyone else.

He might be the only guy I'd pay to see take BP.

He has to be the AL MVP.  Bopper had ESPN on this AM to see the grand slam last night.  Tiger manager Leyland said something about "It would blow my mind" if Miggy isn't the MVP.  The ESPN guy echoed that, with "It would blow everyone's mind."  If he doesn't win, the award this year would be a travesty.

I was surprised to hear that the last time an ALer won the Triple Crown was '67, with Yaz.  Cabrera is 1st, 2nd, and 1st right now.  I don't know if he can with it....  I would think managers would take Matt's advice, "Walk him every time up."

Muslim Violence

Sometimes, well often, I don't understand.  How can thousands and thousands of people riot, violently riot, killing hundreds, over a cartoon or film or speech because it supposedly insults their religion's founder?  Would that religion's founder be more concerned with the insults or with the killings?  And, don't the Muslims ever think about that?  Most of those killed aren't the Americans they purportedly hate so much; the dead are other Muslims.

I wonder if unemployment is that high in these countries that so many thousands of people can take to the streets so often.  After all, people who go to work don't riot, do they?  (Idle hands do the work of the devil?)

Of course the hate-film that showed up online wasn't the cause of the riots and violence.  It was merely the excuse.  There's always an excuse handy for those who exploit Islam.

Equally troublesome and incomprehensible are reactions in the US and other Western nations.  Why do we continue to send millions and billions of dollars to these countries that obviously hate us?  It would be one thing if our money went to the people who need it.  But my guess it goes to the leaders, who snatch it up for themselves and to ensure their own power.  It goes to building armies and weapons to use against, if not the US directly (although the attacks on our embassies might be considered such), then our only allies in the region.  So, isn't it stupid to keep sending these people (the leaders) more and more millions and billions of dollars?  I don't understand and no doubt Presidents and State Departments have their reasons (excuses? and note I used the plurals there!), but I still don't understand. 

And, something I understand even less, why are the US and other Western nations seeking to crack down on freedom of expression?  The American gov't is investigating the film's "producer," if a You Tube film has a "producer."  He's been questioned.  Why?  Have we ditched the First Amendment?  Or, as seems to be increasingly the case, does the First Amendment only protect ideas we don't find offensive?  What happened to the principle of letting ideas succeed or fail on their own merits?  (Obviously, Muslim/Islamic nations have no such principle.  They haven't yet, if indeed they ever will, embraced the ideas of the Enlightenment.  I have serious doubts they will any time soon, if ever, due to the exclusive nature of the Quran.)  Is it Germany seeking to ban anti-Muslim films, writings, cartoon, speech, etc. citing "national security?"  What was it Lincoln retorted when some of his advisers urged him to cancel the 1864 Presidential election, citing exigencies of the Civil War?  If we did we'd go a long way to losing....  (I don't recall the exact words.  I'm losing my powers of recall!)

I don't understand, both the Muslim world and our own politicians.

Bumper Sticker

Pretty cool bumper sticker while I was out there running this AM.  A big SUV, not a mini-van, but one of the BIG ONES, was shootin' and sailin' down the road.  I managed to catch the bumper sticker.  It read, "The earth doesn't belong to us.  We belong to the earth."  Ah, another greenie hypocrite.  This one is almost, not quite, as good as the SUV shooting down I 696 a few winters back, traveling well over 80 mph, with the bumper sticker, "No Blood for Oil."

Soda?

Arrgghh....  I just hit a lousy mood.  No, it's not the rotten-tasting mouthwash my DDS prescribed.  It's not even the prospects of finishing/grading 100+ essays/papers.  I was reminded of the NYC ban on sodas larger than 16 oz.  Grrrrr.....

What business is it of the government of NYC to tell private business owners what size sodas to sell?  And, if owners want to sell me a 32-oz soda, what business is it of NYC's government to say I can't buy one?  Where do they get the authority, outside of people being more concerned with the upcoming NFL season (has it already started?) or the return of American Idol?

I've gone down this road before, but it bears repeating--again and again--until we say, "Enough!"  That is, unless we like having others tell us what to do.  And, once we let others tell us one thing, then one thing becomes a second, which becomes a third, which becomes a fourth....

So, now gov't tells us what kind of televisions we must have.  Light bulbs are also dictated to us.  How about what toilets to flush?  Of course, as noted above, we can't drink the sodas we want (more below).  And I no longer buy McD's fries or KFC since gov't said they can't be cooked in transfats--they don't taste nearly as good.  Look around; you'll find lots more.  Even check back about 70 years, when the gov't told an Ohio farmer he couldn't grow corn on his own farm, corn that would stay on his own farm, to feed pigs raised on his own farm!  As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."

But if Mayor Bloomberg and his minions are so concerned about obesity, why do they stop at 16-oz sodas?  Why don't they ban video games, at least for kids under 18?  Or, for that matter, legislate minimal hours of watching the boob tube, for everyone?  How about mandating some physical activity each day or at least several times a week, to be monitored at a YMCA or Boys/Girls Club, an organized team or league, etc.?  Here's one--why not compel the schools to require daily physical education instead of, for instance, the insistence of bowing to the latest educational god, "Technology?"  Yeah, why not a gym class, required for graducation, every year?  It could be waived if one was on a school team or in an activity like marching band (if it was active every day).  BTW, that's what was required at Amherst.  To graduate, we not only had to pass our classes, but had to demonstrate we could swim 100 yards, which could be done any time during our four years.  (Alas, that requirement has since been dropped, I think spurred by a drowning--which, if one thinks about it, makes the requirement more compelling!).  We also, our first two years, had to participate in gym classes, a variety from which to choose, except in the seasons we were on teams--football, swimming, squash, baseball, etc.  (ASICS:  "A healthy soul in a healthy body.")  Yes, there are a lot of other things NYC could do to prevent obesity. 

Two other things to consider.  Paul Tough has written a book contending that, in education, the current trend/obsession with testing will not produce successful graduates, that is, future citizens.  Teaching them to be "gritty," "tough" if you will, will make them successful, at least improve the chances of success better than testing.  (What was it Wellington said after defeating Napoleon, "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.")  Thanks, Carrie.  I maintain to this day that, as thankful of my Amherst education as I am (it was a great influence), I learned as much about life and success (failure, too) playing sports in my lifetime.  Success, failure, hard work, plans and goals, determination, teamwork and cooperation, individual accountability--what isn't stressed in athletics?   (OK, maybe I overdid the sports thing.  But, for me, they were a very important part of my life, very formative.  They might not be for everyone.  But some sort of activity can be.)

And, as NYC has noted, if I want 32 oz of soda, I can still have them--but I have to buy two 16 ozers.  So, instead of $1 (all drinks at McD's), NYC compels me to double my costs.  Oh, and is it any coincidence that the taxes also double, to 20 cents (or whatever outlandish rate it is in NYC)?

If people want to be fat, even obese, that's their choice.  We certainly have educated them enough about obesity, how to prevent it, it's debilitating effects, everything.  There are no surprises.  How about trying this one?  Let insurance companies (life insurers, health insurers) charge far higher rates for obese people than those who aren't!  After all, fat people die at younger ages.  They have more health conditions that require treatment.  They cost more.  Why should the rest of us pay for other people's bad choices?  Let that happen, NYC--let insurers charge floating premiums.  (And, of course, we might also include smokers, drug users, drinkers--oops!--and others who engage in poor behaviors.) 

Bloomberg and those other NY folks behind this are typically arrogant and elitist--typical of the Progressive movement that began a little over 100 years ago.  Government, that is, when the Progressives run the gov't, knows what's better for us than we know ourselves.  I would certainly take exception to that, but even granting it, that's not what "the last best hope" of mankind is all about, is it?

They are our lives; let us live them.

Sat AM Thoughts

What a beautiful morning it was!  I had a nice bike ride, a bit brisk out there, but a good one over at Proud Lake and the trails.  On the way to the grocery store, the Rascals came on, singing, "It's a Beautiful Mornin'."  How fitting!  Amazing, too, in that I just turned on the radio about two minutes before reaching the store, in time to hear the whole song.  And, I got a few strange looks, well, OK a few more stranger than usual looks, in the store as I was softly singing it while shopping.  I think I'll grade papers on the deck this afternoon!

Why don't more people clip and use coupons?  It's beyond me.  They are well worth the cost of a Sunday newspaper and, now, they can be found online for free.  To day, with some bottles and cans returned, I save $127, spending about $54.  That's tough to beat.  Clipping and sorting, at most, takes half an hour a week.  Those who watch the boob tube can "multi-task."  People in my line almost always marvel at what I save, but admit they "don't have the time" to clip coups.  At half an hour this week, that translates to about $250 an hour for me.

And, I'd like to know, who designs grocery store parking lots?  Who designs them on hills?  The worse one, just terrible, is the Krogers in Onion Lake.  To get food from the cart to the trunk requires putting something under the cart's wheel(s) to keep it from rolling away.  The Meijers in Wixom is better, but there are places (like the one I had today) where hauling back the cart is necessary.

I lol'ed out loud in the store, twice.  I was looking for spaghetti cheese.  It wasn't in the cheese aisle and it wasn't in the spaghetti aisle.  Hmmmmmm.....  Spaghetti cheese not in the cheese and not in the spaghetti aisle.  I asked a lady, even remarking that I was jeopardizing my membership in the "Man Club" for asking for directions (of a kind), if she knew where spaghetti cheese was.  She surmised "the cheese aisle."  When I indicated it wasn't there, she said, "Then I'd guess the pasta aisle."  Nope.  She laughed and threw up her hands.  I finally found a worker and asked him.  He knew right away, "Aisle 11."  Oh, well, of course--spaghetti cheese, right there along side the ketchup, mustard, and mayo.  Silly me!  Adventures in shopping.  By the yogurt, some lady--maybe 90 years old--was pouring over the yogurt, seemingly container by container.  She was completely oblivious to the three people waiting to get to the yogi--and she blocked the entire corner.  One guy was getting a bit peeved, but I just laughed and shrugged at him and he began to laugh, too.  I think the lady was studying; she must have expected a test on the ingredients and other nutrient information about yogi.  By the way, in my next lifetime, I want to be the guy who gives names to flavors of yogi, salad dressing, and the like.  How great!

Cell phones....  Grrrrrrr.  Driving home from the grocery store, a lady was one her phone at a red light.  The light turned green and she didn't notice, enraptured with whatever conversation she was having.  The light for north/south traffic is pretty short; the one for east/west is quite lengthy.  I was going north and, thanks to the late start by the lady on the phone, didn't make the green.  Usually, four or five cars can make the green light arrow turn; only two did thanks to Alexandria Graham Bell.  That was OK because I caught up to her, driving very slowly still talking, about two miles later, where, at the next red light we could do the same thing.  OK, I cheated a bit, sort of turning through the early red light, with no traffic with the green light.  And, last night, walking in the restaurant to meet Karen and Carrie, I noticed a handful of patrons outside, talking on their phones.  Can't they put them away for a meal?  Or, maybe, they were ordering pizzas??????

Apparently, there's some kid in Ashley's class who has been misbehaving.  And, he seems to have few if any friends.  He never plays with anyone at recess.  I was told last night that, walking out to recess, Ashley asked the kid if he wanted to play with her and her friends.  I guess he did, nicely and the whole recess.  Ah, sometimes those grandkids are even more special than usual.

BTW, I tossed about 45 mins of batting practice to Michael on Wed.  That was after about an hour's worth of BP on Tues, on the way home from class.  Hey...my arm and shoulder on Wed was sore, not a lot, but sore.  Maybe it's not completely dead after all.  Bopp was pretty lousy on Tue, but really ripped a lot of ropes on Wed.  Much, much better.

Cody remains a pyscho on his bicycle!  We were riding yesterday AM/PM at "a park" and he just goes crazy, on the bike path and off the bike path, speeding along and then stopping on a dime right in front of me.  He often waits until the last minute before turning at corners; I wait for him to fall, but he never does.

I still can't believe the attacks on our embassies and consulates, esp the one that killed our Ambassador in Benghazi.  What's more remarkable are the responses of the Administration and State Dept.  They get more and more bizarre.  In the aftermath of it, the President continued with plans to attend a fundraiser (what was it, $40,000 a plate) in Colorado or Nevada.  That's fine with me, but can you imagine the media if W had done that?  This AM, I read a comment from a State Dept spokesman who claimed the attack in Benghazi "wasn't premeditated?"  Huh?  Weren't rocket-propelled grenades used?  Are those for sale in vending machines on Benghazi streets?  Well, I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt--maybe he doesn't know what "premeditated" means.

Out to grade essays....

Freedom of Speech

I know sensitivities are involved, but it seems to me that the US government, specifically the White House and State Department, is way off base here.  The assassinations and accompanying/coordinated attacks on our embassies/consulates came, it is alleged, due to an anti-Muslim/Islam film.  Of course, that's just another excuse, but that's not my point here.

This would be a great time for American leadership to show itself.  The President and Secretary of State have a golden opportunity.  I think they are blowing it.  Both from the White House and the State Department, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, come statements denouncing and criticizing the anti-Muslim/Islam film.  (I haven't seen the film.)  They are wrong, very wrong.

The President and Secretary of State should announce they don't agree with the views in the film, that they are not American policy (again, not having seen the film, I don't know if its contents should be US policy).  But then--and this is important and key--they should denounce the assassinations, citing that Americans believe in freedom of expression, that we have rights, including free speech.  Free speech in a free country does not tolerate violence against it.  In the strongest terms, the President and Secretary of State should support freedom of speech as well as denounce the violence, regardless of whose feelings were hurt or whose sensitivities were offended.  Leadership....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Maybe some of us don't??????

Yep....

"AD" stands for Anno Domini, Latin for "In the Year of Our Lord."  Calendars and the way we keep track of time, for convenience and by convention, are interesting studies.

There are more than 40 calendars extant in the world today.  Fewer than a dozen, however, are widely used.

Calendars are both solar and lunar.  The Chinese, centuries ago, tried to mesh their lunar calendar with a solar one, with middling success.  The Islamic calendar is a lunar one.  Most others are solar.

When the Gregorian calendar was made and enacted in 1582 AD (!), it added ten days to the then used Julian calendar.  There were rumblings, if not riots, among many commoners because they thought they'd be losing ten days of their lives as the calendar moved forward.  Britain, of course then a Protestant nation thanks to Henry VIII, didn't convert to the Catholic Gregorian calendar.  It finally did change in 1751 (or maybe year later; I always mix up the date with Ben Franklin's first academic paper on electricity), then adding eleven days.  Geo Wash was actually born on Feb 11, but his "birthday" became Feb 22; likewise Franklin, from Jan 6 to the 17.  No worry, in our infinite wisdom, we moved Wash's birthday, averaging it with Lincoln's (originally Feb 12), to have a President's Day.  (If that is to "honor" all Presidents, does that include A. Johnson, W. Wilson, among others???)

Hmmm....  Was the Bolshevik Rev Oct 25-26 or Nov 6-7?  It depends on the calendar consulted.  The Russians were still using the Julian calendar, the so-called "Old Style" one.  In the West, of course, the "New Style" calendar was in use.

BTW, when Julius Caesar added about 90 days to the year (45 BC), he was trying to match up the traditional months with the traditional seasons.  Romans were flustered and referred to 45 BC as "the year of confusion."  Hey, I'm confused right now!

Monday Moanin'

Am I, other than MSU fans, the only one in the state who found it hard to root for U of M and against Air Force?  I guess I like the new U of M coach; he seems to stand for all the right things.  But U of M seems to have lost that lofty status of not being like all of the other programs.  OK, maybe it was very naive of me to think that U of M was above the others, but that was the perception.  No longer.  It gets down and dirty with the rest of them.  But more, Air Force had all the same families playing, brothers or cousins, with the names "Service" and "Freedom" sewn to their backs.  I found myself wanting Air Force to pull it out--and it almost did.  Admittedly, I only watched the last few minutes of the game.

I see there was no economic "recovery" for the Detroit area in August.  There's no surprise.  And the story was buried back in the newspaper.  That's no surprise, either.  Throughout all this, all one has or had to do is look around to see that.  I've always been skeptical of the "official figures," anyway.  The politicians, of both parties, cook the numbers.  Anyone who knows history ("Bread and Circuses") or reads literature (Animal Farm among others) wouldn't be shocked at that.

And, speaking of "buried back in the newspaper," the past few days "buried back" were stories of more murders in Detroit.  I thought these murders were "unacceptable."  Why are they not on the front pages, blaring at us every day until, finally, they really do become "unacceptable?"  How can we allow our streets to be like this?  Can't we just come in with, say, the National Guard (or even the military instead of endangering them in winless situations in Iraq and Afghanistan?) and clear the streets of the murderers?  How many more lives, esp of young ones, will we tolerate?

This is not a Republican tirade, since I am not a Republican.  I don't think Romney is a good candidate for President.  I know I'm not voting for Obama, but I'm not at all sure I'm voting for Romney, either.  I haven't made up my mind.  But I'm getting very tired of "holding my nose" to vote for a Presidential candidate.  Anyway, I see the Democrats had Governor Granholm speak.  That raises oodles of questions about the wisdom of the Democratic leaders.  How can they look to her for leadership, guidance, inspiration?  Yes, her speech was emotional, but off-the-wall and its factual basis is questionable.  When Granholm ran for re-election, the state was a mess.  She needed "four more years" to straighten out what the former, Republican, governor had left.  The problem was she guided the state into a what was, for the most part, a single-state recession.  I know, I know, it wasn't one person's fault.  Of course it wasn't.  But, one, she claimed she was the one to lead us out of it--and she didn't.  Two, she certainly would have claimed credit had she done so; so she must also "claim" the blame. Three, her policies worsened matters.  There were two state gov't shutdowns under her administration.  There were higher taxes and anti-business regulations.  The state had the highest unemployment rate in the country--by far.  Yet, all we heard were empty platitudes like "Cool Cities!" and "Everybody Goes to College!"  I remember an anonymous Democratic insider saying off the record, that she "likes to play governor, but doesn't want to be governor," that is, make the hard decisions.  Choosing her as a speaker, as someone to whom the Democratic leadership looks to for guidance and inspiration is an insult to those in Michigan who suffered through those years.  That means most of us.

Nolan Finley had a good editorial in yesterday's newspaper.  But I disagree with his conclusion.  "Voters deserve better than this," he writes.  I don't think they do.  He claims, rightly, that the candidates of both parties are lacking; I assume he means for all offices.  I immediately looked at who's running for President and for US Senator.  Yes, we'll likely get nowhere out of this mess--and not just the economic one--with candidates like these.  But it is out fault; we don't deserve better.  Year after year, election after election we accept what the two parties throw at us.  We vote for one or the other, many of us "holding our noses" to do so.  In essence, we are condoning what the parties do, give us lousy candidates.  We never protest.  We never vote for minor party candidates.  We never bolt our own parties to send a message.  Nope, we do none of these things.  We just accept/condone what we are given.  There are good people out there.  We must insist that the parties find them.

Balls and Strikes?

I guess M Cabrera was tossed out of the game last night for arguing balls and strikes.  (I only watch a few games and I certainly can't stay up for a 10:00 PM start!)  When I read that this AM, I thought, "What took so long?"

No, not "so long" for Cabrera, although from what I've seen a case could be made for it.  "So long" for more and more players and managers.  As noted, I don't watch many games, but those I have show the umpires to be pretty bad on balls and strikes, not to mention consistency.  I guess I'm surprised there haven't been more ejections.

Even that, I think, unscientific strike box demonstrates how far off the umpires are.  They miss pitches by inches.  It's not even "it's on the black" any more.  Up and down, in and out--far too many strikes are called.

Granted, I'm not nor ever was a pitcher, but a hitter (maybe "batter" would be more accurate?).  I see things from that perspective.  No doubt pitchers like having an extra few inches with which to work.

But consider the batter.  It's not just "Strike Three," which, of course, ends the at-bat.  It's also the earlier pitches that put a batter in a hole.  He then must swing at more marginal pitches:  because he has the extra strike and can't take the knee-high, outside corner pitch; because he doesn't know if the next pitch, perhaps even a ball, will be called a strike.  Calling bad pitches changes the whole dynamic of batting/hitting.

And, MLB umpires are supposed to be "the best," aren't they?  If so, how can they miss so many pitches, esp as verified by the "strike boxes?"  Are they not that good?  Is it that they look over the catchers' inside shoulders, now with the inside chest protectors and, therefore, don't get a good look at the outside pitches (but that doesn't explain the low ball calls)?  I don't know....

Of course, also in the back of my mind, almost assuming they are "the best" and "how" no longer becomes the issue, is then the question of "why?"  Maybe this is it.  Maybe MLB has become the NBA.  Perhaps the umpires are told what to call and what not to call.  I don't know.  I'm just speculating.  (How many people have begun to equate the NBA with WWF??????)  There is a lot of money involved with who wins and who losses.  No, I'm not talking about betting/gambling.  That's not it, I don't think.  But who looks better on a national playoff scene??????  Who attracts a bigger national audience?  And who, then, commands more advertising dollars?  Now, does that translate to the regular season? Again, I don't know.

In the NBA, the superstars get favorable treatment.  Can anyone, with a straight face, deny that?  (At least Hulk Hogan sometimes lost!)  A rookie from Podunk U can breathe on a superstar and it's free throw city.  The superstar can take 10 or 15 steps and no whistle.  But, why wouldn't, if MLB is becoming the NBA, would umpires make lousy calls on balls and strike to Miggy Cabrera?  To be honest, other than when Verlander might be pitching (although not at 10 PM!), I watch the Tigers only to see Cabrera hit--he's the best I've seen except for Ted Williams (yeah, I saw him play!).  So why would umpires take the bat out of his hands?  Why might MLB instruct (or not instruct?) the umpires in this regard?

The solution, as usual, is just to get good people (maybe a change in technique is necessary; maybe accountability is inorder) and be honest.  But, like so much in so many venues today, perhaps that's not reality.  I would like to see, however, more batters and managers put up stinks, even get bounced, if that's what it takes to get better ball-and-strike umpiring.

Music

Today was a great AM to be out there.  It was very reminiscent of a Cape Cod morning, quite cloudy to begin with and some wind and cool temps (mid-50s).  As I moved along, the sun began to appear, with great streaks of sunlight glistening off dew-covered trees, bushes, etc.  Those were my favorite AMs on the Cape, cloudy with the ocean waves breaking on the beach, before giving away to late AM sunshine. 

The great mood-setter led me to put on some Aretha Franklin and I commenced to thinking.  I love Lady Ree and consider her right there with my Motown favorites (Smokey, the Temps, Levi), although she never sang for any of the Motown labels.  I understand not everyone enjoys the Motown Sound or "soul music"/rhythm and blues.  I like a lot of it!  I don't criticize those who don't like it, though.  But I don't understand how and why they don't like it!  Again, I'm not being critical.  But just listening to Aretha had me questioning.  When she belts out songs like "Respect," "Since You've Been Gone," and "Think," how can one sit still?  Sing, dance, clap, move!  To me, it's just natural.  When she slows things down a bit, for instance on her versions of "Bridge Over Troubled Water" (I still love S & G's version, too) and "Spanish Harlem" (ditto Ben E. King), the music just fills my soul, my being.  It's great!  I feel the same way about Smokey and the Temptations.

Other artists (I'm using the term loosely in some instances!) have the same effect on me--sometimes.  Bob Seger and John Mellencamp are two of them.  They have some of my all-time favorites.  But when they are bad, they are very bad.  I like John Fogarty (of CCR and solo fame), but the only one that really gets me going is "Centerfield."  Of course there are others.

Some of Springsteen's stuff is similar--great to dance or move to, but....  I sometimes wonder if it's him or his band.  After all, his voice is pretty lousy to my ear(s).  Could another singer have had all of the hits with the E Street Band?  I'm guessing yes, but who knows?

There was an article in today's paper about how Bob Dylan is still out there, moving along.  I never could catch on to him.  I like "Rolling Stone," but little else.  And, it's not just the sound. 

But, I suppose, that's one of the cool things about music.  There's something out there for everyone, jazz, classical, Motown, hippy rock, everything.  Out to Smokey....

Madness?

Whose this actor guy who died at age 54? I never, ever heard of the guy--but he's all over my computer news. In fact, he was the lead story both this AM and still this evening on Today's Headlines. That's my fault.  I don't do movies, for reasons I've noted here.  OK, so I never heard of the guy, but he seems to have had more death coverage than Neil Armstrong did!  Again, it's nothing against the guy--I know nothing about him other than he was an actor who died and I just found those out today.  But it certainly must say something about us.... 

Can the media get off that Prince Harry guy?  Who cares what he did in Las Vegas?  Did he murder someone?  Rape someone?  Rob someone?  Apparently not.  K had on one of these loony AM shows.  While I was getting ready to leave for class, the hosts were blabbing on about this Harry guy.  I wasn't really paying attention, merely tying my tie.  But I did hear the weather guy, as his time was nearing say, "Give the guy a break!"  People are getting murdered every day here in Detroit, but we're worried and interested in some guy who was part of some wild party in Las Vegas!?!?!?  Perhaps we deserve everything we get--like a $16 trillion debt and growing.  But we don't care--it's all about us, not our children and grandchildren.

BTW, yet another sign the Apocalypse is nearly upon us: a judge in Massachusetts ruled that taxpayer money must be used to pay for a sex change operation for a woman in prison--for murder!!!!!! Is it me who's nuts? Or is the rest of the world nuts? What was that movie a long time ago, "Stop the World, I Want to Get Off."

I don't know if it was a spoof, but a survey claimed that almost 50% of respondents thought Romney's running mate was "Isaac."  That has to be a joke, doesn't it?  Of course, as I found out in all of my classes today, relative to Clinton's sexcapades as President, "They all did it."  That is, all Presidents ("They") had affairs ("it").  So, then I asked how many Presidents there have been, "44," which nobody knew, but some were close.  I followed that with "What President had affairs?"  Of course, JFK was out of almost everyone's mouth.  A few named FDR, correctly.  But, for the most part that was it--and rightly so.  Two classes offered "Jefferson," but I discounted that for three reasons, which they seemed to accept.  I told them that Harding was one, but asked for others.  There were no other offerings.  Given that there might have been one or two others, does four or five out of 44 equate to "They all did it?"  Again, it was met by silence, mostly.  What does "AD" in dating mean?  Of course, the answer from far too many is "After Death [of Christ]."  I ask, "What does 'BC' stand for, then?"  Of course, students know that, "Before Christ."  (BC and AD are now usually used in tandem with the politically correct BCE and CE that were instituted in the '70s.)  I continue, "If 'BC' is 'Before Christ' and 'AD' is "After Death,' what do we label the years when Christ was alive?"  Hmmmm....  Yep, it's usually pretty quiet for a while.

Out to read Jack Reacher...almost as good as Mitch Rapp, almost.  (One character said to him, "I wouldn't want you mad at me."  Reacher retorted, "No, you wouldn't.")