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....
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
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.
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, October 15, 2012
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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.
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
