Is it Sunday again, already? Wasn't it just Sunday? Of course, last Tue (Chris Day) seemed like Sun. And every other day seemed like Sat.
Yesterday was the Codester's birthday. Is he four years old already?????? It was so great watching his excitement, both yesterday and on Chris AM, while he opened presents. And Ash had me color with her with the crayons and coloring set (among other things that Uncle Matt gave her from Las Vegas). The only thing about the crayons is, with so many colors (150 of them!), how to choose? (I'll add another job I want in my next life, the one who chooses names for colors of crayons, like the guy who picks flavors of yogurt, salad dressing, etc.) And Bopper and I went through his tons of baseball card cartons--and one football one. There were quite a few cards of old playes, Mel Ott, Christy Matthewson, Jim Brown, etc.
What a downer for President Obama! It must be. His historic re-election is relegated to a spot far down the list of significant events of 2012. One list had the re-election at about five or so, after the mass shootings, NYC storm, the "fiscal cliff" (Isn't that term grating?), and a couple of others. For such a narcissist, it must be torture.
I will admit, as much as I dislike his policies and philosophies (not to mention his hypocrisy), Obama must have some brilliant advisers. Congressional Republicans are always on their heals, always backing away from the pitch that curves over the plate for a strike. That the President hasn't submitted a reasonable budget in several years (even the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected most of them unanimously) is overlooked and fingers are pointed at the Republicans in the House. Of course, perhaps it's just that the Republicans are Bozos......
I've sent this along to several folks, who expressed a bit of astonishment. If the fiscal cliff is not averted, K and I will likely pay several thousand dollars in more federal taxes. I'm not sure exactly how much. Different tables show between $2000 and $3000 and as much as $5000 more--and we don't bring home very much (certainly not six figures). I admitted I'd be willing to swallow the increased taxes, conditionally. (Of course, with the Bozos running DC, "willing" isn't a choice, is it?) First, I'd like to see across-the-board spending cuts of at least 5% in the federal government. C'mon, how much did the Obamas spend on Chris decorations and celebrations? The military can't find 5% or more to cut from its inflated budget of hundreds-of-dollars screwdrivers, hammers, and toilet seats? Federal bureaucrats and politicians can't take a 5% pay cut? (K has been cut far more than that over the past several years and I haven't had a pay increase at one of the colleges in about 10-12 years.) Second, the increased revenues must go to paying off the debt. The current taxes can go toward running the government programs. Extra, from the "cliff," pays down what is owed. Of course, the Bozos still spend more than they take in, so will that do any good? I don't know.... The figures are staggering.
I see MSU pulled out a bowl victory, whatever bowl it was. I didn't follow very closely and I didn't watch the game--it started around 11 PM here.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Round Three
I think I won Round Three, although it was a bit tougher than I anticipated. We were hit with a mere 2" of snow and I figured shoveling would be a piece of cake. Maybe it was because I ran first, then went out for a short walk--but it was a struggle, esp at the end.
Maybe, too, it was that the cars tamped down a couple tracks on each side, making pushing the snow a strain. And, a friend parked over some unshoveled snow on Thur, most of which melted into ice. That made it for difficult to move.
Still, it was a pretty nice, quiet AM to be out there.
But, we're getting some flow snurries now. I'm not aware of any accumulation that is expected. But, if we get any, bring it on.
Maybe, too, it was that the cars tamped down a couple tracks on each side, making pushing the snow a strain. And, a friend parked over some unshoveled snow on Thur, most of which melted into ice. That made it for difficult to move.
Still, it was a pretty nice, quiet AM to be out there.
But, we're getting some flow snurries now. I'm not aware of any accumulation that is expected. But, if we get any, bring it on.
Mary Surratt
If I recall correctly, Mary Surratt was the first woman executed by the Federal Government. Of course, her sentence came as a result of her role in the Lincoln assassination.
Did she deserve to die? Well, she always maintained her innocence, as if one might engage in murder, but would never lie. I think the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates she was a conspirator. That said, the question remains: Did she deserve to die?
If we believe in process in this country--and we theoretically say we do, that rights cannot be violated in the search for justice, that the rules must be followed--I don't think she deserved the death penalty. This sentence came after a trial in which she was found guilty; so the guilt is not in question here.
It's a bit hazy--OK, I'm losing some of my faculties!--but I recall that the military tribunal charged with determining her fate originally proposed life imprisonment. Edwin Stanton, among others, heard and was outraged. He likely was driven by two factors. One was his anger at the assassination. One of my favorite memorials about Lincoln was Stanton's words upon the pronouncement of Lincoln's death, "Now he belongs to the ages." In the movie, I awaited those moving words and was rewarded. The other factor was possible political motivations/aspirations Stanton had. Stanton was not "a nice man," hardly. He immediately went to work to get the tribunal to change its mind/sentence (however preliminary). He concocted a compromise of sorts, one involving a certain Presidential commutation, one he himself, he assured the tribunal, would push on President Johnson. He didn't and in the course of events, it is pretty clear he had no intention of doing so. And, it is pretty apparent that there were many lies told along the way, from Stanton to Johnson. Although I believe she was guilty in the conspiracy, as was Samuel Mudd, she was a victim. She was a victim of Stanton's duplicity, deviousness, and aspirations. She was a victim of the nation's thirst for revenge. The North had just seen more than 300,000 deaths, maybe closer to 400,000. Now, their beloved President, who they had only recently come to embrace, had been assassinated. Surratt helped satisfy vengeful feelings.
Another interesting "what if" is "What if Lincoln hadn't been murdered? What of Reconstruction?" Johnson was no match for Sumner, Stevens, Wade, Chandler, and the other Radicals. Lincoln, with his new-found popularity, I think was more than their equal. I guess a further question would be "Would Lincoln have opposed the Radicals or embraced their agenda?"
Yet another episode of "History That Never Happened."
Did she deserve to die? Well, she always maintained her innocence, as if one might engage in murder, but would never lie. I think the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates she was a conspirator. That said, the question remains: Did she deserve to die?
If we believe in process in this country--and we theoretically say we do, that rights cannot be violated in the search for justice, that the rules must be followed--I don't think she deserved the death penalty. This sentence came after a trial in which she was found guilty; so the guilt is not in question here.
It's a bit hazy--OK, I'm losing some of my faculties!--but I recall that the military tribunal charged with determining her fate originally proposed life imprisonment. Edwin Stanton, among others, heard and was outraged. He likely was driven by two factors. One was his anger at the assassination. One of my favorite memorials about Lincoln was Stanton's words upon the pronouncement of Lincoln's death, "Now he belongs to the ages." In the movie, I awaited those moving words and was rewarded. The other factor was possible political motivations/aspirations Stanton had. Stanton was not "a nice man," hardly. He immediately went to work to get the tribunal to change its mind/sentence (however preliminary). He concocted a compromise of sorts, one involving a certain Presidential commutation, one he himself, he assured the tribunal, would push on President Johnson. He didn't and in the course of events, it is pretty clear he had no intention of doing so. And, it is pretty apparent that there were many lies told along the way, from Stanton to Johnson. Although I believe she was guilty in the conspiracy, as was Samuel Mudd, she was a victim. She was a victim of Stanton's duplicity, deviousness, and aspirations. She was a victim of the nation's thirst for revenge. The North had just seen more than 300,000 deaths, maybe closer to 400,000. Now, their beloved President, who they had only recently come to embrace, had been assassinated. Surratt helped satisfy vengeful feelings.
Another interesting "what if" is "What if Lincoln hadn't been murdered? What of Reconstruction?" Johnson was no match for Sumner, Stevens, Wade, Chandler, and the other Radicals. Lincoln, with his new-found popularity, I think was more than their equal. I guess a further question would be "Would Lincoln have opposed the Radicals or embraced their agenda?"
Yet another episode of "History That Never Happened."
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Round Two...
Yesterday afternoon's/evening's snowfall of 5-5 1/2 inches was topped off by another 2 1/2-3 inches overnight. (I measured both times.) This AM's shoveling was much easier--a lesser amount and I used a lighter shovel. The lighter shovel carries less snow, so requires more shoveling. Still, it was easier.
At 7:30 or so, it was still pretty quiet out there. I did hear a couple of county plows out on Commerece Rd, but just a couple. I managed to get in about half of the driveway before the snowblowers started up. I'm thankful for that. Like last night, again before the infernal snowblowers, the shoveling was peaceful and quiet and the view/scenery was beautiful.
I followed the shoveling this AM with a walk/run through Lake Sherwood. There was a bit more traffic, but still not much. And, there were more snowblowers. Grrrrrr...... And, did I see a mechanized window scrapper/blower? I couldn't be sure, but some guy cleaning his windshield was making an awful lot of what sounded like machine noise.
Bopper and I received headlamps for Chris from Grandma (who, it is widely believed, lost our other two; or, at least, they can't be found wherever she put them). We are planning on heading out after dinner for a walk in the dark. It should be cool, as in neat, not as in cold. No doubt, Ash and the Codester will want to join us.
So far, I'd say, the first two rounds go to Ron, by wide margins.
At 7:30 or so, it was still pretty quiet out there. I did hear a couple of county plows out on Commerece Rd, but just a couple. I managed to get in about half of the driveway before the snowblowers started up. I'm thankful for that. Like last night, again before the infernal snowblowers, the shoveling was peaceful and quiet and the view/scenery was beautiful.
I followed the shoveling this AM with a walk/run through Lake Sherwood. There was a bit more traffic, but still not much. And, there were more snowblowers. Grrrrrr...... And, did I see a mechanized window scrapper/blower? I couldn't be sure, but some guy cleaning his windshield was making an awful lot of what sounded like machine noise.
Bopper and I received headlamps for Chris from Grandma (who, it is widely believed, lost our other two; or, at least, they can't be found wherever she put them). We are planning on heading out after dinner for a walk in the dark. It should be cool, as in neat, not as in cold. No doubt, Ash and the Codester will want to join us.
So far, I'd say, the first two rounds go to Ron, by wide margins.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Let It Snow, Let It Snow......
Our first significant snowfall of the season came today. Oh, we had a half inch another day and about two or three inches on Mon. Today/tonight was about 5 1/2 inches--and it's still coming down pretty hard.
I did shovel before--Bopper helped me once and the Codester helped the other time. This time it was by myself. K and I were out at the Lincoln flick when the storm started, clearing a couple of inches off of the car after leaving the theater. We came home and I heated the leftovers for dinner, did some writing and e-mailing, and headed out. I dressed pretty warmly, since it was very blustery when we came in two hours ago. But, the wind died down and the temp was about 22, not bad at all.
Everything went well. I think I won round one--the previous two were just shadow boxing--handily. There were only two glitches, one minor. I had to negotiate the car tracks that packed down the snow. They weren't too bad since the snow is pretty fluffy. The other was a neighbor cranking up his snowblower. Fortunately, I had already shoveled for about 15 mins, enjoying the peace and quiet. And he finished before I did, giving me an extra 10 mins of peace and quiet while I "trimmed."
I wondered, as I shoveled, at age 64, when is the time for me to stop doing this shoveling stuff. But, oh I enjoy it--a lot. Tonight reminded me why.
Round Two tomorrow AM.
I did shovel before--Bopper helped me once and the Codester helped the other time. This time it was by myself. K and I were out at the Lincoln flick when the storm started, clearing a couple of inches off of the car after leaving the theater. We came home and I heated the leftovers for dinner, did some writing and e-mailing, and headed out. I dressed pretty warmly, since it was very blustery when we came in two hours ago. But, the wind died down and the temp was about 22, not bad at all.
Everything went well. I think I won round one--the previous two were just shadow boxing--handily. There were only two glitches, one minor. I had to negotiate the car tracks that packed down the snow. They weren't too bad since the snow is pretty fluffy. The other was a neighbor cranking up his snowblower. Fortunately, I had already shoveled for about 15 mins, enjoying the peace and quiet. And he finished before I did, giving me an extra 10 mins of peace and quiet while I "trimmed."
I wondered, as I shoveled, at age 64, when is the time for me to stop doing this shoveling stuff. But, oh I enjoy it--a lot. Tonight reminded me why.
Round Two tomorrow AM.
Lincoln
Well, I did two things this week I very rarely do. One, I bought petrol at a station that charges higher prices for credit purchases than for cash purchases. I didn't notice until I had started pumping, but once I did I immediately stopped at $15. The station, as a matter of principle, can charge whatever it wants. But, also as a matter of principle, I can take my business elsewhere, which is just what I usually do--unless I don't notice.
Two, I went to a movie at a theater. I was trying to remember the last time I went and I keep coming back to Brother Bear, to which I took Bopper about 9 or 10 years ago. I can't recall any other movie since. Much, much more often than not I feel like I've wasted two hours or more of my life afterward. That's not to mention the wasted money. Oh, I forgot, the Hollywood-types aren't greedy; they actually deserve what they are paid, even if movie tickets are now about $10 apiece.
The movie was, as noted in the post title, Lincoln. My plan had been to wait until the DVD or pay-per-view on the boob tube. I had heard many good things about the movie from colleagues and students and had read a number of very flattering reviews, even my historians. But I went into Lincoln with some caution. First, it was a Hollywood movie, the likes of which most frequently disappoint me greatly. Second, I know what Hollywood does to history, either for the sake of entertainment or for a political agenda. Third, and this was my greatest trepidation, I am an admittedly Lincoln superfan. I can't say that I have many heroes in history, but if I have only one, it's Lincoln. I fully admit I buy into the Lincoln mythology. Any biography of Lincoln I wrote would undoubtedly be a hagiography. Oh, I know the myths (I even had a student write on a final exam that Lincoln owned slaves. Where do they hear that crap? It's not remotely true. Come to think of it, one of my son's high school history teachers repeated that garbage.) and I know Lincoln had faults. Hey, he was human!
So, what about Lincoln? I thought it was great. I suppose the acting was very, very good. No doubt a lot of Oscar nominations, if not awards, are going to come out of this movie. And the history was pretty darn good, too. Oh, there were some errors and quite a few speeches or exchanges were pure fiction, as far as I know. But the tenor was right! What enthralled me wasn't the movie or the scenes or cinematography (or whatever it's called). It wasn't the acting, good as it was. It was the persona of Lincoln that hung over the movie.
Here's an example. Thaddeus Stevens, by most accounts hardly a likable guy, but rapier-sharp with his tongue, admitted after the passage of the 13th Amendment: “[It] was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.” I have never seen that comment in any of the histories I've read. And, knowing him a bit, it doesn't seem like anything Stevens would even think. But such a comment was stark and striking, capturing the esssence of Lincoln--at least to a Lincoln-lover like me.
There was this theme throughout the movie of a sort of Civil War bi-partisanship. I think such a 20th and 21st Century notion would have been foreign to Lincoln. Oh, he dropped the Republican Hannibal Hamlin of Maine (isn't that a great name!?!?!?) as VP to choose the very mediocre (and I'm being generous here) Democrat from Tennesse Andrew Johnson. It would prove to be a horrible choice, but it was an attempt for Lincoln to put into action the words he would later utter in his Second Inaugural. But this getting Democrats to vote for the 13th Amendment to show some sort of bi-partisan agreement on ending slavery is ridiculous. Maybe that's Spielberg's present political view showing through; I don't know.
But the movie clearly showed what many people forget or don't know. Lincoln was a great politician. A guy I used to work with told students that Lincoln never won an election until he became President. That's another falsehood and a big one. First off, he was "elected" captain of his militia squad during the Black Hawk War--that's how things were done then. He, of course, was elected to Congress, the House of Representatives where he was a bitter and outspoken critic of "Mr. Polk's War," the Mexican War. And, in Illinois, he was elected to the state legislature for several terms. All this running as a Whig in a largely Democratic state, Illinois. And, some historian tallied up the populations of the counties of Illinois in 1858, the year Stephan A. Douglas was re-appointed to the US Senate (that's how it was done then) after the famous Lincoln/Douglas Debates. Had it been a state-wide, at-large election of the people, Lincoln likely would have defeated his Democratic opponent, too. Clearly, Lincoln was a savvy, hard-nosed, brilliant politician, as even Douglas noted. "He is the strong man of the [Republican] party."
Throughout, not at all far from my mind while watching, were these words from W.E.B. Dubois about Lincoln: "I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
Two, I went to a movie at a theater. I was trying to remember the last time I went and I keep coming back to Brother Bear, to which I took Bopper about 9 or 10 years ago. I can't recall any other movie since. Much, much more often than not I feel like I've wasted two hours or more of my life afterward. That's not to mention the wasted money. Oh, I forgot, the Hollywood-types aren't greedy; they actually deserve what they are paid, even if movie tickets are now about $10 apiece.
The movie was, as noted in the post title, Lincoln. My plan had been to wait until the DVD or pay-per-view on the boob tube. I had heard many good things about the movie from colleagues and students and had read a number of very flattering reviews, even my historians. But I went into Lincoln with some caution. First, it was a Hollywood movie, the likes of which most frequently disappoint me greatly. Second, I know what Hollywood does to history, either for the sake of entertainment or for a political agenda. Third, and this was my greatest trepidation, I am an admittedly Lincoln superfan. I can't say that I have many heroes in history, but if I have only one, it's Lincoln. I fully admit I buy into the Lincoln mythology. Any biography of Lincoln I wrote would undoubtedly be a hagiography. Oh, I know the myths (I even had a student write on a final exam that Lincoln owned slaves. Where do they hear that crap? It's not remotely true. Come to think of it, one of my son's high school history teachers repeated that garbage.) and I know Lincoln had faults. Hey, he was human!
So, what about Lincoln? I thought it was great. I suppose the acting was very, very good. No doubt a lot of Oscar nominations, if not awards, are going to come out of this movie. And the history was pretty darn good, too. Oh, there were some errors and quite a few speeches or exchanges were pure fiction, as far as I know. But the tenor was right! What enthralled me wasn't the movie or the scenes or cinematography (or whatever it's called). It wasn't the acting, good as it was. It was the persona of Lincoln that hung over the movie.
Here's an example. Thaddeus Stevens, by most accounts hardly a likable guy, but rapier-sharp with his tongue, admitted after the passage of the 13th Amendment: “[It] was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.” I have never seen that comment in any of the histories I've read. And, knowing him a bit, it doesn't seem like anything Stevens would even think. But such a comment was stark and striking, capturing the esssence of Lincoln--at least to a Lincoln-lover like me.
There was this theme throughout the movie of a sort of Civil War bi-partisanship. I think such a 20th and 21st Century notion would have been foreign to Lincoln. Oh, he dropped the Republican Hannibal Hamlin of Maine (isn't that a great name!?!?!?) as VP to choose the very mediocre (and I'm being generous here) Democrat from Tennesse Andrew Johnson. It would prove to be a horrible choice, but it was an attempt for Lincoln to put into action the words he would later utter in his Second Inaugural. But this getting Democrats to vote for the 13th Amendment to show some sort of bi-partisan agreement on ending slavery is ridiculous. Maybe that's Spielberg's present political view showing through; I don't know.
But the movie clearly showed what many people forget or don't know. Lincoln was a great politician. A guy I used to work with told students that Lincoln never won an election until he became President. That's another falsehood and a big one. First off, he was "elected" captain of his militia squad during the Black Hawk War--that's how things were done then. He, of course, was elected to Congress, the House of Representatives where he was a bitter and outspoken critic of "Mr. Polk's War," the Mexican War. And, in Illinois, he was elected to the state legislature for several terms. All this running as a Whig in a largely Democratic state, Illinois. And, some historian tallied up the populations of the counties of Illinois in 1858, the year Stephan A. Douglas was re-appointed to the US Senate (that's how it was done then) after the famous Lincoln/Douglas Debates. Had it been a state-wide, at-large election of the people, Lincoln likely would have defeated his Democratic opponent, too. Clearly, Lincoln was a savvy, hard-nosed, brilliant politician, as even Douglas noted. "He is the strong man of the [Republican] party."
Throughout, not at all far from my mind while watching, were these words from W.E.B. Dubois about Lincoln: "I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln."
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Why Not?
Hey, why not "Sun Musings?" I have "Fri Musings" and "Sat Musings......"
Interesting that two of my conversations this past week, with Matt and with one of my running buddies, centered on Bo Jackson. Jackson might have been the best athlete ever--who knows? He certainly must rank pretty high on any list. He ran a 4.1 40; high jumped 6'8" in high school, was 6' 4" tall and weighed 240, and could throw and hit! But, by all accounts, he's a good person, one who knows integrity, honesty, and charity, not to mention appreciation. That leads me to two stories, one about Jackson.
I guess the Tampa NFL team (whose name I can't remember) invited Jackson down during the winter of his senior year at Auburn for a workout. Since Jackson was eagerly finishing his baseball season, he inquired about eligibility; that is, would the Tampa trip, the flight down and accommodations, have an adverse effect on his senior year of baseball. Oh, no, said Tampa. You'll be fine. Once Jackson returned to Auburn, his baseball coach revealed this would make him ineligible to play baseball! He was steamed. According to my buddy, Jackson was drafted first by the Tampa team, but refused to sign with them. He gave up millions of dollars because they lied to him. Of course, he was later drafted by the Raiders, where he played, but for much less money than a first-rounder. Good for Jackson! I knew there was a reason I liked the guy.
And, according to Walter Williams, the CEO of Branch Banking and Trust, one of the ten largest banks in the US, is also a man of integrity. John Allison refused to let his bank do any business, that is, lend money to, with developers who bought property by having government take it from people. How cool! No doubt there was a lot of money in there for BB&T, but because the government stole people's property (OK, legal stealing often called "takings" or "eminent domain"), he wouldn't let his company be a part of the theft and booty. Yep, I now have another person I admire.
I read a nifty article in The American Scholar, "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education." Wow, did some of it ring home for me! The author, who spent 14 years at Yale and Columbia, noted the gaps in his education, the "disadvantages," what one of his friends calls "Ivy Retardation."
There are some stinging remarks here. The Ivies and other "elite" institutions "leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." He noted two Ivy grads, Al Gore (Yale) and John Kerry (Harvard)--or did I mix that up?--"both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate." I might disagree with the characterization, but not the conclusion. I think I have blogged about his phenomenon and the people who have it--"arrogant elitism" I have called it.
Those who know me realize I am not Mr. Fix-it. I am pretty much all thumbs when it comes to mechanical things. I once scored in the 27% on a mechanical aptitude test. Oh, when I was younger, I'd try, often taking four or five times as long to finish a job as it should have taken. But I remember my days at Amherst. How many times did I earn money for grinders or pizza by working on cars, for instance, changing the oil or replacing mufflers and tailpipes, for guys who had no idea how to do either? Again, I'm mostly a klutz when it comes to handyman stuff, but far more than once I'd help the fraternity custodian/caretaker (Joe Zygmont, a great guy with not much education, but with whom I had a number of enlightening conversations) around the house.
Another comment in the article, again citing a "disadvantage" in less than flattering way, was "How can I be a teacher--wouldn't that be a waste of my expensive education? Wouldn't I be squandering the opportunities...? What will my rich friends think?" Rich friends? It was my own father who sounded those same thoughts. Several times he asked Karen if she could talk to me about leaving teaching. He made comments like, "You must be the only Amherst graduate who drives a Chevy." I wonder what he thought when I bought a Horizon--and then drove it for nine years?
I think the author is wrong in his view about the lack of passion for ideas among students and graduates at the elite colleges. In fact, I have found that to be exactly the opposite, especially among the teachers with whom I've worked. Oh, there are some who are very passionate, including two of my current colleagues (I think they are great teachers!). On the whole, though, ideas don't matter. I remember how few of the high school teachers actually read books or subscribed to magazines or journals in their disciplines. And, to get an in-service day (oh, how it pains me to write that!) devoted to discussing history? Yeah, right--they much preferred getting Nerf balls tossed at them. At one of the colleges, the department head and I tried to get a history newsletter, a journal of sorts, going among the history instructors on all five of the campuses. The journal would allow for articles or essays about history or the teaching of it, book reviews, etc. We were able to "publish" one issue. That one issue had just a few submissions, all by the same few folks. We tried to get the word out, encouraging others to write something, anything--to no avail. Nobody wanted to do it. I never understood and complained to my department head, "How can people who teach college history not have a passion for writing about it?" We weren't looking for Pulitzer material, just an opportunity to share passions.
He writes, "The disadvantage of an elite education is that it's given us the elite we have and the elite we're going to have" These will be the people, dare I say arrogant people?, who "will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government." And they can't (or won't!) communicate with the common folks. Of course, they or at least some of them might well think, "Why should we have to communicate with them?"
It's an interesting article and the author has some insightful views. I went to one of these "elite" instutions. But, I don't think I came away with many of these attitudes or "disadvantages" cite in it/by him. I don't think I have "Ivy Retardation." First, I never felt I was one of the elite, at least not academically (and certainly not socially!). Second, my own background was far different than those described by the author and far different from many of my schoolmates. Third, there were far too many people ready and willing to slap me down (figuratively, not literally) if I developed such an "elitism." No, quite the contrary. My Amherst education was one of the defining episodes of my life. I wouldn't trade it for anything. My professors, my studies, my sports, and, especially, my friends--all were the greatest. I learned a lot, specifically and about life in general. My Amherst education was special and I am forever grateful for it.
But, I still enjoyed the article....
Interesting that two of my conversations this past week, with Matt and with one of my running buddies, centered on Bo Jackson. Jackson might have been the best athlete ever--who knows? He certainly must rank pretty high on any list. He ran a 4.1 40; high jumped 6'8" in high school, was 6' 4" tall and weighed 240, and could throw and hit! But, by all accounts, he's a good person, one who knows integrity, honesty, and charity, not to mention appreciation. That leads me to two stories, one about Jackson.
I guess the Tampa NFL team (whose name I can't remember) invited Jackson down during the winter of his senior year at Auburn for a workout. Since Jackson was eagerly finishing his baseball season, he inquired about eligibility; that is, would the Tampa trip, the flight down and accommodations, have an adverse effect on his senior year of baseball. Oh, no, said Tampa. You'll be fine. Once Jackson returned to Auburn, his baseball coach revealed this would make him ineligible to play baseball! He was steamed. According to my buddy, Jackson was drafted first by the Tampa team, but refused to sign with them. He gave up millions of dollars because they lied to him. Of course, he was later drafted by the Raiders, where he played, but for much less money than a first-rounder. Good for Jackson! I knew there was a reason I liked the guy.
And, according to Walter Williams, the CEO of Branch Banking and Trust, one of the ten largest banks in the US, is also a man of integrity. John Allison refused to let his bank do any business, that is, lend money to, with developers who bought property by having government take it from people. How cool! No doubt there was a lot of money in there for BB&T, but because the government stole people's property (OK, legal stealing often called "takings" or "eminent domain"), he wouldn't let his company be a part of the theft and booty. Yep, I now have another person I admire.
I read a nifty article in The American Scholar, "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education." Wow, did some of it ring home for me! The author, who spent 14 years at Yale and Columbia, noted the gaps in his education, the "disadvantages," what one of his friends calls "Ivy Retardation."
There are some stinging remarks here. The Ivies and other "elite" institutions "leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." He noted two Ivy grads, Al Gore (Yale) and John Kerry (Harvard)--or did I mix that up?--"both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate." I might disagree with the characterization, but not the conclusion. I think I have blogged about his phenomenon and the people who have it--"arrogant elitism" I have called it.
Those who know me realize I am not Mr. Fix-it. I am pretty much all thumbs when it comes to mechanical things. I once scored in the 27% on a mechanical aptitude test. Oh, when I was younger, I'd try, often taking four or five times as long to finish a job as it should have taken. But I remember my days at Amherst. How many times did I earn money for grinders or pizza by working on cars, for instance, changing the oil or replacing mufflers and tailpipes, for guys who had no idea how to do either? Again, I'm mostly a klutz when it comes to handyman stuff, but far more than once I'd help the fraternity custodian/caretaker (Joe Zygmont, a great guy with not much education, but with whom I had a number of enlightening conversations) around the house.
Another comment in the article, again citing a "disadvantage" in less than flattering way, was "How can I be a teacher--wouldn't that be a waste of my expensive education? Wouldn't I be squandering the opportunities...? What will my rich friends think?" Rich friends? It was my own father who sounded those same thoughts. Several times he asked Karen if she could talk to me about leaving teaching. He made comments like, "You must be the only Amherst graduate who drives a Chevy." I wonder what he thought when I bought a Horizon--and then drove it for nine years?
I think the author is wrong in his view about the lack of passion for ideas among students and graduates at the elite colleges. In fact, I have found that to be exactly the opposite, especially among the teachers with whom I've worked. Oh, there are some who are very passionate, including two of my current colleagues (I think they are great teachers!). On the whole, though, ideas don't matter. I remember how few of the high school teachers actually read books or subscribed to magazines or journals in their disciplines. And, to get an in-service day (oh, how it pains me to write that!) devoted to discussing history? Yeah, right--they much preferred getting Nerf balls tossed at them. At one of the colleges, the department head and I tried to get a history newsletter, a journal of sorts, going among the history instructors on all five of the campuses. The journal would allow for articles or essays about history or the teaching of it, book reviews, etc. We were able to "publish" one issue. That one issue had just a few submissions, all by the same few folks. We tried to get the word out, encouraging others to write something, anything--to no avail. Nobody wanted to do it. I never understood and complained to my department head, "How can people who teach college history not have a passion for writing about it?" We weren't looking for Pulitzer material, just an opportunity to share passions.
He writes, "The disadvantage of an elite education is that it's given us the elite we have and the elite we're going to have" These will be the people, dare I say arrogant people?, who "will soon be running a corporation or an institution or a government." And they can't (or won't!) communicate with the common folks. Of course, they or at least some of them might well think, "Why should we have to communicate with them?"
It's an interesting article and the author has some insightful views. I went to one of these "elite" instutions. But, I don't think I came away with many of these attitudes or "disadvantages" cite in it/by him. I don't think I have "Ivy Retardation." First, I never felt I was one of the elite, at least not academically (and certainly not socially!). Second, my own background was far different than those described by the author and far different from many of my schoolmates. Third, there were far too many people ready and willing to slap me down (figuratively, not literally) if I developed such an "elitism." No, quite the contrary. My Amherst education was one of the defining episodes of my life. I wouldn't trade it for anything. My professors, my studies, my sports, and, especially, my friends--all were the greatest. I learned a lot, specifically and about life in general. My Amherst education was special and I am forever grateful for it.
But, I still enjoyed the article....
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Sat AM Musings
There's something cool about waking up in the middle of the night, to a quiet house (althought the wind is howling outside!), and getting some work done. OK, I often pay for it later in the evening with a yawn or two.
Cold? I don't mind it as much as I used to. Snow? I like it, even the heavy/deep stuff. It's fun to shovel. Rain? It's sometimes bothersome. But wind? Nope, that's one meteorological condidtion I don't like. Strong winds make running tough, as I'll rediscover in a short while. (It's still dark out there.) Taking things from the car to the store or vice versa is a challenge. Wind makes cold colder, although I disdain "wind chills." Is it wind that makes airplane flights so bumpy? I suppose it's good for flying kites, though.
An Amherst mate recently blogged about two things, Judge Bork and Senator Inouye. He reminded me of Bork's role in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That was when Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson, to his everlasting credit, refused. Nixon then fired him, ordering Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus to get rid of Cox. Likewise, honorably, the new AG refused. Nixon canned him, too. Bork, then Solicitor General, was next in line. He was set to refuse Nixon's firing order, but was talked out of it by folks who promised to set the historical record straight. That record was that Bork opposed the firing, but would do it only because Nixon would keep firing people until he found one who would axe Cox. And "the folks" assured Bork that Nixon didn't care if he found an honorable man or not; so Bork should do the firing and the position would be filled by a man with integrity. Bork's mistake here was trusting "the folks," the politicians, the Nixon politicians. This episode later came back to haunt Bork in the Supreme Court hearings. It's a tough call--I see both sides.
Senator Inouye was grilled for having served in the US Senate for far too long, anathema to "conservative principles." I guess I'm not averse to "a career politician," any more than I'm averse to a career teacher or doctor or lawyer or millwright or...... What matters, to me, is performance. Term limits are a mere political ploy. They already exist. Voters already possess them every time they enter the polling places--they can vote out the incumbent and vote in his/her opponent. Term limits might well also limit my choices. Maybe who is in office is better than any replacement, although that sure seems dubious! I, then, am stuck with voting for an inferior candidate. Again, I see the other side, especially with the power and the money/contacts that are involved. Still, because voters are lazy, stupid, duped, whatever, I don't think my choices should be limited by term limits.
I thought of another anomaly concerning the "party of choice." Again, abortion is a woman's choice, but people shouldn't have the choices of gun ownership or where their kids attend school. And, workers shouldn't have the choice to join a union or not. Hmmmm.... It almost sounds like the "party of choice" should be called the "party of no choice." (BTW, why is it so difficult for me to type the word "choice?" I most often omit the letter "i." Hmmmm......)
Cold? I don't mind it as much as I used to. Snow? I like it, even the heavy/deep stuff. It's fun to shovel. Rain? It's sometimes bothersome. But wind? Nope, that's one meteorological condidtion I don't like. Strong winds make running tough, as I'll rediscover in a short while. (It's still dark out there.) Taking things from the car to the store or vice versa is a challenge. Wind makes cold colder, although I disdain "wind chills." Is it wind that makes airplane flights so bumpy? I suppose it's good for flying kites, though.
An Amherst mate recently blogged about two things, Judge Bork and Senator Inouye. He reminded me of Bork's role in Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That was when Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson, to his everlasting credit, refused. Nixon then fired him, ordering Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus to get rid of Cox. Likewise, honorably, the new AG refused. Nixon canned him, too. Bork, then Solicitor General, was next in line. He was set to refuse Nixon's firing order, but was talked out of it by folks who promised to set the historical record straight. That record was that Bork opposed the firing, but would do it only because Nixon would keep firing people until he found one who would axe Cox. And "the folks" assured Bork that Nixon didn't care if he found an honorable man or not; so Bork should do the firing and the position would be filled by a man with integrity. Bork's mistake here was trusting "the folks," the politicians, the Nixon politicians. This episode later came back to haunt Bork in the Supreme Court hearings. It's a tough call--I see both sides.
Senator Inouye was grilled for having served in the US Senate for far too long, anathema to "conservative principles." I guess I'm not averse to "a career politician," any more than I'm averse to a career teacher or doctor or lawyer or millwright or...... What matters, to me, is performance. Term limits are a mere political ploy. They already exist. Voters already possess them every time they enter the polling places--they can vote out the incumbent and vote in his/her opponent. Term limits might well also limit my choices. Maybe who is in office is better than any replacement, although that sure seems dubious! I, then, am stuck with voting for an inferior candidate. Again, I see the other side, especially with the power and the money/contacts that are involved. Still, because voters are lazy, stupid, duped, whatever, I don't think my choices should be limited by term limits.
I thought of another anomaly concerning the "party of choice." Again, abortion is a woman's choice, but people shouldn't have the choices of gun ownership or where their kids attend school. And, workers shouldn't have the choice to join a union or not. Hmmmm.... It almost sounds like the "party of choice" should be called the "party of no choice." (BTW, why is it so difficult for me to type the word "choice?" I most often omit the letter "i." Hmmmm......)
Friday, December 21, 2012
Fri AM Musings
Several things are leaving bad tastes in my mouth--and not just last night's dinner.
First, how can a US Congressman, Gary Peters of Michigan, hire a former Kwame Kilpatrick aide? Oh, this aide was recently released from prison, having been convicted of bribery. It sort of makes one wonder about this Congressman's, ahem, judgment, doesn't it?
And what's the deal with the federal government giving a group of "experts" (?) $5000 each to go to Hawaii to study food and Mars? Huh? "You have to be kidding," but I'm not. One would think, in light of the current financial mess, things like that wouldn't happen any longer, but then one would be wrong. I know the retort is the same one several school administrators always gave me when I questioned spending there. "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." Well, how many drops until the bucket starts filling up? Like Everett Dirksen once said, "A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yep. But as Milton Friedman also noted, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
Also, Obama getting Time Magazine's "Man of the Year"award still rankles me. It's just what the egotistical, narcissistic guy needs. Oh well, I guess I take some solace in that it's not necessarily an award for "good," but for influencing events of the year the most. I'm not sure he has, but.... And there's aways knowing that Hitler and Stalin (twice) also won the awards. BTW, I read just yesterday, from an Obama critic, that Obama is "a highly polished and eloquent speaker." You know, I just don't see it--and never have. It must be me.
Still, in the wake of the most recent mass murder, there is no call for an investigation into violent video games and television shows/movies. Surely they must play a role. The army uses violent video games to desensitize soldiers before combat/killing. But the "experts," the arrogant elitists who fill our airwaves on radio and television don't ever seem to mention the violence that is now part of many young people's lives. If they do, I missed it (with the full admission I don't watch much television, almost never on my own).
OK, out to make a snowman with the Codester.....
First, how can a US Congressman, Gary Peters of Michigan, hire a former Kwame Kilpatrick aide? Oh, this aide was recently released from prison, having been convicted of bribery. It sort of makes one wonder about this Congressman's, ahem, judgment, doesn't it?
And what's the deal with the federal government giving a group of "experts" (?) $5000 each to go to Hawaii to study food and Mars? Huh? "You have to be kidding," but I'm not. One would think, in light of the current financial mess, things like that wouldn't happen any longer, but then one would be wrong. I know the retort is the same one several school administrators always gave me when I questioned spending there. "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." Well, how many drops until the bucket starts filling up? Like Everett Dirksen once said, "A few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yep. But as Milton Friedman also noted, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
Also, Obama getting Time Magazine's "Man of the Year"award still rankles me. It's just what the egotistical, narcissistic guy needs. Oh well, I guess I take some solace in that it's not necessarily an award for "good," but for influencing events of the year the most. I'm not sure he has, but.... And there's aways knowing that Hitler and Stalin (twice) also won the awards. BTW, I read just yesterday, from an Obama critic, that Obama is "a highly polished and eloquent speaker." You know, I just don't see it--and never have. It must be me.
Still, in the wake of the most recent mass murder, there is no call for an investigation into violent video games and television shows/movies. Surely they must play a role. The army uses violent video games to desensitize soldiers before combat/killing. But the "experts," the arrogant elitists who fill our airwaves on radio and television don't ever seem to mention the violence that is now part of many young people's lives. If they do, I missed it (with the full admission I don't watch much television, almost never on my own).
OK, out to make a snowman with the Codester.....
Daniel Inouye
Senator Daniel Inouye died the other day, like Judge Robert Bork, with seemingly little fanfare. Now, had they been hippy-rock stars or Hollywood-types who had overdosed on this drug or that, well things would have been quite different, I'm sure.
Inouye was a Democrat with whom I often found myself in disagreement. But I never failed to respect the man--his honor, his integrity, his courage. (Again, perhaps it says more about us that we lionize Kennedy--in fact all of them--and turn to Bill Clinton for endorsements rather than good, decent men like Inouye.) Inouye was on the Senate Watergate Committee, serving with dignity and insight. He also took on Irangate. And, if you remember, when nobody else would accept the defense of a Senate colleague accused in the Abscam scandal, Inouye took on the job. As a point of personal courage and integrity, it is mindful of John Adams defending the British soldiers in their Boston Massacre trial. Here is one of the few op-ed pieces I've seen on the death of Inouye; it's a good one.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-inouye-bob-dole-connection-6b834gf-184113311.html
I also like the tribute to Senator Philip Hart, the real "Conscience of the Senate."
Inouye was a Democrat with whom I often found myself in disagreement. But I never failed to respect the man--his honor, his integrity, his courage. (Again, perhaps it says more about us that we lionize Kennedy--in fact all of them--and turn to Bill Clinton for endorsements rather than good, decent men like Inouye.) Inouye was on the Senate Watergate Committee, serving with dignity and insight. He also took on Irangate. And, if you remember, when nobody else would accept the defense of a Senate colleague accused in the Abscam scandal, Inouye took on the job. As a point of personal courage and integrity, it is mindful of John Adams defending the British soldiers in their Boston Massacre trial. Here is one of the few op-ed pieces I've seen on the death of Inouye; it's a good one.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-inouye-bob-dole-connection-6b834gf-184113311.html
I also like the tribute to Senator Philip Hart, the real "Conscience of the Senate."
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Robert Bork
Robert Bork died today. Few may remember he was the Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court so vociferously (and I'm being kind!) by the Democrats. His nomination was rejected by the Senate, much, I think, to our detriment.
He was a brilliant man, perhaps far too conservative for some. But in reading a few of his books, particularly The Tempting of America, I was struck at how much he was teaching from those books. Reading them reminded me of being in some of my classes at Amherst. I found my own thoughts and views being challenged--from a book.
His nomination was rejected, in large part, due to the efforts of Ted Kennedy, that scumbag of scumbags. No, Ted Kennedy wasn't the Lion of the Senate, as he was so erroneously portrayed in his last days and at his death. How quickly people forgot the little things, like Mary Jo Kopechne's death. Kennedy's opposition to Bork was equally scummy. One of the things he brought up was Bork's speaking engagements, engagements for which he took money while he was a federal appellate judge. "Unethical!" among other things was the indictment. Bork kept quiet and only later did it come out that his wife had cancer and was undergoing treatments. The health insurance had run out and he was giving speeches to continue the treatments. Yep, let's put that one in the same category as, say, "Mary Jo Kopechne."
The Democrats went to their black constituents, namely their black ministers, and spread lies about Bork and urged the ministers to spread those lies to their congregations during Sunday services/sermons. Yep, tell me how dishonest and immoral the Republicans are again.
I read a book about the nomination of Judge Bork. The author, in his forward, admitted he went into its writing with a bias, against Bork. It didn't take long before the author changed his mind and discovered a good man, an honest man, although one with whom he disagreed.
Gee, I wonder if we'll order flags flown at half mast, like we did for Whitney Houston? Shame on me.
He was a brilliant man, perhaps far too conservative for some. But in reading a few of his books, particularly The Tempting of America, I was struck at how much he was teaching from those books. Reading them reminded me of being in some of my classes at Amherst. I found my own thoughts and views being challenged--from a book.
His nomination was rejected, in large part, due to the efforts of Ted Kennedy, that scumbag of scumbags. No, Ted Kennedy wasn't the Lion of the Senate, as he was so erroneously portrayed in his last days and at his death. How quickly people forgot the little things, like Mary Jo Kopechne's death. Kennedy's opposition to Bork was equally scummy. One of the things he brought up was Bork's speaking engagements, engagements for which he took money while he was a federal appellate judge. "Unethical!" among other things was the indictment. Bork kept quiet and only later did it come out that his wife had cancer and was undergoing treatments. The health insurance had run out and he was giving speeches to continue the treatments. Yep, let's put that one in the same category as, say, "Mary Jo Kopechne."
The Democrats went to their black constituents, namely their black ministers, and spread lies about Bork and urged the ministers to spread those lies to their congregations during Sunday services/sermons. Yep, tell me how dishonest and immoral the Republicans are again.
I read a book about the nomination of Judge Bork. The author, in his forward, admitted he went into its writing with a bias, against Bork. It didn't take long before the author changed his mind and discovered a good man, an honest man, although one with whom he disagreed.
Gee, I wonder if we'll order flags flown at half mast, like we did for Whitney Houston? Shame on me.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tue Eve Musings
After about 11 hours (4 last night and 7 today) of grading finals, I'm taking a break. I'll just finish later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow AM.
Hey, after dinner tonight I actually read the sports section! Yep...... I found out some things I didn't know. The Lions lost Sunday. I guess they were smacked around pretty well/good. I didn't even think of them, being in Las Vegas. Of course, last week they were on prime time Sun eve, but I opted to watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original!) instead--good choice. BTW, I heard some guy as I was flipping through the radio on the way home from classes today. He was either reading from someone else's op-ed piece or voicing his own view. He bemoaned watching some NFL game, asking ESPN to "give me back those four wasted hours of my life." Hey, why did the guy bother to watch? Or, why didn't he just stop watching? Back to the sports section, the Tigers signed a pitcher to some $16,000,000 a year contract--for five years, I think. C'mon! Give me a break. I think he's slated, according to the article, to be the fourth or fifth starter. (In a similar, but funny vein, I read an online article about the rich and famous. No, I don't know why. But this one family, with a home of 31,000 sq ft--you read that right--is adding on to the home because, as the article noted, it "needed the room." True story......) And some U of M football player, "basically a good person," was suspended from the team's bowl game for "violations of team rules." This "basically a good person" was also suspended from the team in 2010 and 2011. Yeah, right......
Some sociologist or psychiatrist on the radio this AM noted that the recent spate of mass shootings have been done by young men who expect things to be given to them and, when things aren't given to them, they resent it and react. Boy, we might have big problems ahead! What young men today don't expect to be handed things without earning them or working for them? Isn't that the tenor of today's society--give me what other people have earned? Don't make me work for anything? (That reminds me of a very smart colleague of mine who insisted, years ago, parents' mantra had become, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it.") How are we going to instill the idea of working, of earning, to get things after several decades of give-aways? I understand, although I don't capitulate, students who are upset with bad grades in my classes, even when they do little or nothing. They've never had to work before, never had to earn their grades before. Why should things be different now?
I heard a caller on another show, maybe Bill Bennett's?, note that 40 and 50 years ago, kids went outside to play, at the park or playground, in the yard, on the street. Now, he said, kids go home from school and immediately turn on the video game or some other electronic device. Kids don't learn to interact with people/other kids. Another caller talked about "The Peter Pan Syndrome" among our young adults--they don't want to grow up. Growing up entails facing responsibilities, failing and having to get up and go at it again, looking out for others instead just oneself. Hmmmmmm...... That's worth some thinking, isn't it?
I'm still laughing, although it hurts, at the state legislature. Because of the results of Proposition 2, the house and senate (and governor) felt compelled to enact a "right-to-work" law. That's because "the voters indicated what they wanted and we're giving that to them." Yet, the Lansing Loons voted for another emergency manager law, after the voters rejected it in the election. I guess the legislators and governor know what the voters want better than the voters themselves. If all this weren't so serious and potentially damaging to self-government, it'd be funny to watch the hypocritical Republicans steal pages from the hypocritical Democrats' playbook. And, anyone who doesn't see this is either a hypocrite, too, or very dense. Maybe, though, they are just arrogant elitists.
I wonder about those pro-choice people. It seems to me those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are very much "anti-choice" when it comes to gun ownership and schools. So, I guess, a mother can choose to kill her unborn baby, but can't choose what school her born baby can attend? Need I say anything about guns and abortion?
Mitch Rapp. Jack Reacher. John Puller. Are there any better characters out there today? Rizzoli and Isles (in the novels, not the boob tube show) and Myron Bolitar (and his sidekick Win) are close runners-up.
Out to bake blueberry/banana muffins. Ashley says, "I love to bake!" If time, maybe Bopper and I can go for a walk--a mile or two in the dark to see the Chris lights.
Terras Irradient.
Hey, after dinner tonight I actually read the sports section! Yep...... I found out some things I didn't know. The Lions lost Sunday. I guess they were smacked around pretty well/good. I didn't even think of them, being in Las Vegas. Of course, last week they were on prime time Sun eve, but I opted to watch Miracle on 34th Street (the original!) instead--good choice. BTW, I heard some guy as I was flipping through the radio on the way home from classes today. He was either reading from someone else's op-ed piece or voicing his own view. He bemoaned watching some NFL game, asking ESPN to "give me back those four wasted hours of my life." Hey, why did the guy bother to watch? Or, why didn't he just stop watching? Back to the sports section, the Tigers signed a pitcher to some $16,000,000 a year contract--for five years, I think. C'mon! Give me a break. I think he's slated, according to the article, to be the fourth or fifth starter. (In a similar, but funny vein, I read an online article about the rich and famous. No, I don't know why. But this one family, with a home of 31,000 sq ft--you read that right--is adding on to the home because, as the article noted, it "needed the room." True story......) And some U of M football player, "basically a good person," was suspended from the team's bowl game for "violations of team rules." This "basically a good person" was also suspended from the team in 2010 and 2011. Yeah, right......
Some sociologist or psychiatrist on the radio this AM noted that the recent spate of mass shootings have been done by young men who expect things to be given to them and, when things aren't given to them, they resent it and react. Boy, we might have big problems ahead! What young men today don't expect to be handed things without earning them or working for them? Isn't that the tenor of today's society--give me what other people have earned? Don't make me work for anything? (That reminds me of a very smart colleague of mine who insisted, years ago, parents' mantra had become, "Give my kid a good grade, but don't make him work for it.") How are we going to instill the idea of working, of earning, to get things after several decades of give-aways? I understand, although I don't capitulate, students who are upset with bad grades in my classes, even when they do little or nothing. They've never had to work before, never had to earn their grades before. Why should things be different now?
I heard a caller on another show, maybe Bill Bennett's?, note that 40 and 50 years ago, kids went outside to play, at the park or playground, in the yard, on the street. Now, he said, kids go home from school and immediately turn on the video game or some other electronic device. Kids don't learn to interact with people/other kids. Another caller talked about "The Peter Pan Syndrome" among our young adults--they don't want to grow up. Growing up entails facing responsibilities, failing and having to get up and go at it again, looking out for others instead just oneself. Hmmmmmm...... That's worth some thinking, isn't it?
I'm still laughing, although it hurts, at the state legislature. Because of the results of Proposition 2, the house and senate (and governor) felt compelled to enact a "right-to-work" law. That's because "the voters indicated what they wanted and we're giving that to them." Yet, the Lansing Loons voted for another emergency manager law, after the voters rejected it in the election. I guess the legislators and governor know what the voters want better than the voters themselves. If all this weren't so serious and potentially damaging to self-government, it'd be funny to watch the hypocritical Republicans steal pages from the hypocritical Democrats' playbook. And, anyone who doesn't see this is either a hypocrite, too, or very dense. Maybe, though, they are just arrogant elitists.
I wonder about those pro-choice people. It seems to me those who are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion are very much "anti-choice" when it comes to gun ownership and schools. So, I guess, a mother can choose to kill her unborn baby, but can't choose what school her born baby can attend? Need I say anything about guns and abortion?
Mitch Rapp. Jack Reacher. John Puller. Are there any better characters out there today? Rizzoli and Isles (in the novels, not the boob tube show) and Myron Bolitar (and his sidekick Win) are close runners-up.
Out to bake blueberry/banana muffins. Ashley says, "I love to bake!" If time, maybe Bopper and I can go for a walk--a mile or two in the dark to see the Chris lights.
Terras Irradient.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Politics, Not Economics
As if the hypocrites in Lansing needed anything to show that they are, well, hypocrites consider this.
The state legislature and governor rushed through the "right-to-work" law. One of their reasons was to "follow through" on the Nov. 6 "mandate" of the people in defeating the "collective bargaining" proposition. In other words, the legislature was merely following the wishes of the people, as indicated in the election.
So, then, why did these same people rush through an emergency manager law? The voters, on Nov. 6, shot down the old emergency manager legislation by rejecting that proposition. Hmmmmmm......
Apparently there is a bit of a disconnection in deciphering the "people's will." And who said, "We are doing this for Michigan." No, no...politics had nothing to do with either piece of legislation.
And, remember, this is a lame duck session. Why do they never seem to be in any kind of a rush during the rest of the year? As I said before, a pox on both of their houses. Throw all the bums out!
The state legislature and governor rushed through the "right-to-work" law. One of their reasons was to "follow through" on the Nov. 6 "mandate" of the people in defeating the "collective bargaining" proposition. In other words, the legislature was merely following the wishes of the people, as indicated in the election.
So, then, why did these same people rush through an emergency manager law? The voters, on Nov. 6, shot down the old emergency manager legislation by rejecting that proposition. Hmmmmmm......
Apparently there is a bit of a disconnection in deciphering the "people's will." And who said, "We are doing this for Michigan." No, no...politics had nothing to do with either piece of legislation.
And, remember, this is a lame duck session. Why do they never seem to be in any kind of a rush during the rest of the year? As I said before, a pox on both of their houses. Throw all the bums out!
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Honesty and Tolerance
This, from a blog by Burton Folsom, historian and author of several books including FDR Goes to War: "Historian Betty Glad, who wrote Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of
Innocence, began her research 'with an investigation of Hughes’s public
statements, which were then checked against his private papers for possible
discrepancy between his public and private views. None was discovered. . . .'
Imagine that—what Hughes said and believed in private is what he said and
believed in public."
"Imagine that," indeed! What's the old line? "When can you tell if a politician is lying? When he moves his lips."
Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s. It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition. Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression. But what he said publicly and in private were two different things. And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression. What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.
That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters. You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win. And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments. It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades. And, remember, I am not a Republican. But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.
Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education? Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn. Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling. But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities. At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated. And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place. This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape." According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive. The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s. Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject." (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.) A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class. Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive." They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race. So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished. Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?" It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged. This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today. More on that in a near-future blog....
"Imagine that," indeed! What's the old line? "When can you tell if a politician is lying? When he moves his lips."
Folsom goes on to note that, with some notable exceptions, US History was filled with leaders who were honest, men of integrity--until the 1930s. It was FDR, that darling of US History textbooks, who broke that mold, as well as broke the "No Third Term" tradition. Roosevelt openly campaigned, promising again and again, on a 25% reduction in federal spending--that is, to cut taxes to increase spending and alleviate the Depression. But what he said publicly and in private were two different things. And, when he was elected, as we all know, he dramatically increased government spending, much to the detriment of any recovery of the Depression. What he did publicly was what he said privately, not publicly.
That started the litany of politicians, from both parties, of making promises of "giving things" to potential voters. You know, Romney wasn't far off the mark in his assessment of his loss and Obama's win. And, to their shame (although I know there is no shame any longer), other Republicans criticized Romney for his post-election comments. It was yet another sign of Republican wimpiness, wimpiness that has been evident for the past couple of decades. And, remember, I am not a Republican. But this, more than the oft-quoted excuses by the so-called political experts (boy, isn't that an oxymoron!), is why the Republicans fail more often than they should.
Is there any less tolerant institution in the US than education? Of course, we all know how it is in public schools, where criticism or contrary ideas are met with scorn. Even questioning the often idiotic programs and policies will bring labels that are close to black-balling. But even consider what are supposed to be the bastions of free speech, the marketplace of ideas and free expression--the colleges and universities. At the University of Michigan, many times conservative professors have indicated how their ideas are treated with scorn, not tolerated. And the U of M is not the only place where unwelcome speakers--mostly conservatives--are prevented from speaking, either by shout-downs or even no invitations in the first place. This is the place that has a professor who claims that any sexual relations between men and women, even married couples, is "rape." According to George Will, an Indian university "convicted" one of its students for reading a book that had a cover some other students found offensive. The cover portray Klansmen in full regalia, although the book tells the story of the Klan's defeat at the hands of Notre Dame students back in the '20s. Apparently someone's sensibilities were offended and the university administration came down on this reading student for "openly reading a book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject." (Yes, folks, these are the types of people running our schools and they have been for decades.) A few years ago, a local community college professor was disciplined for using the word "niggardly" in class. Despite the fact that the word has no derivation or reference to race, some students found the term "offensive." They obviously didn't know the meaning of the word, which again has nothing to do with race. So, instead of castigating the students for their ignorance, the professor was punished. Whatever happened to the concept of "free exhange of ideas?" It has disappeared, overwhelmed by the new principle that no students are ever to have their sensibilities offended (even if those sensibilites are flawed or based on ignorance) or challenged. This disappearance, I think, goes a long way to explaining where American society is today. More on that in a near-future blog....
Monday, December 3, 2012
Sometimes I Just Wonder...
...what kind of people make decisions that affect all of us. Recently the US Court of Appeals ruled that part of Michigan's bottle/can deposit law is unconstitutional. The state law requires that bottles and cans be identified as being sold in Michigan, for purposes of the bottle deposits. I guess there was some Steinfield episode that mocked this?????? Well, I hope there is a Steinfield episode that mocks this decision.
I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws. What does that have to do with anything? Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment? Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best. With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it! If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.
And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce? Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels. Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes. Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?
The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts." Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!
And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned. That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut. Huh? That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'" As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10. Therefore I lost 10 pounds." Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.
Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others? Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted? I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game." Ha Ha. Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials? Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies? Do they have to give back the profits? Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships? Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships? After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles. Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere? "Integrity of the game?!?!?!" Ha Ha, what a joke!
I guess the court's opinion mentioned something about only nine states have bottle/can deposit laws. What does that have to do with anything? Haven't these Constitutional dolts heard of the 10th Amendment? Oh, I forget, judges are now on the benches to impose their own views of what is best or not best. With all the crap/litter on the roads with the deposit law on the books, imagine how much more trash would be out there without it! If you can't imagine, go to Indiana, for one place, to see.
And what does a "Michigan" label on a bottle or can have to do with restraint of interstate commerce? Maybe our cars should no longer have "Made in Highland Park, Illinois" labels. Maybe there shouldn't be any sales taxes. Don't they restrain trade by increasing the prices?
The best part was the suggestion that, instead of having the "Michigan" imprint, to ensure bottles weren't coming from other states, those without deposits, consumers could "save their receipts." Yes, the dolts actually wrote that!
And, I still wonder at our members of Congress who define a "spending cut" as, not actually decreasing spending, but just not increasing it as much as planned. That is, if the original increase in spending was to be 20%, but the actual increase is only 15%, that's considered a cut. Huh? That leads one to ask the question, "When is a 'spending cut' not a 'spending cut?'" As noted in a recent column, that's akin to saying, "I wanted to gain 20 pounds, but I only gained 10. Therefore I lost 10 pounds." Yeah, "lost ten pounds" even though I now weigh ten pounds more than I did.
Will the baseball Hall of Fame voters select the "roid" abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, and others? Who knows, although an informal poll showed none are likely to be inducted? I laugh when I hear about "the integrity of the game." Ha Ha. Where is the integrity with ten minutes between innings for television commercials? Where is the integrity of the game when the owners made millions off of gate receipts from people coming to watch the druggies? Do they have to give back the profits? Where is the integrity of the game concerning championships? Will pennants and titles have to be taken down and returned if these druggies contributed to those championships? After all, since they are Hall candidates, they must have played pretty big roles. Where is the integrity of the game when players sign here and sign there, barely getting their bags unpacked before leaving for more money elsewhere? "Integrity of the game?!?!?!" Ha Ha, what a joke!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Electoral College
There was a good op-ed piece in the newspaper by a columnist from the Washington Post. It was good because it once again demonstrated the situation ethics/principles of many progressives. First, the guy used the results of the Electoral College to claim that Americans want the federal government to do what Obama is doing. He pointed to the 332-206 Obama margin, if not a landslide, then at least a sizable win. How convenient to use the Electoral College results this way! That 100+ vote margin shows what the vast majority of Americans want. Gee, these progressives were whistling a far different tune in 2000 when their guy, Algore, won the popular vote, but lost in the Electoral College. Yep, it was a far different tune back then. And, how convenient to ignore the popular vote this time, the difference less than 2%! Hmmmm.... That's a majority, but hardly a significant one.
And, I know what people will say when I write this (oh, how I know!). I am not at all convinced the election was tainted by fraud, a lot of it. Logic tells me that suburban precincts in Ohio, in Virginia, and elsewhere did not vote 100% for Obama, as reported. You mean, Romney didn't get a single vote in some suburban settings? I'll never believe that. And how odd the screams about voter fraud were deafening in 2000. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway; I don't know. I am saying I fully believe there was fraud. Of course, I can't prove it.
And, I know what people will say when I write this (oh, how I know!). I am not at all convinced the election was tainted by fraud, a lot of it. Logic tells me that suburban precincts in Ohio, in Virginia, and elsewhere did not vote 100% for Obama, as reported. You mean, Romney didn't get a single vote in some suburban settings? I'll never believe that. And how odd the screams about voter fraud were deafening in 2000. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway; I don't know. I am saying I fully believe there was fraud. Of course, I can't prove it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
