There are 35 college football bowls involving 70 (35 bowls times 2 teams per bowl; I used my calculator) Division 1 teams. According to a newspaper article I read today, only "8 or 10" teams will make money from their bowl games. In fact, a good number will lose millions of dollars. Hmmm......
So, who's raking in all that money? Why do teams--maybe 85% of more of them--play bowl games if it costs them big bucks?
No doubt, coaches will laud the extra practice time, four weeks or more, and the national exposure for their programs (not to mention any bowl-appearance bonus clauses in their contracts?). Some will note the reward for players, a "reward" for mediocrity in most instances. If there are 119 Division 1 teams, almost 60% of them go to bowls (I kept my calculator handy.). What kind of "excellence" is that?
No, I haven't seen any of the bowl games yet, although I know some have been played. And, as of now, I have no plans to watch any, although Michigan State might draw my attention on New Year's Day after the New Year's Eve gala. In fact, I chuckled to myself as I read the newspaper article. It mentioned "the national championship game." I don't know which bowl is hosting "the national championship game" and I can't remember which two teams are playing in it, if I ever knew.
Regarding professional football and the Detroit Lions, Karen was out shopping last Sunday afternoon, but had been listening to the game on her car radio. I wasn't watching here. She came in and put on the game, toward the end with the Lions winning, but not for long. She made a comment that the opposing team (I don't remember who it was) "shouldn't worry." And, she was right. The Lions lost in OT. But, to me, that's neither here nor there. I don't think I've watched any of the Lions' games in their entirety all season and maybe only parts of half a dozen of them. (I did watch much of the Philadelphia game only because Matt called from Las Vegas to tell me to put on the game--because of the snow storm. That was fun to watch!) My point is different. Karen and I attended four parties or large gatherings this Chris week or so, since last Sun. There were no, absolutely (and hasn't that become an overused word, bordering triteness?) none, conversations regarding the Lions--none good, none bad, none neutral. I find that interesting, more so than the games.
My Comcast home page had an article about the 48 "celebrities" who died in '13. On a lark, I went to it and counted up the names I knew or marginally recognized. I came up with 19! And, if I thought the name was familiar, I counted it. I wonder if I'm that far "out of it" or if we have dumbed down our definition of "celebrity." I don't discount either.
And, I'm just wondering, if President Obama can ignore enforcement (which is his Constitutional duty, with an oath taken to uphold that duty) of certain parts of "established law" (his words), can some future President ignore an entire law completely? And, in that same vein, can law enforcement officials/officers, if they don't like legislation, refuse to enforce it? I am reminded of two Presidents, one usually lauded by historians and the other given so-so marks, although usually with the proviso of being "a nice guy." When Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supremes made a ruling that Andrew Jackson didn't like, his comment was, "John Marshall has made his opinion. Now let's see him enforce it." When the Earl Warren Court handed down a decision that Dwight Eisenhower disapproved, he announced his disapproval, but also that it was the law of the land and he had a duty to enforce it, which he did. (Historians rank Jackson in the top half dozen or so and Eisenhower barely in the upper half of the pack. I disagree.) Regardless, such a practice, to selectively enforce or not enforce, sets a bad precedent.
Back to my biog of Frederick the Great, who, so far (more than a quarter of the way into the book--154 pages) is anything but "great."
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
Getting it right
The other day there was a letter-to-the-editor in a local newspaper that took a union leader (MEA?) to task for presenting an issue in contrast to the facts. The letter-writer pointed out the inaccuracies, factual not philosophical or political. That's fine; the truth is good.
Today the newspaper decided to turn the other cheek and allow a column by one attacking teachers' unions. They, that is, the unions should be held accountable for the low performances on international test scores by US students. Nobody has been as critical of many of today's teachers as I. There needs to be improvement in that area if education is to improve. And, I had my share of disagreements with both the local and state teachers' unions when I was a member here. But to accuse teachers' unions for the poor performances of US students on international tests is simplistic to the point of the ridiculous.
Of course, as has become de rigeur, critics always point to greater US spending on education and lower test scores, implying that teachers are overpaid--and many of them are, while many are vastly underpaid. What a silly argument, from this guy and from anyone who makes it. US automakers make more money than their foreign counterparts. US doctors and lawyers make more money than those in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. Let's go right down the list...... Sure, US teachers make more money than teachers in other countries. So do other American workers vis-a-vis foreign workers.
And, again so simplistically, no other factors are considered. Americans don't value education, not like they used to value it. Oh, students and their parents want good grades, but don't want to work to learn the things that earn good grades. It's as if the students are entitled to good grades. Look at our society and who gets the highest pay. I know, I know--there aren't many of the athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types who make the big bucks without a quality education. But that's not the point. The athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types are glorified, held up as models as if there can be many of them. Parents let their children engage in activities that shorten their attention spans. And quality education often requires lengthy periods of concentration.
Now part of this problem is directly related to educational practices of the past three or four decades. Teachers have reinforced the "entitlement" mentality. Opinions are as valid as facts. Feelings are more important than reasoning. Self-concept and self-image have replaced actual achievement. Instead of taking the lead in education, teachers and administrators have jumped on the "what's new today?" bandwagon, signing on to the latest and greatest trendy garbage.
And, this writer has it all wrong. Unions do not make it impossible to fire teachers, incompetent ones. And that's a good thing. Why should teachers be subject to dismissal by incompetent administrators, often lacking in integrity and the knowledge of what encompasses quality education? (The argument that, "Private sector workers can be fired..." is utterly ridiculous. That some people aren't protected from lousy bosses means all workers shouldn't be protected is stupidity to the nth degree.) Teachers can be fired. There's a process, cumbersome as it may be. It requires actual work, documentation, effort, etc.
Is it good that this same newspaper runs op-ed pieces from different sides? Yes, it is. Is it good that it runs these pieces--from diverse sides--even though they are lacking in accuracy or good sense??????
Today the newspaper decided to turn the other cheek and allow a column by one attacking teachers' unions. They, that is, the unions should be held accountable for the low performances on international test scores by US students. Nobody has been as critical of many of today's teachers as I. There needs to be improvement in that area if education is to improve. And, I had my share of disagreements with both the local and state teachers' unions when I was a member here. But to accuse teachers' unions for the poor performances of US students on international tests is simplistic to the point of the ridiculous.
Of course, as has become de rigeur, critics always point to greater US spending on education and lower test scores, implying that teachers are overpaid--and many of them are, while many are vastly underpaid. What a silly argument, from this guy and from anyone who makes it. US automakers make more money than their foreign counterparts. US doctors and lawyers make more money than those in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia. Let's go right down the list...... Sure, US teachers make more money than teachers in other countries. So do other American workers vis-a-vis foreign workers.
And, again so simplistically, no other factors are considered. Americans don't value education, not like they used to value it. Oh, students and their parents want good grades, but don't want to work to learn the things that earn good grades. It's as if the students are entitled to good grades. Look at our society and who gets the highest pay. I know, I know--there aren't many of the athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types who make the big bucks without a quality education. But that's not the point. The athletes, hippy rock stars, and Hollywood-types are glorified, held up as models as if there can be many of them. Parents let their children engage in activities that shorten their attention spans. And quality education often requires lengthy periods of concentration.
Now part of this problem is directly related to educational practices of the past three or four decades. Teachers have reinforced the "entitlement" mentality. Opinions are as valid as facts. Feelings are more important than reasoning. Self-concept and self-image have replaced actual achievement. Instead of taking the lead in education, teachers and administrators have jumped on the "what's new today?" bandwagon, signing on to the latest and greatest trendy garbage.
And, this writer has it all wrong. Unions do not make it impossible to fire teachers, incompetent ones. And that's a good thing. Why should teachers be subject to dismissal by incompetent administrators, often lacking in integrity and the knowledge of what encompasses quality education? (The argument that, "Private sector workers can be fired..." is utterly ridiculous. That some people aren't protected from lousy bosses means all workers shouldn't be protected is stupidity to the nth degree.) Teachers can be fired. There's a process, cumbersome as it may be. It requires actual work, documentation, effort, etc.
Is it good that this same newspaper runs op-ed pieces from different sides? Yes, it is. Is it good that it runs these pieces--from diverse sides--even though they are lacking in accuracy or good sense??????
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Random Thoughts...
...after a bowl of ice cream with the kids.
So the Ilitch family is getting a deal with Detroit for land for a new arena and other developments. It's quite a deal, too, from what I gather. A likely $84 million tax bill has been bargained down to $6. But, of course, the city and businessmen tout the economic benefits of such, frankly, corporate welfare. If the arena and surrounding development is such a good idea, that is, will bring a lot of money to the Ilitches, why don't the Ilitches finance it? Lord knows that they have enough money. But study after study, report after report, show that the net gain for such deals is minimal, if any net gain at all! If the deals for Joe Louis, Tiger Stadium, and where the Lions play (I forget the name) are so good for the city, where are the financial gains? That is, why is the city of Detroit still in such a hole? I guess it's another example of "Yell first and yell loudest!" I hope I'm wrong......
In eleven months we'll elect a governor, returning the incumbent or installing a new one. Talk about a Hobson's Choice! It's a choice, yet again, of a Republican I don't think should be governor and a Democrat who I don't think should be governor. The current governor, it will be claimed, has turned around the state of Michigan, with numbers outpacing those nationally. I think that's wrong and that the Republicans will misstate the results of the Snyder efforts. Michigan is better, marginally, than it was three years ago, but only marginally. And much of that economic success isn't due to the governor's programs, but to the auto makers rebates and low interest loans for buying and leasing. Of course, there is also the underhanded way much of the governor's agenda was passed by the Republicans in the state legislature. If any of the state Republicans were critical of the way, say, ObamaCare was passed by the Democrats in DC, then they'd better be equally critical of what happened in Lansing. But, perhaps hypocrisy in politics is the norm, hardly a characteristic of which to be ashamed, as if there's any sense of shame anywhere anyway. And the Democrat, Schauer, seems like a typical Democrat. He thinks the government is the answer to everything, that is, as the Temptations once sang, "More taxes will solve everything." I don't think I can vote for either one......
A columnist in the newspaper this AM announced that ObamaCare "is doomed." Now, this guy is a big, big supporter of Obama and ObamaCare. And he begins to take it apart, often correctly identifying the flaws inherent in the law. And, without being critical, he also notes how the President is breaking the law by allowing some people to disobey it--but, that's OK, it's Obama. Then the guy ends by blaming the whole disaster, not on the law, so hastily and blindly passed, so clumsily and ineptly authored, not on Obama and the Congressional Democrats who had no idea what was in it (At least I hope they had no idea because, if they did, they are far more stupid than I think they are.). No, he blames the failure on those who tried to subvert it from the go, although they had no real power to do so--the Republicans were outnumbered. Yep, it's the opponents of the law and their lack of effort to enact it which doomed the law. Nowhere does the guy mention that, always, a majority of Americans were opposed to it. Now that number is in excess of 70% against it. Nope, the problem wasn't the Democrats who passed it despite the unpopularity of the bill. And that they passed it under nefarious methods. Nope, it wasn't that it is logically unsustainable, dependent on forcing people who don't want or need the more expensive health care to buy it. If the young, healthy people don't pay the big premiums, ObamaCare falls flat on its face. The insurers can't afford to pay the bills of the chronically ill, of those who opt not to take care of themselves, to lead healthy lifestyles if the healthy people don't pay for the others. Nope, it wasn't that people are, unconstitutionally (regardless of the idiotic opinion of Justice Roberts and his colleagues), forced to buy a product they may or may not want. Nope it wasn't any of that. It was the opponents of all this stuff. Now, there's some great logic! It makes one wonder who picks these column writers.
And what's the deal with this Duck Dynasty guy? A lot of people are up in arms over his firing. At least I guess he was dismissed. Oh, what about this guy's freedom of speech, his freedom of religion? Hey, nobody stopped him from speaking--he spoke. And his speech had consequences. His network (and I don't know what it is because I've never seen the show and don't plan to see it) then exercised its freedom by firing the guy. Why does the Duck guy have freedoms, but the station/network doesn't? He can believe, he can say what he wants. Then he has to pay the consequences if there are any. I don't have to agree with what the guy says and believes and I don't. I, too, can exercise my freedoms by not watching, by boycotting the networks' sponsors, etc. That's how freedoms work.
So the Ilitch family is getting a deal with Detroit for land for a new arena and other developments. It's quite a deal, too, from what I gather. A likely $84 million tax bill has been bargained down to $6. But, of course, the city and businessmen tout the economic benefits of such, frankly, corporate welfare. If the arena and surrounding development is such a good idea, that is, will bring a lot of money to the Ilitches, why don't the Ilitches finance it? Lord knows that they have enough money. But study after study, report after report, show that the net gain for such deals is minimal, if any net gain at all! If the deals for Joe Louis, Tiger Stadium, and where the Lions play (I forget the name) are so good for the city, where are the financial gains? That is, why is the city of Detroit still in such a hole? I guess it's another example of "Yell first and yell loudest!" I hope I'm wrong......
In eleven months we'll elect a governor, returning the incumbent or installing a new one. Talk about a Hobson's Choice! It's a choice, yet again, of a Republican I don't think should be governor and a Democrat who I don't think should be governor. The current governor, it will be claimed, has turned around the state of Michigan, with numbers outpacing those nationally. I think that's wrong and that the Republicans will misstate the results of the Snyder efforts. Michigan is better, marginally, than it was three years ago, but only marginally. And much of that economic success isn't due to the governor's programs, but to the auto makers rebates and low interest loans for buying and leasing. Of course, there is also the underhanded way much of the governor's agenda was passed by the Republicans in the state legislature. If any of the state Republicans were critical of the way, say, ObamaCare was passed by the Democrats in DC, then they'd better be equally critical of what happened in Lansing. But, perhaps hypocrisy in politics is the norm, hardly a characteristic of which to be ashamed, as if there's any sense of shame anywhere anyway. And the Democrat, Schauer, seems like a typical Democrat. He thinks the government is the answer to everything, that is, as the Temptations once sang, "More taxes will solve everything." I don't think I can vote for either one......
A columnist in the newspaper this AM announced that ObamaCare "is doomed." Now, this guy is a big, big supporter of Obama and ObamaCare. And he begins to take it apart, often correctly identifying the flaws inherent in the law. And, without being critical, he also notes how the President is breaking the law by allowing some people to disobey it--but, that's OK, it's Obama. Then the guy ends by blaming the whole disaster, not on the law, so hastily and blindly passed, so clumsily and ineptly authored, not on Obama and the Congressional Democrats who had no idea what was in it (At least I hope they had no idea because, if they did, they are far more stupid than I think they are.). No, he blames the failure on those who tried to subvert it from the go, although they had no real power to do so--the Republicans were outnumbered. Yep, it's the opponents of the law and their lack of effort to enact it which doomed the law. Nowhere does the guy mention that, always, a majority of Americans were opposed to it. Now that number is in excess of 70% against it. Nope, the problem wasn't the Democrats who passed it despite the unpopularity of the bill. And that they passed it under nefarious methods. Nope, it wasn't that it is logically unsustainable, dependent on forcing people who don't want or need the more expensive health care to buy it. If the young, healthy people don't pay the big premiums, ObamaCare falls flat on its face. The insurers can't afford to pay the bills of the chronically ill, of those who opt not to take care of themselves, to lead healthy lifestyles if the healthy people don't pay for the others. Nope, it wasn't that people are, unconstitutionally (regardless of the idiotic opinion of Justice Roberts and his colleagues), forced to buy a product they may or may not want. Nope it wasn't any of that. It was the opponents of all this stuff. Now, there's some great logic! It makes one wonder who picks these column writers.
And what's the deal with this Duck Dynasty guy? A lot of people are up in arms over his firing. At least I guess he was dismissed. Oh, what about this guy's freedom of speech, his freedom of religion? Hey, nobody stopped him from speaking--he spoke. And his speech had consequences. His network (and I don't know what it is because I've never seen the show and don't plan to see it) then exercised its freedom by firing the guy. Why does the Duck guy have freedoms, but the station/network doesn't? He can believe, he can say what he wants. Then he has to pay the consequences if there are any. I don't have to agree with what the guy says and believes and I don't. I, too, can exercise my freedoms by not watching, by boycotting the networks' sponsors, etc. That's how freedoms work.
Our Most Eloquent President
William Seward wrote, "guardian angel of the nation." Our most eloquent President changed that to "the better angels of our nature." Seward suggested "ancient music." The President-elect decided on "mystic chords of memory."
Instead of "87 years ago" or even "In 1776," he penned "Four score and seven years ago...."
Gee, did I fool anyone? Of course, despite the silly rhetoric about our current President, Abraham Lincoln remains, hands down, our most eloquent President.
And there are other lessons to be learned other than not believing what the Kool-Aid drinkers write and say. Lincoln didn't just write these things off the top of his head. He often thought and thought, over days and sometimes weeks, about what he'd write or say. He researched his ideas and, frequently submitted them (as he did to Seward) to others to discover better ideas, if there were any. That is, he worked hard at what he wrote and said because, as he knew, ideas and words matter. He was tolerant of different ideas, listening to them, perhaps finding them to be superior to his own, in small ways or big. Opposition should not be silenced (although I'm familiar with the contradictions Lincoln had in the Civil War, perhaps justifiable under the circumstances!).
I'm really appreciative that one of my students gave me a book of Lincoln's speeches. I, of course, can find them in different books. But this book of Lincoln's speeches has them all together, in one place.
Instead of "87 years ago" or even "In 1776," he penned "Four score and seven years ago...."
Gee, did I fool anyone? Of course, despite the silly rhetoric about our current President, Abraham Lincoln remains, hands down, our most eloquent President.
And there are other lessons to be learned other than not believing what the Kool-Aid drinkers write and say. Lincoln didn't just write these things off the top of his head. He often thought and thought, over days and sometimes weeks, about what he'd write or say. He researched his ideas and, frequently submitted them (as he did to Seward) to others to discover better ideas, if there were any. That is, he worked hard at what he wrote and said because, as he knew, ideas and words matter. He was tolerant of different ideas, listening to them, perhaps finding them to be superior to his own, in small ways or big. Opposition should not be silenced (although I'm familiar with the contradictions Lincoln had in the Civil War, perhaps justifiable under the circumstances!).
I'm really appreciative that one of my students gave me a book of Lincoln's speeches. I, of course, can find them in different books. But this book of Lincoln's speeches has them all together, in one place.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
College Sports
The college bowl season is upon us (or, rather, some of you). The money will come flowing in to the colleges. And, after the hype of the bowl games cools a bit, there will be more talk of paying the college athletes, namely the football and basketball players.
Despite all of the money that Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and like universities get from football and basketball, most Division I schools I am told actually lose money. Oh, the big conferences like the SEC and Big Ten (How can it be called "Big Ten" when there are more than ten schools?) still roll in football and basketball dollars. But those not fortunate enough to be in one of those five or six conferences struggle. I'd guess that's why, say, the University of Maryland dropped out of the ACC, with its traditional rivals, to join the Big Ten. So, I think it's important to remember that many Division I schools have financial problems with their athletics, including football and basketball.
Now, as to paying college athletes, particularly basketball and football players, consider this. The average Division I basketball college spends just under $40,000 for each player. And Kentucky dishes out well over $200,000 for each player. All this is according to the US Dept of Ed. In football, Ohio State doles out $109,000 per player, with more than 100 players on the team. $109,000? $217,000? What do these individual players get?????? And some are claiming it's only right to pay these kids?
This will never happen, but Division I should take some tips from Division II and, especially, Division III. Sports, esp football and basketball, but some others in some conferences and at some schools, need to be de-emphasized. Money, of course, will prevent that. But for colleges, Divs II and III should be the model. And, at least at Div III schools, the players go to class and do the work!
While I am at it, I might be the only guy in the US who doesn't care for a Division I playoff to determine an ultimate champion. Who cares? Bring back the old traditional bowl games, with the four big daddies on New Year's Day. Then, imagine the great debates the rest of the year over who was really the best!
I, for one, will not be caught up in the bowl frenzy and, at present, have no plans to watch any of the games.
Despite all of the money that Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, and like universities get from football and basketball, most Division I schools I am told actually lose money. Oh, the big conferences like the SEC and Big Ten (How can it be called "Big Ten" when there are more than ten schools?) still roll in football and basketball dollars. But those not fortunate enough to be in one of those five or six conferences struggle. I'd guess that's why, say, the University of Maryland dropped out of the ACC, with its traditional rivals, to join the Big Ten. So, I think it's important to remember that many Division I schools have financial problems with their athletics, including football and basketball.
Now, as to paying college athletes, particularly basketball and football players, consider this. The average Division I basketball college spends just under $40,000 for each player. And Kentucky dishes out well over $200,000 for each player. All this is according to the US Dept of Ed. In football, Ohio State doles out $109,000 per player, with more than 100 players on the team. $109,000? $217,000? What do these individual players get?????? And some are claiming it's only right to pay these kids?
This will never happen, but Division I should take some tips from Division II and, especially, Division III. Sports, esp football and basketball, but some others in some conferences and at some schools, need to be de-emphasized. Money, of course, will prevent that. But for colleges, Divs II and III should be the model. And, at least at Div III schools, the players go to class and do the work!
While I am at it, I might be the only guy in the US who doesn't care for a Division I playoff to determine an ultimate champion. Who cares? Bring back the old traditional bowl games, with the four big daddies on New Year's Day. Then, imagine the great debates the rest of the year over who was really the best!
I, for one, will not be caught up in the bowl frenzy and, at present, have no plans to watch any of the games.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Education and Government
I believe there is a direct relationship between education and government, more specifically, quality education and good government. The better educated the people are in a democracy, the better government they will have. Teachers are not there for students, directly, but to mold them to be good citizens. That is, education is there for society, to keep it strong and vibrant. Being students' friends, building self-esteem, and all that other rigmarole that has invaded education ("Follow the money.") over the past three or four decades has been deleterious, in direct contradistinction of education's purpose.
Here is a good essay on the topic: http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current
I sometimes disagree with ideas coming from Hillsdale. Occasionally it seems the place, both on campus and in its literature, contradicts its own values, that is, tolerance for opposing views. But this is a good essay, well worth the ten minutes it takes to read it.
The essay's comparison of government--then and now, right and wrong--is spot on. Imagine the idiocy (and I mean that) of Obama's interview a couple of weeks ago when he said that government is sometimes too big to get anything done correctly. He was, of course, trying to explain away the ObamaCare signup snafu. Perhaps he wasn't even aware of what he was saying, in a larger context. But of course it's too big. Consider, as the essay does, modern laws that are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages long. Have you ever tried to deal with the IRS or the VA or even the state DMV, to actually talk to someone who can give a definitive answer? And more than two weeks later, my Medicare application hasn't been approved. (I was told "five days.") I could make a snide/sarcastic comment here, but I will refrain from it.
Here is a good essay on the topic: http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/current
I sometimes disagree with ideas coming from Hillsdale. Occasionally it seems the place, both on campus and in its literature, contradicts its own values, that is, tolerance for opposing views. But this is a good essay, well worth the ten minutes it takes to read it.
The views of the author on education are those I've expounded for, what, 30 years or more, to little avail. What the essay calls "core," not at all to be associated with "Common Core," is what I've termed, again and again, the rigors required for a quality education. Instead of this "core," trendy things from Outcomes-Based Education and Values Clarification to the current Common Core have taken precedence, to the detriment of quality education. And the trend things are backed by money, "follow the money."
The essay's comparison of government--then and now, right and wrong--is spot on. Imagine the idiocy (and I mean that) of Obama's interview a couple of weeks ago when he said that government is sometimes too big to get anything done correctly. He was, of course, trying to explain away the ObamaCare signup snafu. Perhaps he wasn't even aware of what he was saying, in a larger context. But of course it's too big. Consider, as the essay does, modern laws that are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages long. Have you ever tried to deal with the IRS or the VA or even the state DMV, to actually talk to someone who can give a definitive answer? And more than two weeks later, my Medicare application hasn't been approved. (I was told "five days.") I could make a snide/sarcastic comment here, but I will refrain from it.
Reforming education and government doesn't necessarily require something new or even "doing something." It could be as simple as not doing anything, that is, returning to what worked and worked well in the past. (Of course, as my letter in the newspaper earlier in the week noted, "Follow the money." Who stands to make money, a lot of it, by pushing reform, reform, reform. That will explain a lot.)
Boehner?
It just dawned on me this AM. The bill passed by the House of Representatives included the cuts to military veterans' pensions. The cuts could have been stopped/eliminated right then and there. Hmmm...... Who controls the House? It think it's the Speaker. And, who's the Speaker? Oh, it's John Boehner. Yep, Boehner could have given the veteran pensioners what they had coming. But, he didn't. I guess maybe he was too busy criticizing members of his own party to realize what is in the Ryan/Murray scam--or, as a former Speaker infamously said, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
Democrats or Establishment Republicans (and when I use that term, it's not complimentary), it doesn't matter. They are both wrong for this country.
Again, where's my Third Party to rescue us?????? That is, if anyone cares.
Democrats or Establishment Republicans (and when I use that term, it's not complimentary), it doesn't matter. They are both wrong for this country.
Again, where's my Third Party to rescue us?????? That is, if anyone cares.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
A Lesson to Be Learned...
...if only one would take heed.
It must have been in Las Vegas where I read a column--I've forgotten the author, forgetfulness no longer a rarity with me--that would serve as a great teacher or, at least, teaching tool.
The columnist was trying to make a case for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. It was a typical argument coming from the Left: ascribe a ridiculous position to an opponent, whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant, and then call the position ridiculous, as only the arrogant elitists can do.
He made several arguments, if I recall correctly, to illustrate this. First, since whenever he cited, worker productivity has doubled; therefore, so should wages. What a silly non sequitur! Have all workers' jobs doubled in productivity? Of course they haven't, esp the low-wage, minimum-wage jobs. Then, he equates the argument of some that there should be no minimum wage, that the free market should determine wages, to slavery. I'm not arguing for or against a minimum wage here, but this guy is a fool.
Of course, one can't have a dialogue with people like this. They and they alone know the absolute truths--about everything.
For the record, the call for a minimum wage to $15 or even $12 is utterly nonsensical! That my wife runs an elementary school and doesn't make $15 an hour is all the argument I need. The argument that one can't raise a family on the minimum wage reflects more about that person than the minimum wage law.
It must have been in Las Vegas where I read a column--I've forgotten the author, forgetfulness no longer a rarity with me--that would serve as a great teacher or, at least, teaching tool.
The columnist was trying to make a case for an increase in the minimum wage to $15. It was a typical argument coming from the Left: ascribe a ridiculous position to an opponent, whether it's accurate or not is irrelevant, and then call the position ridiculous, as only the arrogant elitists can do.
He made several arguments, if I recall correctly, to illustrate this. First, since whenever he cited, worker productivity has doubled; therefore, so should wages. What a silly non sequitur! Have all workers' jobs doubled in productivity? Of course they haven't, esp the low-wage, minimum-wage jobs. Then, he equates the argument of some that there should be no minimum wage, that the free market should determine wages, to slavery. I'm not arguing for or against a minimum wage here, but this guy is a fool.
Of course, one can't have a dialogue with people like this. They and they alone know the absolute truths--about everything.
For the record, the call for a minimum wage to $15 or even $12 is utterly nonsensical! That my wife runs an elementary school and doesn't make $15 an hour is all the argument I need. The argument that one can't raise a family on the minimum wage reflects more about that person than the minimum wage law.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Cont'd....
If things like this weren't so pathetic, they'd be hilarious.
Can you imagine someone like John Boehner saying of the critics of the Ryan/Murray budget bill (a "compromise" it isn't!), "They've lost all credibility." Again, if this wasn't so pathetic, it would be a riot. But can many on Capitol Hill have lost any more credibility than Boehner? Some supporters of the budget bill (Remember, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in about three years. There's some great leadership by Harry Reid, heh? Of course, we all know he's playing games.) have acquiesced, claiming, "It's better than nothing." What a dumb thing to say! First, is "nothing" the only alternative? Certainly it isn't. Second, no this isn't better than "nothing." It's a bad deal that adds billions of dollars to the deficit, eliminates many of the sequester cuts from last year, raises taxes, and more all with the promise to make cuts eight or ten years up the road. Yeah, now who really believes that? I even heard a House Republican committee chair defend the budget bill in such a way. This is the modus operandi of the Democrats. They get what they want now, with the promises of ceding things in the future. But, funny how none of those promises are ever kept; things are never ceded. And the Republicans fall for it again and again.....
When is a tax not a tax? It's when it's called "a user fee." There are a number of tax increases in this budget bill that are hidden as "user fees." The one on airline tickets is one of them. This House committee chair defended them this AM by saying those who use airplanes should pay for that use; why should people not flying pay for an airline "user fee?" But, what is it that flyers are going to get from this user fee? What service or product will they get from this fee that nonflyers won't also get? I guess if that's the case, then maybe I shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools. My kids have graduated.
And when is a spending decrease not a spending decrease? Again, it's when Congress is speaking. Usually it's the Dems who use this disingenuous if not outright dishonest ploy. They often employ it against those mean-spirited Republicans who want to take things away with spending and tax cuts. Here's how it's working again. There are no cuts in spending. What there are--and only in some cases--there's less of a spending increase than was originally planned. For instance, instead of spending $54 billion more, only $45 billion more will be spent. That's not a cut or decrease; it's just not as big of an increase. And, it's dishonest.
How can Hillary be ahead in the earliest of '16 polls?????? She swamps her potential Dem opponents and pretty easily defeats any of the Republicans. I guess I just don't understand. She not only revealed her lack of character in the past, but as Sec of State showed her incompetence. I'm not saying she isn't smart, certainly a lot smarter than our current White House resident. What I am saying is I can't at all figure out how anyone can vote for her. I'd better watch out what I write......
That recent student shooting in Colo, is that any surprise? The kid was going after a teacher who didn't give the kid what he wanted--a clean record that might help him into the USAF Academy, from what I understand. So, the kid went to kill the teacher because he wasn't getting into the Academy now anyway. I wonder about this one. Did the poor treatment, publicly, of teachers have anything to do with leading this kid to try to kill the teacher? That is, teachers are disrespected, blamed for everything that goes wrong in education (and remember I'm not a real big fan of many teachers). They are vastly overpaid and underworked. Student test scores far below other nations' student test scores are teachers' fault. Teachers are publicly ridiculed--they are the fault of all these bankruptcies. So, they are expendable. Is that what this kid thought? I don't know, but what's offiing a teacher--they're useless anyway? And what have we been teaching kids for the past 30 or more years? That they are the most important things! Schools have told kids, in essence, "God doesn't make any junk" (but he really does, with evidence surrounding us). So, when this kid didn't get what he wanted, well, he went loony-tunes. He's supposed to get what he wants, right? Maybe I'm all wet on this, but maybe those responsible for the above should pause and think about what they are doing and done.
Can you imagine someone like John Boehner saying of the critics of the Ryan/Murray budget bill (a "compromise" it isn't!), "They've lost all credibility." Again, if this wasn't so pathetic, it would be a riot. But can many on Capitol Hill have lost any more credibility than Boehner? Some supporters of the budget bill (Remember, the Senate hasn't passed a budget in about three years. There's some great leadership by Harry Reid, heh? Of course, we all know he's playing games.) have acquiesced, claiming, "It's better than nothing." What a dumb thing to say! First, is "nothing" the only alternative? Certainly it isn't. Second, no this isn't better than "nothing." It's a bad deal that adds billions of dollars to the deficit, eliminates many of the sequester cuts from last year, raises taxes, and more all with the promise to make cuts eight or ten years up the road. Yeah, now who really believes that? I even heard a House Republican committee chair defend the budget bill in such a way. This is the modus operandi of the Democrats. They get what they want now, with the promises of ceding things in the future. But, funny how none of those promises are ever kept; things are never ceded. And the Republicans fall for it again and again.....
When is a tax not a tax? It's when it's called "a user fee." There are a number of tax increases in this budget bill that are hidden as "user fees." The one on airline tickets is one of them. This House committee chair defended them this AM by saying those who use airplanes should pay for that use; why should people not flying pay for an airline "user fee?" But, what is it that flyers are going to get from this user fee? What service or product will they get from this fee that nonflyers won't also get? I guess if that's the case, then maybe I shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools. My kids have graduated.
And when is a spending decrease not a spending decrease? Again, it's when Congress is speaking. Usually it's the Dems who use this disingenuous if not outright dishonest ploy. They often employ it against those mean-spirited Republicans who want to take things away with spending and tax cuts. Here's how it's working again. There are no cuts in spending. What there are--and only in some cases--there's less of a spending increase than was originally planned. For instance, instead of spending $54 billion more, only $45 billion more will be spent. That's not a cut or decrease; it's just not as big of an increase. And, it's dishonest.
How can Hillary be ahead in the earliest of '16 polls?????? She swamps her potential Dem opponents and pretty easily defeats any of the Republicans. I guess I just don't understand. She not only revealed her lack of character in the past, but as Sec of State showed her incompetence. I'm not saying she isn't smart, certainly a lot smarter than our current White House resident. What I am saying is I can't at all figure out how anyone can vote for her. I'd better watch out what I write......
That recent student shooting in Colo, is that any surprise? The kid was going after a teacher who didn't give the kid what he wanted--a clean record that might help him into the USAF Academy, from what I understand. So, the kid went to kill the teacher because he wasn't getting into the Academy now anyway. I wonder about this one. Did the poor treatment, publicly, of teachers have anything to do with leading this kid to try to kill the teacher? That is, teachers are disrespected, blamed for everything that goes wrong in education (and remember I'm not a real big fan of many teachers). They are vastly overpaid and underworked. Student test scores far below other nations' student test scores are teachers' fault. Teachers are publicly ridiculed--they are the fault of all these bankruptcies. So, they are expendable. Is that what this kid thought? I don't know, but what's offiing a teacher--they're useless anyway? And what have we been teaching kids for the past 30 or more years? That they are the most important things! Schools have told kids, in essence, "God doesn't make any junk" (but he really does, with evidence surrounding us). So, when this kid didn't get what he wanted, well, he went loony-tunes. He's supposed to get what he wants, right? Maybe I'm all wet on this, but maybe those responsible for the above should pause and think about what they are doing and done.
Just a Start...
...for today.
Does money excuse hypocrisy? Or, am I too critical? For instance, I heard an ad on a conservative radio station this AM, at least one that has conservative programming/talk show hosts. The ad was being read (delivered) by a purportedly conservative program host. But the ad was for a company that was urging people to take advantage of "free" government money, payments for health insurance. So, a conservative radio station with conservative hosts should be opposed to more government spending (outside of the military, I guess), less government involvement in people's lives (for instance, in health care), and fewer taxes (how the gov't gets this "free" money), shouldn't it? Why, then, would it promote the principles it opposes, at least theoretically? Could it be the advertising dollars being brought in by running the ad, from the sponsoring company? It sure does take away from the image the station tries to promote/portray, at least to me it does. Again, maybe I am too critical or picky (persnickety?).
And, I heard a conservative radio host last night (The alternative was listening to the Lions--no thanks--or some of that lousy music being blared at us) criticize, rightly, Congress for cutting military retirement benefits that had been promised to veterans when they enlisted. "They signed up with the promise that these benefits would be there later in their lives. To deny them that now is despicable." Yet, I've heard this same guy rip on teacher and other public employee benefits, namely pensions. I can't speak for most public employees, but I do know that teachers and secretaries were often told their low pay (with minimal raises) would be balanced out by the good pensions (and their pensions are good) they would receive later. That is, compensation might not be coming now, but would be in the future. So, why is it not OK to renege on some promises, but is desired to break others??????
I'm curious, too, why many on the left (Oh, let's criticize both sides this AM) demonize one who works hard (I know, I know, "Nobody works hard any more.") for years and even decades, invests his money wisely and persistently, and, as a senior citizen ready for retirement, has accumulated several million dollars. He's "greedy," "has made money off the backs of the poor," and worse. What a bad man! But I never hear these same demonizers attack, say, Hollywood-types/ who make several million dollars in a month or two shooting some likely awful movie. Nope, these actors and actresses (I still refuse to call women "actors.") are "hard-working," "earn their money," etc. So, digging a ditch, teaching students, running a mom-and-pop store, creating ads or keeping books, etc. isn't "working hard" or "earning money?" I wonder what the difference could possibly be?????? Oh, I know what it is. Look at the politics, no farther.
This "actors/actresses" thing reminds me of a story, several years (OK, several decades) ago. I am ashamed to admit I was serving on a school committee--shame on me! But I was naive (stupid?), enough so that I thought they might make differences. Anyway, the chair of the committee was a woman and I thoughtlessly said something about the "chairman." I quickly caught myself and repeated, "Sorry, chairwoman." It wasn't at all snide or sarcastic, but the reply from the chairwoman was. "It's 'chairperson," she responded with great indignance and officiousness. "Oh," I said in repeating my apologies. But I couldn't help but get in my digs, adding, "I guess I'll just call you our 'chairone' from now on." Oh, the look I got--as I laughed. And for the rest of that committee's existence--orally or in writing--I referred to the "chairone."
Does money excuse hypocrisy? Or, am I too critical? For instance, I heard an ad on a conservative radio station this AM, at least one that has conservative programming/talk show hosts. The ad was being read (delivered) by a purportedly conservative program host. But the ad was for a company that was urging people to take advantage of "free" government money, payments for health insurance. So, a conservative radio station with conservative hosts should be opposed to more government spending (outside of the military, I guess), less government involvement in people's lives (for instance, in health care), and fewer taxes (how the gov't gets this "free" money), shouldn't it? Why, then, would it promote the principles it opposes, at least theoretically? Could it be the advertising dollars being brought in by running the ad, from the sponsoring company? It sure does take away from the image the station tries to promote/portray, at least to me it does. Again, maybe I am too critical or picky (persnickety?).
And, I heard a conservative radio host last night (The alternative was listening to the Lions--no thanks--or some of that lousy music being blared at us) criticize, rightly, Congress for cutting military retirement benefits that had been promised to veterans when they enlisted. "They signed up with the promise that these benefits would be there later in their lives. To deny them that now is despicable." Yet, I've heard this same guy rip on teacher and other public employee benefits, namely pensions. I can't speak for most public employees, but I do know that teachers and secretaries were often told their low pay (with minimal raises) would be balanced out by the good pensions (and their pensions are good) they would receive later. That is, compensation might not be coming now, but would be in the future. So, why is it not OK to renege on some promises, but is desired to break others??????
I'm curious, too, why many on the left (Oh, let's criticize both sides this AM) demonize one who works hard (I know, I know, "Nobody works hard any more.") for years and even decades, invests his money wisely and persistently, and, as a senior citizen ready for retirement, has accumulated several million dollars. He's "greedy," "has made money off the backs of the poor," and worse. What a bad man! But I never hear these same demonizers attack, say, Hollywood-types/ who make several million dollars in a month or two shooting some likely awful movie. Nope, these actors and actresses (I still refuse to call women "actors.") are "hard-working," "earn their money," etc. So, digging a ditch, teaching students, running a mom-and-pop store, creating ads or keeping books, etc. isn't "working hard" or "earning money?" I wonder what the difference could possibly be?????? Oh, I know what it is. Look at the politics, no farther.
This "actors/actresses" thing reminds me of a story, several years (OK, several decades) ago. I am ashamed to admit I was serving on a school committee--shame on me! But I was naive (stupid?), enough so that I thought they might make differences. Anyway, the chair of the committee was a woman and I thoughtlessly said something about the "chairman." I quickly caught myself and repeated, "Sorry, chairwoman." It wasn't at all snide or sarcastic, but the reply from the chairwoman was. "It's 'chairperson," she responded with great indignance and officiousness. "Oh," I said in repeating my apologies. But I couldn't help but get in my digs, adding, "I guess I'll just call you our 'chairone' from now on." Oh, the look I got--as I laughed. And for the rest of that committee's existence--orally or in writing--I referred to the "chairone."
Thursday, December 12, 2013
"Storm Brewing...."
That was the news headline. Then listening to the weather report, it appears the "storm" will drop an inch or two overnight tomorrow and maybe another inch during the next day. When did three inches of snow begin to constitute a storm?
A couple days ago, I asked some guys, with all of this cold weather, where is Algore when we need him? One guy chuckled, "Counting his money." Another suggested he's made $100 million with this global warming scam. Isn't that more than Bernie Madoff made? I don't know.
Let's see if I have this straight. The Ryan/Murray budget deal allows Congress to increase spending, including funding on ObamaCare. Revenue will be raised--that is, taxes--to pay for the increased spending. The deficit will go up for the next few years, at least. The sequester is kaput and the 2011 deal that required a one dollar cut in spending for every new borrowed dollar is history. In return, somewhere up the road--eight or ten years, when many of these bozos will no longer be in office--Congress agrees it will reduce spending, cutting the deficit. Is that it? And we're supposed to believe Congress will slice spending, instead of once again negotiating another kick the can down the road deal?
Shame on Paul Ryan. For such a smart guy, how can he fall into this Democrat trap yet again? Rubio did with immigration and the gang of eight or however many it was. That's how the Dems win all of the time; they make promises they have no intention of keeping. The Republicans are dumb enough to believe them again and again.
And, if I have this right, the deal is good because Reps can eliminate the controversy over the budget and any possible shutdown. Oh, although it's the Dems who force the shutdowns, the Reps are blamed and the Lamestream media swallow the bait, hook, line, and sinker. But with the Ryan/Murray deal, the Reps can focuse in 2014 on talking about ObamaCare. Hmmm...... Is that all the Reps plan to do, talk? If they were really concerned about the harm ObamaCare is doing to millions of Americans--now and in the not too distant future--shouldn't they stop talking and do something right now? Why not submit a budget that defunds ObamaCare. Let the Dems vote not or Obama veto. Then the target is on the backs of the Dems and Obama, with what?, about 60% of Americans opposed to ObamaCare. But no, the Reps want to talk.
And did you hear that sanctimonious Boehner today, ripping the critics of the budget deal? He boasts that he came to DC to cut spending, to reduce the deficit. Yeah, right. How many campaign promises with that has he broken? Yet, he has the temerity to find these critics, "despicable" (I think that's the word he used). But dishonesty, lying, breaking promises aren't "despicable?" Oh, I forgot. Honesty (and a respectful shame) is no longer a virtue among establishment Republicans and, of course, most Democrats.
Where, oh where, is my third party to relieve us of these boobs??????
A couple days ago, I asked some guys, with all of this cold weather, where is Algore when we need him? One guy chuckled, "Counting his money." Another suggested he's made $100 million with this global warming scam. Isn't that more than Bernie Madoff made? I don't know.
Let's see if I have this straight. The Ryan/Murray budget deal allows Congress to increase spending, including funding on ObamaCare. Revenue will be raised--that is, taxes--to pay for the increased spending. The deficit will go up for the next few years, at least. The sequester is kaput and the 2011 deal that required a one dollar cut in spending for every new borrowed dollar is history. In return, somewhere up the road--eight or ten years, when many of these bozos will no longer be in office--Congress agrees it will reduce spending, cutting the deficit. Is that it? And we're supposed to believe Congress will slice spending, instead of once again negotiating another kick the can down the road deal?
Shame on Paul Ryan. For such a smart guy, how can he fall into this Democrat trap yet again? Rubio did with immigration and the gang of eight or however many it was. That's how the Dems win all of the time; they make promises they have no intention of keeping. The Republicans are dumb enough to believe them again and again.
And, if I have this right, the deal is good because Reps can eliminate the controversy over the budget and any possible shutdown. Oh, although it's the Dems who force the shutdowns, the Reps are blamed and the Lamestream media swallow the bait, hook, line, and sinker. But with the Ryan/Murray deal, the Reps can focuse in 2014 on talking about ObamaCare. Hmmm...... Is that all the Reps plan to do, talk? If they were really concerned about the harm ObamaCare is doing to millions of Americans--now and in the not too distant future--shouldn't they stop talking and do something right now? Why not submit a budget that defunds ObamaCare. Let the Dems vote not or Obama veto. Then the target is on the backs of the Dems and Obama, with what?, about 60% of Americans opposed to ObamaCare. But no, the Reps want to talk.
And did you hear that sanctimonious Boehner today, ripping the critics of the budget deal? He boasts that he came to DC to cut spending, to reduce the deficit. Yeah, right. How many campaign promises with that has he broken? Yet, he has the temerity to find these critics, "despicable" (I think that's the word he used). But dishonesty, lying, breaking promises aren't "despicable?" Oh, I forgot. Honesty (and a respectful shame) is no longer a virtue among establishment Republicans and, of course, most Democrats.
Where, oh where, is my third party to relieve us of these boobs??????
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Is It Time?
Abraham Lincoln, in all of his wisdom, once suggested that once people figure out that their government is not constrained by the laws, they will conclude that neither are they.
Perhaps some have already figured this.
Our government has conferred benefits on people and groups it favors and has used its authority to punish or at least deter its enemies. It has broken the law, many times over.
I'm not just talking about Obama, although this has reached outlandish heights the past five years.
Need proof? The President and his supporters, in the face of criticism of ObamaCare, have repeatedly said, "It's settled law." Now, we'll ignore the open ignorance of American history here (laws that have been passed and then repealed). But ObamaCare isn't "settled law." The President, in unconstitutional action after unconstitutional action, has changed the law again and again. How can a President unilaterally change a Congressionally enacted piece of legislation so that, essentially, it's not the same law? He can do it because Congress lets him. He can do it because the Supremes let him. He can do it because the LameStream media are in the tank for him. He can do it because Americans are too comfortable; they are far more concerned with American Idol, the NFL, etc. (I will concede that our politicians take no backseat to the Romans in offering "bread and circuses.")
I won't go into either, but check out the "Dream Act" (illegal immigration) and the actions of the IRS (and anyone who believes it was mid-level IRS agents in Cincinnati instead of orders from the White House must still believe the moon is made of green cheese). And there are more examples.
At least the outrage--in Congress, within the courts, among the US populace--over FDR's blatant attempt to undo the checks and balances principle of the US constitutional system made him retreat. But today there is no reaction. Not only is this President acting unconstitutionally, he's also acting detrimentally. And he has plenty of aiders and abettors.
Perhaps some have already figured this.
Our government has conferred benefits on people and groups it favors and has used its authority to punish or at least deter its enemies. It has broken the law, many times over.
I'm not just talking about Obama, although this has reached outlandish heights the past five years.
Need proof? The President and his supporters, in the face of criticism of ObamaCare, have repeatedly said, "It's settled law." Now, we'll ignore the open ignorance of American history here (laws that have been passed and then repealed). But ObamaCare isn't "settled law." The President, in unconstitutional action after unconstitutional action, has changed the law again and again. How can a President unilaterally change a Congressionally enacted piece of legislation so that, essentially, it's not the same law? He can do it because Congress lets him. He can do it because the Supremes let him. He can do it because the LameStream media are in the tank for him. He can do it because Americans are too comfortable; they are far more concerned with American Idol, the NFL, etc. (I will concede that our politicians take no backseat to the Romans in offering "bread and circuses.")
I won't go into either, but check out the "Dream Act" (illegal immigration) and the actions of the IRS (and anyone who believes it was mid-level IRS agents in Cincinnati instead of orders from the White House must still believe the moon is made of green cheese). And there are more examples.
At least the outrage--in Congress, within the courts, among the US populace--over FDR's blatant attempt to undo the checks and balances principle of the US constitutional system made him retreat. But today there is no reaction. Not only is this President acting unconstitutionally, he's also acting detrimentally. And he has plenty of aiders and abettors.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Opportunity Costs?
In economics, an opportunity cost is the value of what is foregone in order to pursue a course of action. Unfortunately, it seems that today's economists, at least those who side with the administration (and, well, Democrats in general), only include the horrific opportunity costs of opting to follow another plan. There are also, quite logically, brighter scenarios that might well happen, too.
That's how the final result of the auto bailout is now being portrayed. "The cost to US taxpayers for the auto bailout is only $11 billion." Yep, "only." (Should we quibble that it's just the GM bailout that cost $11 billion, that the entire cost is closer to $15 or $16 billion? Ah, to the gov't, that is just that, quibbling. I recall a number of school administrators, when approached about how they waste/fritter away money, saying, "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." None of them, none, ever realized how a drop here and a drop there can add up to significant savings. After all, it wasn't their money they were spending. I believe it was the late US Senator Everett Dirksen who once said, "A few million here and a few million there and soon you're talking about some real money." But I won't quibble......)
And the standard line being fed to an eagerly awaiting Lamestream media is about opportunity cost. Think of the terrible things that could have happened had the bailout not occurred! Yes, millions of jobs lost; billions of dollars of individual savings gone; a significant decrease in production; cats and dogs sleeping together; and worse.
First, nobody knows what would have happened had the US gov't not bailed out GM and Chrysler. Yep, they might have gone bankrupt (but that certainly doesn't seem to bother many in the federal gov't now about Detroit!). That terrible scenario might well have happened. Nobody knows, certainly not the economists, who always hedge their bets with "on the one hand, but on the other...." (That's why Harry Truman was always looking for "a one-armed economist," not because he was a sadist.) The auto companies might have come out even better than now, without the billions in costs to the US taxpayers. That's the other side of opportunity costs--the positive alternative scenario. All that money might have been spent in better, more productive ways--or not spent at all. Again, nobody knows for sure, but it's an equally likely scenario.
I'm guessing, too, that the auto companies wouldn't have been allowed to fold--not allowed by private investors. After all, look at Detroit, a failing place if there is any. And there's not a lot of reason for optimism. Yet, there are investors who are spending money on the city. The Tigers' owner is one. So is others. If people are willing to spend money on the bleakness called Detroit--to eventually recuperate their investment-surely there were some who were going to use private funds for the auto companies. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but that sure seem likely.
And, why were GM and Chrysler bailed out? "Too big to fail?" As I noted above, that doesn't seem to be the case with the city of Detroit, at least not as far as the feds are concerned. Maybe, just maybe, had they failed, it would have been just desserts. For decades it was understood in Detroit that the auto makers were producing a pretty lousy product. They were making poor deals with the unions, while compensating quite well executives who were making the poor deals. Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for this?
And, who really was bailed out? Not the bondholders. Not the suppliers who were owed money. Not many mid-level managers. Not retirees with their pensions. It was the unions and their workers. Why, then, the bailout? It was because the federal government decided to pick who wins and who loses.
That's a dangerous proposition, very much so. So, the feds can determine success and failure, using or not using, other people's money? That's bad precedent to set, although this wasn't the first time it was done and surely won't be the last. As long as politics are involved, gov't officials--elected and appointed--won't necessarily do what's right, but what's expedient, what's best for them.
I sure would like a bailout. But, my problem is I've done nothing wrong. I've done all the right things. Growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Complex (If the wind blew from the wrong direction, soot pellets could be found on our cars!), I studied hard, found a way to get to an Ivy League college (Amherst), graduate, get a job. I continued on with my education with three graduate degrees, worked hard, paid my bills. When the bills began to add up or I sniffed bigger ones on the horizon (such as paying for my son's college education), I went out and got other jobs. (At one time in the '90s, I was drawing paychecks from five different employers.) Oh, and of course, we didn't qualify for any federal aid for college, nope--I guess I worked too hard and too much. I didn't do the stupid stuff GM and Chrysler did, so maybe I'm the stupid one after all--not getting bailed out by the feds.
Grrr.... "Only $11 billion...."
That's how the final result of the auto bailout is now being portrayed. "The cost to US taxpayers for the auto bailout is only $11 billion." Yep, "only." (Should we quibble that it's just the GM bailout that cost $11 billion, that the entire cost is closer to $15 or $16 billion? Ah, to the gov't, that is just that, quibbling. I recall a number of school administrators, when approached about how they waste/fritter away money, saying, "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." None of them, none, ever realized how a drop here and a drop there can add up to significant savings. After all, it wasn't their money they were spending. I believe it was the late US Senator Everett Dirksen who once said, "A few million here and a few million there and soon you're talking about some real money." But I won't quibble......)
And the standard line being fed to an eagerly awaiting Lamestream media is about opportunity cost. Think of the terrible things that could have happened had the bailout not occurred! Yes, millions of jobs lost; billions of dollars of individual savings gone; a significant decrease in production; cats and dogs sleeping together; and worse.
First, nobody knows what would have happened had the US gov't not bailed out GM and Chrysler. Yep, they might have gone bankrupt (but that certainly doesn't seem to bother many in the federal gov't now about Detroit!). That terrible scenario might well have happened. Nobody knows, certainly not the economists, who always hedge their bets with "on the one hand, but on the other...." (That's why Harry Truman was always looking for "a one-armed economist," not because he was a sadist.) The auto companies might have come out even better than now, without the billions in costs to the US taxpayers. That's the other side of opportunity costs--the positive alternative scenario. All that money might have been spent in better, more productive ways--or not spent at all. Again, nobody knows for sure, but it's an equally likely scenario.
I'm guessing, too, that the auto companies wouldn't have been allowed to fold--not allowed by private investors. After all, look at Detroit, a failing place if there is any. And there's not a lot of reason for optimism. Yet, there are investors who are spending money on the city. The Tigers' owner is one. So is others. If people are willing to spend money on the bleakness called Detroit--to eventually recuperate their investment-surely there were some who were going to use private funds for the auto companies. Again, I don't have a crystal ball, but that sure seem likely.
And, why were GM and Chrysler bailed out? "Too big to fail?" As I noted above, that doesn't seem to be the case with the city of Detroit, at least not as far as the feds are concerned. Maybe, just maybe, had they failed, it would have been just desserts. For decades it was understood in Detroit that the auto makers were producing a pretty lousy product. They were making poor deals with the unions, while compensating quite well executives who were making the poor deals. Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for this?
And, who really was bailed out? Not the bondholders. Not the suppliers who were owed money. Not many mid-level managers. Not retirees with their pensions. It was the unions and their workers. Why, then, the bailout? It was because the federal government decided to pick who wins and who loses.
That's a dangerous proposition, very much so. So, the feds can determine success and failure, using or not using, other people's money? That's bad precedent to set, although this wasn't the first time it was done and surely won't be the last. As long as politics are involved, gov't officials--elected and appointed--won't necessarily do what's right, but what's expedient, what's best for them.
I sure would like a bailout. But, my problem is I've done nothing wrong. I've done all the right things. Growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Complex (If the wind blew from the wrong direction, soot pellets could be found on our cars!), I studied hard, found a way to get to an Ivy League college (Amherst), graduate, get a job. I continued on with my education with three graduate degrees, worked hard, paid my bills. When the bills began to add up or I sniffed bigger ones on the horizon (such as paying for my son's college education), I went out and got other jobs. (At one time in the '90s, I was drawing paychecks from five different employers.) Oh, and of course, we didn't qualify for any federal aid for college, nope--I guess I worked too hard and too much. I didn't do the stupid stuff GM and Chrysler did, so maybe I'm the stupid one after all--not getting bailed out by the feds.
Grrr.... "Only $11 billion...."
Monday, December 9, 2013
"Poisoned?"
The past few days I've been bouncing around in my mind an interesting concept. Have we been "poisoned" the past few decades?
I don't mean physically poisoned, where we become ill or worse. But have our minds been poisoned? That is, have we been led to believe ideas that have caused us to become less than we were?
For instance, has the welfare state created much of the malaise now affecting the US? Of course, if one thinks there is no malaise, then there is no discussion. But I think there is and that there is ample evidence to support that.
Look at ourselves, out culture, our values. Look at our cities. Look at our governments, all levels, and the politicians who run them. Are we at the point of no return?
Has the welfare mentality become so pervasive that some people consider welfare a right, something that they deserve? Certainly there are people who need help and they should get it. But a conversation last weekend is revealing. A friend asked me, in context, "Why do they [those getting welfare payments] keep having kids?" Now, of course, many welfare folks don't have lots and lots of kids. But many do and my friend wanted to know why in light of, well, having lots of kids. My answer was, "Because they get more money with each kid." Now, these parents don't get paid, per se, but do get more in food stamps, housing credits, etc. And the amount can vary upward depending on the state of residence. Perhaps here I'm being far too general, but I think this happens far too often.
Have the media and education establishment poisoned Americans to think the government--at whatever level--is best for running things, including our lives? Do most people think that the politicians and bureaucrats in government make things better, in spite of the realities/facts?
Have things been so dumbed-down that we have come to accept as "classic," "superior," etc. things which are, in fact, quite mediocre?
That is, have Americans been mentally poisoned so that they have come to accept things that they shouldn't accept?
I don't mean physically poisoned, where we become ill or worse. But have our minds been poisoned? That is, have we been led to believe ideas that have caused us to become less than we were?
For instance, has the welfare state created much of the malaise now affecting the US? Of course, if one thinks there is no malaise, then there is no discussion. But I think there is and that there is ample evidence to support that.
Look at ourselves, out culture, our values. Look at our cities. Look at our governments, all levels, and the politicians who run them. Are we at the point of no return?
Has the welfare mentality become so pervasive that some people consider welfare a right, something that they deserve? Certainly there are people who need help and they should get it. But a conversation last weekend is revealing. A friend asked me, in context, "Why do they [those getting welfare payments] keep having kids?" Now, of course, many welfare folks don't have lots and lots of kids. But many do and my friend wanted to know why in light of, well, having lots of kids. My answer was, "Because they get more money with each kid." Now, these parents don't get paid, per se, but do get more in food stamps, housing credits, etc. And the amount can vary upward depending on the state of residence. Perhaps here I'm being far too general, but I think this happens far too often.
Have the media and education establishment poisoned Americans to think the government--at whatever level--is best for running things, including our lives? Do most people think that the politicians and bureaucrats in government make things better, in spite of the realities/facts?
Have things been so dumbed-down that we have come to accept as "classic," "superior," etc. things which are, in fact, quite mediocre?
That is, have Americans been mentally poisoned so that they have come to accept things that they shouldn't accept?
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sun AM Musings
This AM's run was started in 11 degrees. But it warmed up quickly. Two hours later when I finished, it was already up to 12 degrees. I just checked a few minutes ago, about five hours after starting my morning run, and it's now 15 degrees--a veritable heat wave?
I was listening to the radio in the car the other day, something I ordinarily don't do. And, the station that was on doesn't ordinarily play music as its attraction; it's "talk radio," although "blather radio" is often more fitting. Between segments (Is that what the technical term is, "segments?"), a song was played and, frankly, it hurt my ears to listen. It was squeaky, nasally (not in a country-and-western style, though), and just didn't sound very good at all. The host broke in not long afterward, a minute or less, and started talking about how great the song was, how we should listen carefully to it (I couldn't make out the words/lyrics due to the squeaky, nasally, etc. voice.), and how "very talented" the "artist" is. As a matter-of-fact, I wouldn't have been able to identify the noisemaker (I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I hesitate to call whoever this was/is an "artist."), but certainly "talented" wouldn't not have been among my choice of words--never!--to characterize the guy.
This played into what I've thought for a good many years, that what passes for music is merely noise. If music is "melodic," then what much of what has been passed off as "music" of the last few decades is hardly that. It's just noise, sounds--and not very pleasant ones to listen to either. And the so-called "singers"...well, if we stick with "melodic," then there aren't many singers out there.
No doubt some will point to the many search-for-talent shows on the boob tube to refute my views. Maybe they would be right. But what little I know of these shows (Are they also consider "reality" shows?), aren't the judges on them just other people who make noise? So, if all they know is "noise," then...?
We can add a lot of more modern art to that, too. Again, I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps our vision has been hampered, even manipulated. Everything else seems to have been watered down, things like education, thinking, the media, etc., too. Even what's considered decent, civil behavior has been dumbed down, so why not these? Again, probably just the curmudgeonly ramblings of an old coot.
Out this weekend, some people started talking about some guy named "Hanna." I don't remember his first name, but apparently I was supposed to know who he is. I guess he's on some television program and is a hot shot. After a few minutes of banter, in which the others were making comments about this guy, I asked, "Who is he? Am I supposed to know him?" I guess I was, but I didn't and still don't. Someone said, somewhat incredulously, to me "All that knowledge in your head and you don't know who ______ Hanna is?" Nope.... When I do the weekend crosswords--Sats are tougher than Suns, even the Sun NY Times--the clues I have trouble solving are those dealing with recent (past couple of decades) movies, music, and television. Karen or Bopper often help me fill in those.... Perhaps I am just a cultural Neanderthal?
I was listening to the radio in the car the other day, something I ordinarily don't do. And, the station that was on doesn't ordinarily play music as its attraction; it's "talk radio," although "blather radio" is often more fitting. Between segments (Is that what the technical term is, "segments?"), a song was played and, frankly, it hurt my ears to listen. It was squeaky, nasally (not in a country-and-western style, though), and just didn't sound very good at all. The host broke in not long afterward, a minute or less, and started talking about how great the song was, how we should listen carefully to it (I couldn't make out the words/lyrics due to the squeaky, nasally, etc. voice.), and how "very talented" the "artist" is. As a matter-of-fact, I wouldn't have been able to identify the noisemaker (I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I hesitate to call whoever this was/is an "artist."), but certainly "talented" wouldn't not have been among my choice of words--never!--to characterize the guy.
This played into what I've thought for a good many years, that what passes for music is merely noise. If music is "melodic," then what much of what has been passed off as "music" of the last few decades is hardly that. It's just noise, sounds--and not very pleasant ones to listen to either. And the so-called "singers"...well, if we stick with "melodic," then there aren't many singers out there.
No doubt some will point to the many search-for-talent shows on the boob tube to refute my views. Maybe they would be right. But what little I know of these shows (Are they also consider "reality" shows?), aren't the judges on them just other people who make noise? So, if all they know is "noise," then...?
We can add a lot of more modern art to that, too. Again, I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps our vision has been hampered, even manipulated. Everything else seems to have been watered down, things like education, thinking, the media, etc., too. Even what's considered decent, civil behavior has been dumbed down, so why not these? Again, probably just the curmudgeonly ramblings of an old coot.
Out this weekend, some people started talking about some guy named "Hanna." I don't remember his first name, but apparently I was supposed to know who he is. I guess he's on some television program and is a hot shot. After a few minutes of banter, in which the others were making comments about this guy, I asked, "Who is he? Am I supposed to know him?" I guess I was, but I didn't and still don't. Someone said, somewhat incredulously, to me "All that knowledge in your head and you don't know who ______ Hanna is?" Nope.... When I do the weekend crosswords--Sats are tougher than Suns, even the Sun NY Times--the clues I have trouble solving are those dealing with recent (past couple of decades) movies, music, and television. Karen or Bopper often help me fill in those.... Perhaps I am just a cultural Neanderthal?
Saturday, December 7, 2013
The World Gone Mad
I see in the newspaper this AM that a number of MLB players have signed contracts with new teams. Imagine a .229 hitter getting $60 million for four years?!?!?! Some other guy received more for .259 and 23 HRs?!?!?! And the former Tiger, coming off a suspension for drug use, signed for $12 million a year for several years. Of course, the millions of dollars flowed, but most of the names of the players were not at all familiar to me.
If only 25% of what Clarence Thomas writes about Democrat political leaders in his autobiography is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not all true), those Dem political leaders are the scumbags I've always thought they are/were. Ted Kennedy (I will refrain from bringing up Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne--oh, I just did bring it up. "Lion of the Senate?" More like "Lyin' of the Senate."), Metzenbaum, Leahy, the list goes on. And who comes across as among the slimiest? Joe Biden. Look someone in the eye, pat on the shoulder, and make a promise about something, knowing it's a lie, never intended to be kept. No shame, no dishonor, no sense of character--none. (But always remember, as if they ever let us forget, "But Bush lied.") Again, if only 25% of what he writes is true.... And, from both parties (Look at what the Republicans have done in this state the past couple of years.), some of these guys aren't particularly bright. If just a fraction of this is accurate, there are some pretty dim bulbs running our country. Does that mean dishonesty and stupidity are qualities desirable in a politician? Just asking....
So, unemployment numbers are down. Good, except that 40% or more of the new jobs have been government jobs. Hmmm...... Gee, are the Dems getting worried about the '14 elections? Surely they wouldn't try to buy the election, would they?
How goofy is Michigan weather? Phew, we managed to dodge that big storm south of us that ran from Texas eastward. I guess Columbus, Ohio received 7 or 8 inches! But last Tue AM I ran with temperatures at 56/57 degrees. Wed AM's run was in 25 degrees. This AM, with my blind buddy, was 19 degrees with a pretty stiff breeze.
Out to do The Saturday Stumper......
If only 25% of what Clarence Thomas writes about Democrat political leaders in his autobiography is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not all true), those Dem political leaders are the scumbags I've always thought they are/were. Ted Kennedy (I will refrain from bringing up Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne--oh, I just did bring it up. "Lion of the Senate?" More like "Lyin' of the Senate."), Metzenbaum, Leahy, the list goes on. And who comes across as among the slimiest? Joe Biden. Look someone in the eye, pat on the shoulder, and make a promise about something, knowing it's a lie, never intended to be kept. No shame, no dishonor, no sense of character--none. (But always remember, as if they ever let us forget, "But Bush lied.") Again, if only 25% of what he writes is true.... And, from both parties (Look at what the Republicans have done in this state the past couple of years.), some of these guys aren't particularly bright. If just a fraction of this is accurate, there are some pretty dim bulbs running our country. Does that mean dishonesty and stupidity are qualities desirable in a politician? Just asking....
So, unemployment numbers are down. Good, except that 40% or more of the new jobs have been government jobs. Hmmm...... Gee, are the Dems getting worried about the '14 elections? Surely they wouldn't try to buy the election, would they?
How goofy is Michigan weather? Phew, we managed to dodge that big storm south of us that ran from Texas eastward. I guess Columbus, Ohio received 7 or 8 inches! But last Tue AM I ran with temperatures at 56/57 degrees. Wed AM's run was in 25 degrees. This AM, with my blind buddy, was 19 degrees with a pretty stiff breeze.
Out to do The Saturday Stumper......
Friday, December 6, 2013
Random Thoughts at the End of a Tough Week
In reading a couple of books over the past few weeks, I am struck by this. Once a person has a job in DC, with the federal gov't, that person always has a job, some job, with the feds, for life. These appointees (or even elected officials) bounce from federal job to federal job.
Is this how far we have fallen? In an e-mail exchange about a vocal Congressional critic of the President, talk was of an IRS audit of this Congressman. It's not just that this administration uses the machinery of the Leviathan (the federal government) to punish or at least threaten or cow its critics. That's not the worse part. It's that we all know or at least expect it will happen. Where is the outrage? Oh, it lasts about two or three minutes, that's about it. Where are the Democrats on this? (The Republicans, the opposition can be dismissed as, well, the opposition--that is if they show any concern at all. And the establishment Republicans are once again on vacation on this.) Oh, they complain about the Tea Partiers, oh yeah they do. But who have the Tea Partiers audited? Whose phones have they tapped? Who have they stripped of licenses to do business? Yep, they, not a government run amok with power, are the real danger!
Is there any US institution more intolerant than education? I'm not sure there is. From the public and private K-12 schools to the colleges and universities, there is little room for one who bucks the so-called "conventional wisdom." Ostracism, name-calling, etc. greet one who doesn't buy into the latest credo. Hmmm...... I thought education was, ultimately, concerned with the free exchange of ideas. Ideas succeed or fail on their own merits, not whether they fit the currently accepted mantras. I guess I thought wrong.
In the same vein, or at least a similar one, why does it seem that to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) is a one-way street. Note recent votes in Congress or even your own state legislature. Note the President's mode of operation, "My way or the highway." This is opposed to W. Bush, who caved in to "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) and fouled up so many things.
How ignorant are people? They still hold to what the media have told them, repeatedly, "But Bush lied." (Of course that's reinforced again and again by the Democrats.) Yet, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest lie, lie, and lie again and people don't at all react. Oh, those few who do criticize are marginalized, if not polarized.
I wonder how journalists look at themselves in the mirror. Do those who think, who are honest, not care that their profession has been hijacked by disingenuous, dishonest people? Or, are there no honest, concerned journalists? I won't be the pot calling the kettle black and will admit that there are few teachers willing to openly criticize what many privately rant and rave about--that is, those who aren't sheep (see the previous paragraph).
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh. Buffoon usually comes to mind when I think of him. But I heard him say something quite funny and profound today. (I don't normally listen to him, but I picked up Bopper from a half-day of school--another teacher boondoggle--and we were playing games with the car radio.) A caller mentioned the US media exploiting the death of Nelson Mandela, comparing--favorably, of course--their messiah Obama to Mandela. Limbaugh interrupted the caller, saying, "How does Mandela stack up?" I chuckled right out loud.
Is this how far we have fallen? In an e-mail exchange about a vocal Congressional critic of the President, talk was of an IRS audit of this Congressman. It's not just that this administration uses the machinery of the Leviathan (the federal government) to punish or at least threaten or cow its critics. That's not the worse part. It's that we all know or at least expect it will happen. Where is the outrage? Oh, it lasts about two or three minutes, that's about it. Where are the Democrats on this? (The Republicans, the opposition can be dismissed as, well, the opposition--that is if they show any concern at all. And the establishment Republicans are once again on vacation on this.) Oh, they complain about the Tea Partiers, oh yeah they do. But who have the Tea Partiers audited? Whose phones have they tapped? Who have they stripped of licenses to do business? Yep, they, not a government run amok with power, are the real danger!
Is there any US institution more intolerant than education? I'm not sure there is. From the public and private K-12 schools to the colleges and universities, there is little room for one who bucks the so-called "conventional wisdom." Ostracism, name-calling, etc. greet one who doesn't buy into the latest credo. Hmmm...... I thought education was, ultimately, concerned with the free exchange of ideas. Ideas succeed or fail on their own merits, not whether they fit the currently accepted mantras. I guess I thought wrong.
In the same vein, or at least a similar one, why does it seem that to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) is a one-way street. Note recent votes in Congress or even your own state legislature. Note the President's mode of operation, "My way or the highway." This is opposed to W. Bush, who caved in to "bipartisanship" (Oh, I detest that word!) and fouled up so many things.
How ignorant are people? They still hold to what the media have told them, repeatedly, "But Bush lied." (Of course that's reinforced again and again by the Democrats.) Yet, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest lie, lie, and lie again and people don't at all react. Oh, those few who do criticize are marginalized, if not polarized.
I wonder how journalists look at themselves in the mirror. Do those who think, who are honest, not care that their profession has been hijacked by disingenuous, dishonest people? Or, are there no honest, concerned journalists? I won't be the pot calling the kettle black and will admit that there are few teachers willing to openly criticize what many privately rant and rave about--that is, those who aren't sheep (see the previous paragraph).
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh. Buffoon usually comes to mind when I think of him. But I heard him say something quite funny and profound today. (I don't normally listen to him, but I picked up Bopper from a half-day of school--another teacher boondoggle--and we were playing games with the car radio.) A caller mentioned the US media exploiting the death of Nelson Mandela, comparing--favorably, of course--their messiah Obama to Mandela. Limbaugh interrupted the caller, saying, "How does Mandela stack up?" I chuckled right out loud.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
US Students falling farther behind
So claimed a news article today. US students "showed little improvement" and weren't in "the top 20 [nations] in math, science, or reading."
Regular readers of this blog, both of us, know I am not a fan of American public education. It has steadily deteriorated over the past three or four or more decades. And it's not been a sneaky slide--it's been done willfully by people who shouldn't be allowed to make academic decisions in positions to make them. US society (with its attitudes toward education--learning and teaching), teachers, and esp administrators are all to blame. I've taken shots at all of them at one time or another. Now, with the Bozos in the federal government taking in more and more responsibilities and with businessmen who see education as a way to cut their own training costs, things even worsen.
C'mon, so reading scores are rotten among US students? Has anyone seen how reading is taught nowadays? Phonics, good-bye; whole word, hello. That reading has plummeted apparently is ignored by those running the schools. What worked is tossed and what doesn't work is kept. That's what schools have become. OK, so let's not pick on reading. Let's look at math. Have you seen "Everyday Math?" Oh, boy, I'm getting a headache--and I don't get headaches! I was watching my granddaughter do addition the other night, something like 54 plus 11. She is taught to add the tens column first and the ones column second. Huh? Yeah, I guess the idea is so they grasp the concept of place. Huh? So, what happens when the ones column has a carry, such as 36 plus 15? Oh, they'll cover that later. (Is that like spelling, which is no longer emphasized because, "They'll catch up with that later?" They don't and I have ample evidence that they don't.) "Everyday Math?" I can do college calculus and know enough math to get two B+s in physics at an Ivy League college, but this new stuff is ridiculous. (As I've said about the "Common Core," follow the money.)
Remember, though, although they all spout it, "It's about the kids" or "learning," it never really is and, if anyone really cares to check, the evidence is right out there to see.
Now, why am I not perplexed at the US students' rankings on this "international assessment?" First, I'm not at all enamored with standardized testing. We test too much and we test the wrong things. (Of course, I'm not too sure what to do about the latter, since I really don't trust teachers and the schools to evaluate students properly.) What is on this test? Who, in all countries, takes the test? Are all students tested or just "elites," the best of them? Are only certain schools included or everyone. No, I'm not going to jump up and down because "US students showed little improvement and failed...."
What is most disturbing to me are the tired old mantras that keep coming out of the mouths of the so-called "experts" (and they aren't), like Sec of Ed A. Duncan. (If you doubt me, check on his record while heading the schools in Illinois before heading off to DC.) "We must invest in early education," he sadly repeats, despite report after report, independent ones that is, that show the positive effects of "early education" have disappeared by grades three or four. "Raise academic standards," he adds, while pushing "Common Core," which doesn't do that, but does include more, you guessed it, standardized testing. (Hey, remember, "Follow the money?" Who's pushing the Common Core? Yep, the testing, curriculum, textbook, etc. companies. As Casey Stengel, in another context once said, "You could look it up.") "Make college affordable," he tiresomely repeats. Who, other than the federal government and politicians, has contributed more to the increased costs of college education? Nobody else is even close. And here's the one that really takes the cake, showing how out of touch the so-called experts like Duncan really are. "Do more to recruit an retain top-notch educators." What a joke! They do more and more to discourage "top-notch" teachers and to dissuade the best-and-brightest from entering education. I know, because our governor recently said so to defend outlandish raises he gave his dept heads, that to attract the top talent, we have to pay the top dollar. Of course, that doesn't apply to the top talent in education. In fact, we have cut and cut and cut teacher pay (and, as I've noted, many teachers are still overpaid--but the good ones are severely underpaid). Didn't one local district here pay its teachers so little that, with a family of two kids, a single-parent teacher qualified for welfare?!?!? Yep, that'll attract 'em. Should we also toss in the morale boosters from schools and Americans in general? The truly best teachers are not recognized; the award winners are those who serve on the committees, are sycophants/bobble heads at staff meetings, do without question or thought the latest silly thing perpetrated by unknowing administrators ("unknowing" because they've never experienced the rigors required of quality education). And who, most often, become the administrators, the "leaders" of schools and education? I'll offer a hint--not the best teachers, not those who know the most......
So, let's not get too excited about the latest test scores. Yes, American education is not very good. And, realize that, with those in charge now, those making the so-called "reforms," it's not likely to get any better.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Heh Heh......
I got a bit of a chuckle several times in the past week or so.
First, some grocery industry spokeswoman on the radio noted how prices at grocery stores are "going down." Huh? Where does this lady live? I'd like to know so I can shop there.
Second, a spokeswoman for the Detroit Lions wrote a letter to the editor in today's newspaper opposing proposed legislation that would legalize scalping tickets. I would assume with a straight face she wrote that scalping "drives up prices past what families can afford." Hmmm...... I guess this depends on what "families" she's considering. Has she seen the prices of, say, her own team's tickets? I haven't looked in quite a while, but about four or five years ago, when my grandson played at halftime of a Lions' game, tickets were $55 each--and we were about half a dozen rows from the very top. Perhaps I'm just grousing a bit, but the Lions even made the kids who were playing at halftime purchase tickets. Yeah, they are out there to make money, but how much is enough, esp considering the outlandish salaries players get? "...drives up prices to past what families can afford?"
Third, an Obama apologist took critics of the Iran-US pact to task, claiming they were all wet to compare the deal with Munich. Oh? Well, maybe he's right--if Iran doesn't enrich any fuel behind our backs. But what exactly is it when we give $9 billion in return for a promise from a known scoundrel, one who has more than once yelled out, "Death to America!?" Maybe it's Nobel Peace Prize consideration? After all, the Nobel committee has already belittled the award.
First, some grocery industry spokeswoman on the radio noted how prices at grocery stores are "going down." Huh? Where does this lady live? I'd like to know so I can shop there.
Second, a spokeswoman for the Detroit Lions wrote a letter to the editor in today's newspaper opposing proposed legislation that would legalize scalping tickets. I would assume with a straight face she wrote that scalping "drives up prices past what families can afford." Hmmm...... I guess this depends on what "families" she's considering. Has she seen the prices of, say, her own team's tickets? I haven't looked in quite a while, but about four or five years ago, when my grandson played at halftime of a Lions' game, tickets were $55 each--and we were about half a dozen rows from the very top. Perhaps I'm just grousing a bit, but the Lions even made the kids who were playing at halftime purchase tickets. Yeah, they are out there to make money, but how much is enough, esp considering the outlandish salaries players get? "...drives up prices to past what families can afford?"
Third, an Obama apologist took critics of the Iran-US pact to task, claiming they were all wet to compare the deal with Munich. Oh? Well, maybe he's right--if Iran doesn't enrich any fuel behind our backs. But what exactly is it when we give $9 billion in return for a promise from a known scoundrel, one who has more than once yelled out, "Death to America!?" Maybe it's Nobel Peace Prize consideration? After all, the Nobel committee has already belittled the award.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Ramblings
I was talking to a guy last week about Medicare. I have signed up for it, being eligible in a few weeks. It was, as I noted to this fellow, a bit painful. Oh, it wasn't the Web site, which made signing up pretty easy. I do have to mention a couple of things. The opening page told me to expect the process to take "about 10 minutes." Page two changed that to "30 minutes." Since it took closer to 10, it wasn't a big deal. But then it asked me if I was born in the US. Of course, I was. I was asked in what city and state I was born. Then it asked me if I am an American citizen! I'm not kidding. So, my own government doesn't know what constitutes citizenship? Later, it asked me if I am insured under any other "group plan." If so, is it through my employer? No. Is it through someone else's employer? Yes. Then I was asked who my employer is and when I started working for that employer, who doesn't provide my coverage. Again, perhaps I nitpick......
Anyway, signing up for Medicare seems like a rite of passage of sorts. First, who ever really believes he'll be old enough to get Medicare? I certainly didn't--even a few weeks ago! Second, I have this aversion to getting things like this from the federal government. I know I've paid for this for the past 45 years or more, so it's not really an "entitlement." Still, there's that lingering feeling. Silly? I guess so.
This fellow was talking about how great Medicare was for his mother, who lived until her 90s. It took care of a lot of problems/expenses. Good! Then, I recalled last Sun or the Sun before, on one of the Sun AM talk shows, one of Obama's Obamacare point men admitted there are likely to be some "rationing of services" under the ACA. I think his admission was "Certainly, I think there might be." I wanted to tell this guy, a fervid Obama-guy and one who's loudly proclaimed, "Having health insurance is a right!," about "rationing." I didn't, mostly because he wouldn't hear what I was saying. I suppose it's just like nobody admitting that maybe Sarah Palin was right about "death panels."
Which leads me back to Clarence Thomas's autobiog. I am continually reminded that people aren't supposed to think for themselves. They are expected to fall into line, to accept the party line, be it with their political parties, their unions, education, whatever. Any deviation (I almost wrote "deviance," a Freudian slip?) is anathema, equivalent to heresy. Regardless of how wrong, misguided, or even just different the conventional wisdom of these groups/leaders, to think outside of their framework is worthy of the worst of name-calling. I guess I would question why we need a First Amendment, particularly the part about freedom of speech, if this is now the norm.
Speaking of rights, I believe it was Walter Williams who wrote a column a couple of weeks ago that touched upon some of my blogs of the past. He used different terminology, "negative rights" and "positive rights," but I've explored the concepts. A "right" is something that is possessed merely by being--coming from God or wherever. It is not granted by a government, at least not by our government in our system--or so we purportedly believe. Government is there to protect/guarantee rights, not to confer them. A "right" does not infringe on anyone else. That is, another person doesn't have to give up something in order to have others possess a right. Williams called that a "negative right." For instance, for me to have freedom of religion, the right to choose my own belief, nobody is required to concede anything. I am left free to choose and my choice doesn't burden or encumber anyone else. Now, as the guy above claimed, "Having health insurance is a right!" is a "positive right." That is, to have such a right requires others to concede, to give up something. If health care is "a right," well, somebody must pay for it. That requires taxing people to grant this "right" to others. That is, others have to give up something--their own money--in order to confer this so-called "right" to health care. That, it seems to me, is redefining "natural rights," changing their meaning to fit a political agenda/view, etc. (Of course, that's dangerous. As my math buddies were fond of noting, "If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything." If we start with our own definition, making one of our own choosing, we can make practically everything "a right." Now that I think about it, maybe I like this. Karen and I fly to Las Vegas several times a year to visit Matt. If the "right" to travel is a natural right, perhaps we can get others to pay for our increasingly expensive flight tickets?????? After all, don't Karen and I have a "right" to see our son?????? C'mon, who can argue with that one?)
Out to color with the kids......
Anyway, signing up for Medicare seems like a rite of passage of sorts. First, who ever really believes he'll be old enough to get Medicare? I certainly didn't--even a few weeks ago! Second, I have this aversion to getting things like this from the federal government. I know I've paid for this for the past 45 years or more, so it's not really an "entitlement." Still, there's that lingering feeling. Silly? I guess so.
This fellow was talking about how great Medicare was for his mother, who lived until her 90s. It took care of a lot of problems/expenses. Good! Then, I recalled last Sun or the Sun before, on one of the Sun AM talk shows, one of Obama's Obamacare point men admitted there are likely to be some "rationing of services" under the ACA. I think his admission was "Certainly, I think there might be." I wanted to tell this guy, a fervid Obama-guy and one who's loudly proclaimed, "Having health insurance is a right!," about "rationing." I didn't, mostly because he wouldn't hear what I was saying. I suppose it's just like nobody admitting that maybe Sarah Palin was right about "death panels."
Which leads me back to Clarence Thomas's autobiog. I am continually reminded that people aren't supposed to think for themselves. They are expected to fall into line, to accept the party line, be it with their political parties, their unions, education, whatever. Any deviation (I almost wrote "deviance," a Freudian slip?) is anathema, equivalent to heresy. Regardless of how wrong, misguided, or even just different the conventional wisdom of these groups/leaders, to think outside of their framework is worthy of the worst of name-calling. I guess I would question why we need a First Amendment, particularly the part about freedom of speech, if this is now the norm.
Speaking of rights, I believe it was Walter Williams who wrote a column a couple of weeks ago that touched upon some of my blogs of the past. He used different terminology, "negative rights" and "positive rights," but I've explored the concepts. A "right" is something that is possessed merely by being--coming from God or wherever. It is not granted by a government, at least not by our government in our system--or so we purportedly believe. Government is there to protect/guarantee rights, not to confer them. A "right" does not infringe on anyone else. That is, another person doesn't have to give up something in order to have others possess a right. Williams called that a "negative right." For instance, for me to have freedom of religion, the right to choose my own belief, nobody is required to concede anything. I am left free to choose and my choice doesn't burden or encumber anyone else. Now, as the guy above claimed, "Having health insurance is a right!" is a "positive right." That is, to have such a right requires others to concede, to give up something. If health care is "a right," well, somebody must pay for it. That requires taxing people to grant this "right" to others. That is, others have to give up something--their own money--in order to confer this so-called "right" to health care. That, it seems to me, is redefining "natural rights," changing their meaning to fit a political agenda/view, etc. (Of course, that's dangerous. As my math buddies were fond of noting, "If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything." If we start with our own definition, making one of our own choosing, we can make practically everything "a right." Now that I think about it, maybe I like this. Karen and I fly to Las Vegas several times a year to visit Matt. If the "right" to travel is a natural right, perhaps we can get others to pay for our increasingly expensive flight tickets?????? After all, don't Karen and I have a "right" to see our son?????? C'mon, who can argue with that one?)
Out to color with the kids......
Attn: J. Dayton
Surely, as I recognize, I am losing some of my faculties/memory. I, no doubt at one time, knew Jonathon Dayton was a signer of the Constitution, not the Declaration. I believe he was the youngest, or one of the youngest, signers. I thought, though, that I remembered John Dayton's mother, at a parent conference, telling me of the lineage connection. I must have been wrong--yet one more time. Again, my memory does fail more often than I would like or even like to admit, although it is often cause for some humorous stories.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Lessons to Be Learned
In the recent past, I've had several folks make faces when I mentioned I heard something on this or that radio program. Two, one local and one national, hosts were particularly noted as "racist" and "bigoted." That, when I asked what makes the host "racist" and "bigoted," there was no response at all, not even an attempt at an example, is not the point here. A third instance, when I brought up another host, my conversant asked, "You listen to...?" Before anything else could be uttered, I quickly said, "No, he's not a racist. No, he's not a bigot." That seemed to nonplus the questioner, but again, that's not the point.
I'm about halfway through the autobiography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I don't hold him in reverence as I do, say, Holmes, Harlan, and a few others. But I also resent the unwarranted vitriol usually tossed his way by the so-called "intelligentsia," well, at least those arrogant enough to believe they are the intelligentsia.
My Grandfather's Son is easy-to-read, somewhat insightful, and gives a glimpse of the man who I came to at least respect after the bigoted (yes, bigoted!) onslaught against him at his confirmation hearing. This isn't to suggest I fully agree with his rulings/decisions from the bench. But I think perhaps from personal experience I recognize the dignity he displayed when vehemently attacked by his political opponents in 1991. (How interesting that the same people who lambasted Thomas in the Anita Hill accusations, either strongly defended Bill Clinton or remained noticeably silent when the President was accused of mulitple like offenses.)
But those are matters for another day, perhaps.
Politics, Constitutional and legal opinions aside, I've already been reminded of an important lesson from My Grandfather's Son. People, at least I, should think as individuals, not as members of some group. For instance, as a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law, Thomas was expected to think the way, well, the way a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law should think. And, originally, he did--and acted on that way of thinking. Soon, however, he became conflicted with what he was supposed to think and how he really did, especially based on his personal experiences and research. And, he became vilified from straying from that accepted thought.
Because I was/am a teacher, I'm expected to think, speak, and act according to a certain "teacher way" of thinking, speaking, and acting. That I didn't and don't has made me, in many eyes, an apostate of sorts. That I saw weakness, stupidity, incompetence, etc. and refused to go along with it (to the degree I could refuse) was/is seen as treason, well, of sorts.
All of this leads me back to my opening. Each of these people, in speaking of these radio hosts, weren't offering their own reasoned opinions, not at all. (Of course, a clue was they couldn't offer any examples, any bases for their claims of "racist" and "bigot.") They merely parroted what they've heard from people like them. They said what they were supposed to say, whether they believe it or even knew what they were saying.
I suppose such reasoning is in the same intellectual domain as "just 'cuz."
I'm about halfway through the autobiography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I don't hold him in reverence as I do, say, Holmes, Harlan, and a few others. But I also resent the unwarranted vitriol usually tossed his way by the so-called "intelligentsia," well, at least those arrogant enough to believe they are the intelligentsia.
My Grandfather's Son is easy-to-read, somewhat insightful, and gives a glimpse of the man who I came to at least respect after the bigoted (yes, bigoted!) onslaught against him at his confirmation hearing. This isn't to suggest I fully agree with his rulings/decisions from the bench. But I think perhaps from personal experience I recognize the dignity he displayed when vehemently attacked by his political opponents in 1991. (How interesting that the same people who lambasted Thomas in the Anita Hill accusations, either strongly defended Bill Clinton or remained noticeably silent when the President was accused of mulitple like offenses.)
But those are matters for another day, perhaps.
Politics, Constitutional and legal opinions aside, I've already been reminded of an important lesson from My Grandfather's Son. People, at least I, should think as individuals, not as members of some group. For instance, as a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law, Thomas was expected to think the way, well, the way a black student who had graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law should think. And, originally, he did--and acted on that way of thinking. Soon, however, he became conflicted with what he was supposed to think and how he really did, especially based on his personal experiences and research. And, he became vilified from straying from that accepted thought.
Because I was/am a teacher, I'm expected to think, speak, and act according to a certain "teacher way" of thinking, speaking, and acting. That I didn't and don't has made me, in many eyes, an apostate of sorts. That I saw weakness, stupidity, incompetence, etc. and refused to go along with it (to the degree I could refuse) was/is seen as treason, well, of sorts.
All of this leads me back to my opening. Each of these people, in speaking of these radio hosts, weren't offering their own reasoned opinions, not at all. (Of course, a clue was they couldn't offer any examples, any bases for their claims of "racist" and "bigot.") They merely parroted what they've heard from people like them. They said what they were supposed to say, whether they believe it or even knew what they were saying.
I suppose such reasoning is in the same intellectual domain as "just 'cuz."
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Turning the World Upside Down
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, he purportedly had his fife and drum corps play a popular London ditty, The World Turned Upside Down. The lyrics go like this:
If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
Now, some historians doubt this was played, claiming it's a myth. But it's far too delicious to think otherwise, isn't it? And of course, some historians still think FDR was one of our best Presidents, that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves, and that the Versailles Treaty was a rotten treaty that caused WW2. But I digress......
How's this for turning the world upside down? Obama lets Iran, a rogue (if not worse) nation, keep its nuclear weapons and gives it $9 billion of American taxpayers' money. But he doesn't let millions of American citizens keep the health insurance they like/want and, to get new coverage, they have to pay more of their own money! It's great irony, something we can't make up. And the LameStreams laud the Iranian deal. But, of course, the media thought Neville Chamberlain had struck a great deal, too. ("There he goes with that history stuff again!") Only later did "Munich," "appeasement," and "Chamberlain" become four-letter words.
Perhaps Obama and Kerry think Iran is "reasonable. After all, in a letter to his sister shortly after Munich, Chamberlain asserted that Hitler "is a reasonable man." And who would/could argue with the arrogant, elitist Chamberlain? Why wouldn't the equally arrogant, elitist Obama and Kerry think the same? They are far smarter than anyone else, you know. ObamaCare proves that--er, forget I mentioned ObamaCare.
Now, what Iran has agreed to, according to Mike Rogers, chair of House Intelligence Committee (I will refrain from the comment I'd really like to write.), is to turn its uranium into an oxide powder, which will, the Obama Administration contends, make it useless. Except, as several nuclear scientists have said, reversing the process of oxidation is very simple. Besides, does anyone think Iran will stop its work on developing its nuclear capabilities, well, anyone other than the Bozos in the Obama Administration? The crackpots there, crazy like foxes?, will take our (that is, yours and mine) $9 billion and laugh at us behind our backs.
So, where does this leave the Middle East? Hmmm...... My guess is the Saudis will feel betrayed (rightly so, as much as I dislike them) and vulnerable. With their money, they can buy a bomb or two from, say, the Pakistanis. The Israelis are now much more likely to make a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear factilities. In other words, Kerry and Obama, with their continued fumbling and bumbling, have created an arms race, a nuclear arms race, in the Middle East.
Can the Nobel Committee have a revote??????
BTW, I received an e-mail announcing that Congressman Levin has introduced a bill to renew federal unemployment compensation. I sent a return e-mail asking when he was planning to introduce a bill to repeal ObamaCare. Gee, I'm still waiting for a response to my e-mail of a month or so back, which read, "Maybe you should have read the bill first?"
Mike Rogers also talked about ObamaCare and its provisions. He said the government's own estimates are that by next year, 40,000,000 Americans will have lost their health insurance. (I think a newspaper article used a higher figure, up to 80 or 90 million.) So, to remedy a problem--so it was termed a "problem"--the Bozos in Washington passed a law, thousands of pages long, a bill they never read, to give health insurance to 15 or 20 million uninsured (many of whom are illegal immigrants or who opted, by personal choice, not to spend money on health care) and it resulted in the loss of up to 40 million already-insured people to lose their coverage? That sure sounds brilliant.
Of course, a guy with whom I spoke a couple weeks ago insisted, really insisted, that "health insurance is a right!" I let him rant/rave for a couple of minutes and then gave him examples of people for whose health care I don't want to pay--smokers, obese people, couch potatoes, etc. I ended the conversation with something like, "Instead of going on a vacation for two weeks, why don't you stay home and buy a health insurance policy for one of the uninsured?" He didn't answer and didn't have to answer. "Don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the fellow behind the tree."
BTW, I received an e-mail announcing that Congressman Levin has introduced a bill to renew federal unemployment compensation. I sent a return e-mail asking when he was planning to introduce a bill to repeal ObamaCare. Gee, I'm still waiting for a response to my e-mail of a month or so back, which read, "Maybe you should have read the bill first?"
Mike Rogers also talked about ObamaCare and its provisions. He said the government's own estimates are that by next year, 40,000,000 Americans will have lost their health insurance. (I think a newspaper article used a higher figure, up to 80 or 90 million.) So, to remedy a problem--so it was termed a "problem"--the Bozos in Washington passed a law, thousands of pages long, a bill they never read, to give health insurance to 15 or 20 million uninsured (many of whom are illegal immigrants or who opted, by personal choice, not to spend money on health care) and it resulted in the loss of up to 40 million already-insured people to lose their coverage? That sure sounds brilliant.
Of course, a guy with whom I spoke a couple weeks ago insisted, really insisted, that "health insurance is a right!" I let him rant/rave for a couple of minutes and then gave him examples of people for whose health care I don't want to pay--smokers, obese people, couch potatoes, etc. I ended the conversation with something like, "Instead of going on a vacation for two weeks, why don't you stay home and buy a health insurance policy for one of the uninsured?" He didn't answer and didn't have to answer. "Don't tax you and don't tax me. Tax the fellow behind the tree."
Sunday, November 24, 2013
ISOP and other sundry things....
So the comet ISOP is out there, however fleeting. I thought it was out there the other night, but watching through binoculars reevaluated. Then I pegged it for a helicopter, due to what I thought was a red blinking light at its rear. I rechecked tonight and I think it's the comet, the red blinking lights the comet's tail. It's pretty cool, esp for an ex-astronomy jock. I think this is the first one I've seen since Hale-Bopp (a much cooler name) about a dozen years or so ago--maybe longer. I remember running right along side of it during the Light Fest 8K at night. It was pretty cool, esp with its long tail.
Last Sun AM we ran in shorts and tee shirts. This AM it was 13 degrees! Temperatures were forty + degrees colder this AM than last week. Heh Heh Heh......
And I filled up with petrol tonight. Granted, I didn't have my 10-cents off per gallon Kroger bonus, but I still paid 40 cents more a gallon. Ouch! That's five bucks. I guess I should be thankful it's not already back up to $5 a gallon?
I read two letters to the editor in recent newspapers from folks who noticed what I did last month--their auto insurance premiums have gone up, one, I think, was 15% and the other 10%. One said a call to his insurer revealed, yep, you guessed it--ObamaCare and personal liability increases because of it. All told, so far, our insurance premiums--health and auto--will cost us at least $1500 in '14. Good thing I have that money tree in the backyard--and that the windstorm blew down the black walnut tree instead of it!
Are these the beginning signs? Yesterday, I was driving to my blind buddy's for our weekly run. I left a bit early, to scrape the frost off my windshield and, at least planned, to buy petrol. It's about an hour there, an hour to run, and an hour home. I took a gander at the car clock and smiled a bit, if only for a short while. I thought I had a few minutes to spare, making my drive home a bit less hectic since K and C were walking and I had to be back to watch the kids. Oops! I suddenly remembered, so K and C could walk, that I had moved up my run with my blind buddy by half an hour. I had forgotten. After all, I did make the change on Fri afternoon! Now, I wasn't ahead of the game, but behind. How could I have forgotten? Beats me, except that...... And, the drive home was hindered by snow squalls, heavy ones that left the last 10-12 miles of my drive home on some very slick roads. Then, today, I was proud of myself that I wrote and typed two articles for which I had end of the month deadlines. They took almost six hours, including a little bit of last-minute research I had to do. Good! Now, only one more article, one column, and one review left by the 30th, next Saturday. Then I remembered; I already did the other (the third) article and had sent it in to my editor last week. I felt pretty good about finishing it, not so good about not remembering. One would think I'd remember, but I didn't.
OK, out to get Ashley, Cody, and Michael a piece of cherry pie I baked this afternoon. Then, it's off to bed for them--with Grandpa not far behind.
Last Sun AM we ran in shorts and tee shirts. This AM it was 13 degrees! Temperatures were forty + degrees colder this AM than last week. Heh Heh Heh......
And I filled up with petrol tonight. Granted, I didn't have my 10-cents off per gallon Kroger bonus, but I still paid 40 cents more a gallon. Ouch! That's five bucks. I guess I should be thankful it's not already back up to $5 a gallon?
I read two letters to the editor in recent newspapers from folks who noticed what I did last month--their auto insurance premiums have gone up, one, I think, was 15% and the other 10%. One said a call to his insurer revealed, yep, you guessed it--ObamaCare and personal liability increases because of it. All told, so far, our insurance premiums--health and auto--will cost us at least $1500 in '14. Good thing I have that money tree in the backyard--and that the windstorm blew down the black walnut tree instead of it!
Are these the beginning signs? Yesterday, I was driving to my blind buddy's for our weekly run. I left a bit early, to scrape the frost off my windshield and, at least planned, to buy petrol. It's about an hour there, an hour to run, and an hour home. I took a gander at the car clock and smiled a bit, if only for a short while. I thought I had a few minutes to spare, making my drive home a bit less hectic since K and C were walking and I had to be back to watch the kids. Oops! I suddenly remembered, so K and C could walk, that I had moved up my run with my blind buddy by half an hour. I had forgotten. After all, I did make the change on Fri afternoon! Now, I wasn't ahead of the game, but behind. How could I have forgotten? Beats me, except that...... And, the drive home was hindered by snow squalls, heavy ones that left the last 10-12 miles of my drive home on some very slick roads. Then, today, I was proud of myself that I wrote and typed two articles for which I had end of the month deadlines. They took almost six hours, including a little bit of last-minute research I had to do. Good! Now, only one more article, one column, and one review left by the 30th, next Saturday. Then I remembered; I already did the other (the third) article and had sent it in to my editor last week. I felt pretty good about finishing it, not so good about not remembering. One would think I'd remember, but I didn't.
OK, out to get Ashley, Cody, and Michael a piece of cherry pie I baked this afternoon. Then, it's off to bed for them--with Grandpa not far behind.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Jefferson
Regardless of what I read about Thomas Jefferson (and Joe Ellis' book The American Sphinx is top-flight), he never seems to match up with Lincoln or Washington. Oh, Jefferson is a superstar, no doubt about it. His second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the American Creed.
I think JFK wasn't far off the mark when, at a dinner for Nobel prize winners, he said, "This is the second greatest congregation of intelligence the White House has ever seen." The "greatest," he added, was when "Jefferson dined alone."
Still he belongs in the American Hall of Fame, along with John Adams, Alex Hamilton, Ben Franklin, James Madison, et al.
For some time there have been e-mails going around about things Jefferson purportedly said. Although the sentiments are correct, not all are accurate. Here is a quotation that he did utter and it's very appropriate, although it came 200+ years ago in 1795 (if I remember correctly). "Our citizens are divided into two political sects. One which fears the people most, the other the government."
Here's another, from his First Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...."
And today's Democrats claim to be "the party of Jefferson."
Let me add some things about MOOCs, the current trend toward more and more online and virtual courses. (Are they the same??????) I realize that I am a Luddite, one to whom technology is not "God." Hey, I still don't have a cellphone! I also know the purported virtues of online courses/education, individuals working at their own paces/levels, making education more available to more people (particularly the poor, which I think is a specious argument), etc. I've blogged before about the trend toward more and more of these online courses, so no need to cover that again. But I read two articles about MOOCs last week, one bashing them and one defending them. And there was one common theme throughout both articles. Boiled down, it was this: follow the money! That, as I've suggested before, is behind this (and many other pseudo-reforms in education). It's not about improving education (oh, maybe a bit, but not the primary goal), but making somebody lots of money. "The Common Core," "Everyday Math," etc., you name, it and then just follow the money and you'll see what their real goals are.
Let me add some things about MOOCs, the current trend toward more and more online and virtual courses. (Are they the same??????) I realize that I am a Luddite, one to whom technology is not "God." Hey, I still don't have a cellphone! I also know the purported virtues of online courses/education, individuals working at their own paces/levels, making education more available to more people (particularly the poor, which I think is a specious argument), etc. I've blogged before about the trend toward more and more of these online courses, so no need to cover that again. But I read two articles about MOOCs last week, one bashing them and one defending them. And there was one common theme throughout both articles. Boiled down, it was this: follow the money! That, as I've suggested before, is behind this (and many other pseudo-reforms in education). It's not about improving education (oh, maybe a bit, but not the primary goal), but making somebody lots of money. "The Common Core," "Everyday Math," etc., you name, it and then just follow the money and you'll see what their real goals are.
Friday, November 22, 2013
"Nuclear Option"
First, what ding-a-ling started calling this the "nuclear option?" But, the name is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
How is it spelled? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!!!!!! Yes, I think that's it. So the Democrats rammed through legislation to change Senate rules that have been in place for more than a century. Generally restricted to confirmation of federal judge appointments (excluding Supremes), it nevertheless exposes, yet another time, the hypocrisy of Democrats--and Republicans!
Let's take a trip in the way-back machine--Poof! Magic!--about five or six years ago. Weren't the shoes on the other feet? Change the dates and the parties, but keep the "outrage." Yep, then, the Republicans were trying to change the rules and the Democrats were crying "Foul!" Now, it's the Democrats who actually have changed the rules and the Republicans are upset.
Again, I ask, "How can any right-minded person continue to vote for the majority of Democratic and/or Republican candidates?" To do so seems to confirm my view that a vote for either party, as opposed to a minor/third party, is a wasted vote. Of course, maybe many people don't think a vote for a Bozo is wasted; I'm not sure.
And here's the President, whose photo must be next to the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary," talking about "the gears of government have go to work" and that the old rules are "a reckless and relentless too to grind all business to a halt." Wait a minute! We can use that way-back machine again--Poof! Magic!--to locate that You Tube video of then Senator Obama giving a seven-minute speech lambasting the Republicans for trying to do what his own Democrats did yesterday--and now he lauds his own party for it!
And one might intelligently argue--Well at least I might argue, I don't know how intelligently--that "the gears of government" should be ground to "a halt." What are these Bozos doing passing laws that have 20,000 pages of regulations and codes? Look at the federal income tax laws and codes. Look at ObamaCare. These fools don't know what's in what they've passed; if they can read, they surely haven't read the laws. If they have read them, then they are fully responsible for all the junk that they spew. I don't know what's worse--not reading them and passing anyway or reading them, knowing they are junk, and passing anyway. Regardless, a pox on both their arrogant, elitist houses.
Remember the WSJ a few years back, speaking of Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there."
While I'm at it, a poll the other day for the 2014 US Senate seat in Michigan shows Gary Peters ahead of Terri Lynn Land by a point, 37% to 36%. I know the election is still a year away. I know that means 27% of the voters are still undecided. But how can this be? How can Peters be within a light-year of Land? First, she's hardly a staunch conservative and, as state secretary of state, streamlined much of the state government dealing with, well, us. But, more significant, Peters is one of those Bozos who voted for ObamaCare and, now, supports a bill delaying its implementation for a year--you know, "We're not going to screw you now; we're going to wait until next year." How distressing that this guy is still anywhere in the ballpark, let alone leading by a point! Perhaps the Apocalypse is closer than I think??????
How is it spelled? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S!!!!!! Yes, I think that's it. So the Democrats rammed through legislation to change Senate rules that have been in place for more than a century. Generally restricted to confirmation of federal judge appointments (excluding Supremes), it nevertheless exposes, yet another time, the hypocrisy of Democrats--and Republicans!
Let's take a trip in the way-back machine--Poof! Magic!--about five or six years ago. Weren't the shoes on the other feet? Change the dates and the parties, but keep the "outrage." Yep, then, the Republicans were trying to change the rules and the Democrats were crying "Foul!" Now, it's the Democrats who actually have changed the rules and the Republicans are upset.
Again, I ask, "How can any right-minded person continue to vote for the majority of Democratic and/or Republican candidates?" To do so seems to confirm my view that a vote for either party, as opposed to a minor/third party, is a wasted vote. Of course, maybe many people don't think a vote for a Bozo is wasted; I'm not sure.
And here's the President, whose photo must be next to the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary," talking about "the gears of government have go to work" and that the old rules are "a reckless and relentless too to grind all business to a halt." Wait a minute! We can use that way-back machine again--Poof! Magic!--to locate that You Tube video of then Senator Obama giving a seven-minute speech lambasting the Republicans for trying to do what his own Democrats did yesterday--and now he lauds his own party for it!
And one might intelligently argue--Well at least I might argue, I don't know how intelligently--that "the gears of government" should be ground to "a halt." What are these Bozos doing passing laws that have 20,000 pages of regulations and codes? Look at the federal income tax laws and codes. Look at ObamaCare. These fools don't know what's in what they've passed; if they can read, they surely haven't read the laws. If they have read them, then they are fully responsible for all the junk that they spew. I don't know what's worse--not reading them and passing anyway or reading them, knowing they are junk, and passing anyway. Regardless, a pox on both their arrogant, elitist houses.
Remember the WSJ a few years back, speaking of Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there."
While I'm at it, a poll the other day for the 2014 US Senate seat in Michigan shows Gary Peters ahead of Terri Lynn Land by a point, 37% to 36%. I know the election is still a year away. I know that means 27% of the voters are still undecided. But how can this be? How can Peters be within a light-year of Land? First, she's hardly a staunch conservative and, as state secretary of state, streamlined much of the state government dealing with, well, us. But, more significant, Peters is one of those Bozos who voted for ObamaCare and, now, supports a bill delaying its implementation for a year--you know, "We're not going to screw you now; we're going to wait until next year." How distressing that this guy is still anywhere in the ballpark, let alone leading by a point! Perhaps the Apocalypse is closer than I think??????
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Lincoln and Washington
When is a lie not a lie? When it's an "inaccurate promise." When is a liar not a liar? When he "misspeaks?"
I know I've written about this foolishness before--either one is honest or one isn't. But I've been reminded of how low we've sunk. I have just read two books, one about Abraham Lincoln and the other about George Washington. I certainly have read a lot about the two men, but especially in light of the current climate of where dishonesty is not only rampant, but ignored or defended, Lincoln and Washington are inspiring and breaths of fresh air. They almost, almost, hold out a ray of hope for the future.
Not even their most vociferous enemies ever accused them of lying or dishonesty. Oh, they were accused of many things, some not very complimentary ("incompetence" comes to mind), but never of being deceitful and certainly not willfully so.
And it wasn't just their words that were honest. They lived what they talked--charitable toward others, helpful to those in need, etc. How unlike our hypocrites of today who, to be honest myself, are good at giving to others, just not with their own money. They live by the creed, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is ours."
Isn't anyone else disheartened by the sheer magnitude of the culture of dishonesty? That, in itself, is even more depressing.
I've been ruminating over this one the past week. Why hasn't anyone picked up on it? Well, perhaps someone has and I just missed it. Obama last week told Americans he wanted to fix ObamaCare, he really did, but there were too many regulations (government regulations), too many hoops to jump through, too much red tape for him to do so. At least, "I can't help right away." Am I reading irony into that? Is it not the epitome of irony? And the guy said it with a straight face.
I know I've written about this foolishness before--either one is honest or one isn't. But I've been reminded of how low we've sunk. I have just read two books, one about Abraham Lincoln and the other about George Washington. I certainly have read a lot about the two men, but especially in light of the current climate of where dishonesty is not only rampant, but ignored or defended, Lincoln and Washington are inspiring and breaths of fresh air. They almost, almost, hold out a ray of hope for the future.
Not even their most vociferous enemies ever accused them of lying or dishonesty. Oh, they were accused of many things, some not very complimentary ("incompetence" comes to mind), but never of being deceitful and certainly not willfully so.
And it wasn't just their words that were honest. They lived what they talked--charitable toward others, helpful to those in need, etc. How unlike our hypocrites of today who, to be honest myself, are good at giving to others, just not with their own money. They live by the creed, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is ours."
Isn't anyone else disheartened by the sheer magnitude of the culture of dishonesty? That, in itself, is even more depressing.
I've been ruminating over this one the past week. Why hasn't anyone picked up on it? Well, perhaps someone has and I just missed it. Obama last week told Americans he wanted to fix ObamaCare, he really did, but there were too many regulations (government regulations), too many hoops to jump through, too much red tape for him to do so. At least, "I can't help right away." Am I reading irony into that? Is it not the epitome of irony? And the guy said it with a straight face.
The Gettysburg Address
Today is the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. Given my respect, almost veneration of Abraham Lincoln, I think this is the greatest speech ever given on American soil, if not the greatest anywhere ever. (Granted, some think Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address ranks higher, but that's like picking between the best and the best.)
Lots of myths have grown up around the Address. No, he didn't write it on the back of an envelope while on the train from DC to Gettysburg. He was not the featured speaker. In fact, he was invited as a mere formality and it was a surprise that he accepted; Lincoln didn't venture far from Washington, especially to give speeches. The main speaker was Edward Everett, former US Senator and president of Harvard, one of the most renowned speakers of the day. The festivities had originally been planned for earlier, late Sept or Oct, but Everett was recovering from a stroke (or heart attack?)
Everett spoke for more than two hours; Lincoln took just over two minutes. Purportedly afterward, Everett told Lincoln, "Mr. President, you just said in two minutes what I couldn't say in two hours." Coming from Everett, that was the highest praise.
Yet, immediate reactions were mixed. At Gettysburg, it was over almost before it was started. The crowd, estimated at 15,000 (in a town with a population of 1/6 that), remained silent, either not understanding or thinking there was more to come. The cameras there to take photos of Lincoln hadn't had time to set up--he was done before the cameramen got started. Newspapers lauded or pooh-poohed the Address, depending on political affiliation/party. The naysayers used words like "shameful" and "embarrassing." Today, that seems incredible. I guess even then politics trumped intelligence, even common sense.
Read the Address again; it takes a minute or so to read. Lincoln has redefined the great experiment called "American democracy." He takes "liberty/freedom" and adds to them "equality." He cites American exceptionalism (and our current President claims to be a devotee of Lincoln--BAH!). Note how it is, at the end, not "shall not perish from this land" (or nation or US...), but "from this earth." (There are several copies of the Gettysburg Address extant; they don't read exactly the same. We don't know exactly what Lincoln said that day, "this earth" or "the earth." The meaning is clear, though.)
How important are liberty/freedom and equality? Well, as he notes, that's why all those people were in Gettysburg that day. Thousands of good men gave their lives on those July days, gave their lives for liberty/freedom and equality!
Please recognize the poetry of the Address. Certainly another President (or any speaker) might well have opened with "In 1776" or even "Eighty-seven years ago." See how Lincoln, who worked on this speech for several weeks beforehand, begins: "Four score and seven years ago...." And he uses such poetry throughout the speech.
The ideas and ideal, the poetry, the entire (albeit brief) Gettysburg Address is inspiring, especially in this day and age.
Lots of myths have grown up around the Address. No, he didn't write it on the back of an envelope while on the train from DC to Gettysburg. He was not the featured speaker. In fact, he was invited as a mere formality and it was a surprise that he accepted; Lincoln didn't venture far from Washington, especially to give speeches. The main speaker was Edward Everett, former US Senator and president of Harvard, one of the most renowned speakers of the day. The festivities had originally been planned for earlier, late Sept or Oct, but Everett was recovering from a stroke (or heart attack?)
Everett spoke for more than two hours; Lincoln took just over two minutes. Purportedly afterward, Everett told Lincoln, "Mr. President, you just said in two minutes what I couldn't say in two hours." Coming from Everett, that was the highest praise.
Yet, immediate reactions were mixed. At Gettysburg, it was over almost before it was started. The crowd, estimated at 15,000 (in a town with a population of 1/6 that), remained silent, either not understanding or thinking there was more to come. The cameras there to take photos of Lincoln hadn't had time to set up--he was done before the cameramen got started. Newspapers lauded or pooh-poohed the Address, depending on political affiliation/party. The naysayers used words like "shameful" and "embarrassing." Today, that seems incredible. I guess even then politics trumped intelligence, even common sense.
Read the Address again; it takes a minute or so to read. Lincoln has redefined the great experiment called "American democracy." He takes "liberty/freedom" and adds to them "equality." He cites American exceptionalism (and our current President claims to be a devotee of Lincoln--BAH!). Note how it is, at the end, not "shall not perish from this land" (or nation or US...), but "from this earth." (There are several copies of the Gettysburg Address extant; they don't read exactly the same. We don't know exactly what Lincoln said that day, "this earth" or "the earth." The meaning is clear, though.)
How important are liberty/freedom and equality? Well, as he notes, that's why all those people were in Gettysburg that day. Thousands of good men gave their lives on those July days, gave their lives for liberty/freedom and equality!
Please recognize the poetry of the Address. Certainly another President (or any speaker) might well have opened with "In 1776" or even "Eighty-seven years ago." See how Lincoln, who worked on this speech for several weeks beforehand, begins: "Four score and seven years ago...." And he uses such poetry throughout the speech.
The ideas and ideal, the poetry, the entire (albeit brief) Gettysburg Address is inspiring, especially in this day and age.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Run and Hide
I see Congressman Gary Peters of Michigan, along with three dozen other members of the House who voted for ObamaCare have had "a change of heart." He (and the others) have now voted to allow Americans to keep their insurance policies, you know, the way the President dishonestly told Americans they could.
The House bill, one tendered by another Michigan Congressman, Fred Upton, is really a lousy bill. Generally what it does is tell Americans, "Hey, we're not going to screw you until next year."
Gee, why did Peters do this sudden switch? Certainly it couldn't be that 2014 is an election year, could it?
Perhaps, as I wrote my two US Senators, they should have read it first??????
And wasn't it great that Secretary Sebelius in Detroit the other day said something about "only a minority" have lost their health insurance policies? Funny, when these doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo!") were so insistent on passing ObamaCare they never considered that it was "only a minority" who didn't have health insurance then. I guess that begs the question, "When is a 'minority' not a 'minority?'"
I continually ask myself what fools would pass legislation that is thousands of pages long--thousands of pages! I can't imagine it other than remember what Lee Iacocca called our elected representatives in DC, "Bozos." And isn't the federal income tax law and subsequent code tens of thousands of pages?
What was it Jefferson (you know, the guy almost as intelligent as Obama)wrote? "Most bad government results from too much government."
Here's one for us to consider, too. Let's find out which candidates raised and spent the most money in their campaigns. Then, let's vote for their opponents! C'mon, let's have some fun! It doesn't really matter if we elect Republicans or Democrats--we get lousy Presidents from either party; members of Congress are equally bad (well, maybe not "equally," but still bad). And, this would then address the complaint that politicians buy their ways into office, that money isn't as important as it seems. Then we can quit complaining about the Citizens United decision by the Supremes. Yes, let's take the ball ourselves and run with it, you know, participate in our own government, a democracy. Along the way, if we continue to elect those who raise the most money (and 90% or more of the time that's just what happens; the top money-raisers win), we can remember, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Yep......
It was good to see Miggy won the MVP again. I think he deserved it. The Tigers are just now beginning to reveal a little bit about how injured Cabrera was the last couple of months, yet played through it. In fact, he refused to get a doctor's opinion until he was assured he wouldn't be taken out of the line-up! He's without question the best hitter in the game. I heard Al Kaline say so and suggest he's the best he's ever seen. I know Trout is good, maybe the best all-round player out there. But it wasn't just that Cabrera is the best hitter; it's that he drives in runs that matter. Ask Mariano Rivera......
I understand, I think, the finances of baseball and, ultimately, it's a business. But I can't for the life of me figure out how the Tigers can even consider trading Max Scherzer. OK, so they may or may not sign him after '14. So be it. But at least they'd have one of the elite pitchers in all of baseball for that season. I forget which Tiger recently said they need him to continue to win games, but also that he doesn't want to face him as an opposing pitcher/batter.
The House bill, one tendered by another Michigan Congressman, Fred Upton, is really a lousy bill. Generally what it does is tell Americans, "Hey, we're not going to screw you until next year."
Gee, why did Peters do this sudden switch? Certainly it couldn't be that 2014 is an election year, could it?
Perhaps, as I wrote my two US Senators, they should have read it first??????
And wasn't it great that Secretary Sebelius in Detroit the other day said something about "only a minority" have lost their health insurance policies? Funny, when these doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo!") were so insistent on passing ObamaCare they never considered that it was "only a minority" who didn't have health insurance then. I guess that begs the question, "When is a 'minority' not a 'minority?'"
I continually ask myself what fools would pass legislation that is thousands of pages long--thousands of pages! I can't imagine it other than remember what Lee Iacocca called our elected representatives in DC, "Bozos." And isn't the federal income tax law and subsequent code tens of thousands of pages?
What was it Jefferson (you know, the guy almost as intelligent as Obama)wrote? "Most bad government results from too much government."
Here's one for us to consider, too. Let's find out which candidates raised and spent the most money in their campaigns. Then, let's vote for their opponents! C'mon, let's have some fun! It doesn't really matter if we elect Republicans or Democrats--we get lousy Presidents from either party; members of Congress are equally bad (well, maybe not "equally," but still bad). And, this would then address the complaint that politicians buy their ways into office, that money isn't as important as it seems. Then we can quit complaining about the Citizens United decision by the Supremes. Yes, let's take the ball ourselves and run with it, you know, participate in our own government, a democracy. Along the way, if we continue to elect those who raise the most money (and 90% or more of the time that's just what happens; the top money-raisers win), we can remember, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Yep......
It was good to see Miggy won the MVP again. I think he deserved it. The Tigers are just now beginning to reveal a little bit about how injured Cabrera was the last couple of months, yet played through it. In fact, he refused to get a doctor's opinion until he was assured he wouldn't be taken out of the line-up! He's without question the best hitter in the game. I heard Al Kaline say so and suggest he's the best he's ever seen. I know Trout is good, maybe the best all-round player out there. But it wasn't just that Cabrera is the best hitter; it's that he drives in runs that matter. Ask Mariano Rivera......
I understand, I think, the finances of baseball and, ultimately, it's a business. But I can't for the life of me figure out how the Tigers can even consider trading Max Scherzer. OK, so they may or may not sign him after '14. So be it. But at least they'd have one of the elite pitchers in all of baseball for that season. I forget which Tiger recently said they need him to continue to win games, but also that he doesn't want to face him as an opposing pitcher/batter.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Drop, Pellet, Flake
I give an assignment in one of my history courses where students read three different accounts of what Michigan was like in the early 1800s. The accounts vary and my questions ask if one of the pioneers is lying. If not, then why do the accounts differ so much?
Out on my run this AM I was reminded of the assignment and think I could have answered it myself! I began my run with a bit of sunshine, not much, but some. It felt fairly warm, enough so that I entertained the thought of a bike ride afterward, before the Codester got home from school. Nope, those hopes were dashed about half an hour into the run. Was that a snow flake I noticed? Yes, it was, mixed with rain drops and ice pellets. Drops, Pellets, Flakes all at once. Only in Michigan?
Contrast today, then, with yesterday. Almost all day was bright sunshine, although there was a very brisk wind, with even stronger gusts. It was the day of the Big Bird 10K, one of my favorite road races, and upon awakening thought, "Looks like a good day for the race." Then when getting the AM newspaper I noticed the wind, "Hawk, Almighty Hawk." It was blowing pretty good out there and it did all day.
Now, contrast that with later today. We are in for 1/2" to 1" of snow this afternoon and evening, that is, if the weather predictors can be trusted! A bit farther north will be up to 4" and near the Lake Superior shoreline in the UP maybe 6-9" will fall. Of course, none of us may get anything.... But, remember, it's Michigan.
Last week, I went out to run one AM and it was 31 degrees. The very next morning was 61. There was a bit of rain, but it was nice to run in shorts in November. 24 hours and 30 degrees difference.
In the back yard, most of the trees are now barren of leaves--most. One is still brown/golden and another red, not quite flaming. Yet another still has most of its leaves--and they are still mostly green. And all of the trees but one are the same type of maple.
In another vein, I read an article this AM of a NJ man, homeless and destitute (Is that redundant?), who found $850 on the sidewalk. Instead of keeping it for himself, he turned the money in to the police. The NJ welfare folks, whatever the agency is called, found out about the discovery and cut the homeless man's benefits. Huh? Why on earth did that happen? He failed to report the $850 as income! Unless the article is all wrong, someone is lying, etc., that's what happened. Ah, yes...government in action.
And the LameStreams never fail to disappoint me--and didn't this AM. In an article about former Congressman Thadeus McCotter's lawsuit against one of his former aides, the "accidental Congressman" (Would anyone, even a Democrat, who won McC's seat have been characterized as "accidental?") Kerry Bentivolio was mentioned as McC's successor. Of course, as expected, Bentivolio was identified as a "reindeer farmer." Who couldn't have predicted that one--even the weather forecasters could have! I still want to know why Dingell, Conyers, Biden, etc. are ever, ever, identified as "career politicians."
Over the weekend I had a discussion with another about politics and the other mentioned, in a negative tone, Bentivolio. Now, Bentivolio isn't my guy, but I couldn't help but respond to this negativism with, "Hey, at least the guy didn't lie to get elected. Name another politician who's kept his campaign promises." Of course, the other was at a loss to come up with an answer, at least since Phil Hart was elected......
Out on my run this AM I was reminded of the assignment and think I could have answered it myself! I began my run with a bit of sunshine, not much, but some. It felt fairly warm, enough so that I entertained the thought of a bike ride afterward, before the Codester got home from school. Nope, those hopes were dashed about half an hour into the run. Was that a snow flake I noticed? Yes, it was, mixed with rain drops and ice pellets. Drops, Pellets, Flakes all at once. Only in Michigan?
Contrast today, then, with yesterday. Almost all day was bright sunshine, although there was a very brisk wind, with even stronger gusts. It was the day of the Big Bird 10K, one of my favorite road races, and upon awakening thought, "Looks like a good day for the race." Then when getting the AM newspaper I noticed the wind, "Hawk, Almighty Hawk." It was blowing pretty good out there and it did all day.
Now, contrast that with later today. We are in for 1/2" to 1" of snow this afternoon and evening, that is, if the weather predictors can be trusted! A bit farther north will be up to 4" and near the Lake Superior shoreline in the UP maybe 6-9" will fall. Of course, none of us may get anything.... But, remember, it's Michigan.
Last week, I went out to run one AM and it was 31 degrees. The very next morning was 61. There was a bit of rain, but it was nice to run in shorts in November. 24 hours and 30 degrees difference.
In the back yard, most of the trees are now barren of leaves--most. One is still brown/golden and another red, not quite flaming. Yet another still has most of its leaves--and they are still mostly green. And all of the trees but one are the same type of maple.
In another vein, I read an article this AM of a NJ man, homeless and destitute (Is that redundant?), who found $850 on the sidewalk. Instead of keeping it for himself, he turned the money in to the police. The NJ welfare folks, whatever the agency is called, found out about the discovery and cut the homeless man's benefits. Huh? Why on earth did that happen? He failed to report the $850 as income! Unless the article is all wrong, someone is lying, etc., that's what happened. Ah, yes...government in action.
And the LameStreams never fail to disappoint me--and didn't this AM. In an article about former Congressman Thadeus McCotter's lawsuit against one of his former aides, the "accidental Congressman" (Would anyone, even a Democrat, who won McC's seat have been characterized as "accidental?") Kerry Bentivolio was mentioned as McC's successor. Of course, as expected, Bentivolio was identified as a "reindeer farmer." Who couldn't have predicted that one--even the weather forecasters could have! I still want to know why Dingell, Conyers, Biden, etc. are ever, ever, identified as "career politicians."
Over the weekend I had a discussion with another about politics and the other mentioned, in a negative tone, Bentivolio. Now, Bentivolio isn't my guy, but I couldn't help but respond to this negativism with, "Hey, at least the guy didn't lie to get elected. Name another politician who's kept his campaign promises." Of course, the other was at a loss to come up with an answer, at least since Phil Hart was elected......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
