A couple of newspapers this week had articles that upset me. I wrote rebuttals to both. I think one will appear as an op-ed piece or so I was told. I don't know about the other.
I do, however, like to get replies from the columnists. It's good they read what their readers send to them. There are those who pretty much always reply and those who never do, as if they are sitting on high pontificating to the rest of us. I think I call them "the arrogant elitists."
Politicians are often the same way. I rarely get any responses from Sens Levin or Stabenow. One time I did and the response had nothing to do with my letter. I sent back right away, pointing that out and asking, "Is anyone awake up there?" I also received a reply to that one, an apology for the first response, but still not addressing my concerns. Neither of our past few governors reply either, even if I had specific questions.
Thomas Sowell had yet another good column this week. He takes on the notion that government, led by the elites, make far more catastrophic, fatal mistakes than individuals do. And, unlike many who just spew empty platitudes, he gives example after example to support his contentions. Sowell, perhaps, is nice than I am. He calls what I call arrogant elitists "the intelligentsia," although he's certainly not being complimentary. He notes the "intellectual elite see themselves as the shepherds and us as their sheep." Many of "us" play the part well, though. Sowell has a great question, perhaps one we should address to our Commanders-in-Chief--"Can you imagine a President of the United States saying to the mothers of America, 'I am sorry your sons were killed in a war I never should have gotten us into?'" No, I can't imagine that.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
History
Yep, the history of the US is filled with smirches. Yet, the history of the US is one of "a relentless struggle to master our own worst urges and to put our best principles into practice." I don't remember if those are the exact words of Yale Professor David Gelernter, but I think they are close. I hope that doesn't smack of "American exceptionalism."
Why, among the current elitists, is "American exceptionalism" such a pejorative? Why do they go out of their way to disparage it, deny it? After all, ask some one from France or Germany or China or Japan or....and you'll get their own version of "exceptionalism." The Chinese referred to China as the Middle Kingdom, the intermediary between the gods and other humans. Don't Muslims consider those not of the Islamic faith to be "infidels," to be treated differently--more poorly at best? And the French, well, the French think they are more exceptional than anyone. (Of course, the concept can be taken too far, such as the Nazi Aryans, the super race.)
Maybe it's because these arrogant elitists (Why does Woodrow Wilson's name always pop into my head when I think or write that?) don't like democracy. They prefer some sort of aristocracy, they themselves, of course, being the aristocrats. They are smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do. We are the equivalent of the eternal child, who must always be protected by parents. Look at the recent track record, even worse in some respects than those of the Progressives and FDR's New Dealers. ObamaCare was passed despite a sizable portion of the people opposed to it. And, my guess is the numbers were even higher, given the propensity of the media to cater to the administration and its own role in the aristocracy. What about all the "czars" appointed by Obama? (And why hasn't the term "czar" raised anyone's hackles? Were there ever any rulers more autocratic?) The EPA has skirted the functions of Congress with the carbon emissions regulations. Obama has enacted a good part of the Dream Act (immigration) with executive orders. (I know he's not issued many more exec orders than recent Presidents. It's not the number, but the intent of his relative to others.) And we being driven to drive hybrids and electric cars even though we're pretty clear that we don't want to drive them. Cars are going the same way as light bulbs, television sets, flush toilets, gasoline, etc. We don't like or want those new-fangled light bulbs? Too bad. The arrogant elitists know what's best for us. Oh, and try to get a 20 oz soda in NYC or a Big Mac in LA. For that matter, try to get real KFC or McD's fries that taste good--like they used to before gov't bans on what they are/were cooked in. No, I don't buy either any more.
Government by elitists--aristocracy. How about kakistocracy? Government by incompetents!
Why, among the current elitists, is "American exceptionalism" such a pejorative? Why do they go out of their way to disparage it, deny it? After all, ask some one from France or Germany or China or Japan or....and you'll get their own version of "exceptionalism." The Chinese referred to China as the Middle Kingdom, the intermediary between the gods and other humans. Don't Muslims consider those not of the Islamic faith to be "infidels," to be treated differently--more poorly at best? And the French, well, the French think they are more exceptional than anyone. (Of course, the concept can be taken too far, such as the Nazi Aryans, the super race.)
Maybe it's because these arrogant elitists (Why does Woodrow Wilson's name always pop into my head when I think or write that?) don't like democracy. They prefer some sort of aristocracy, they themselves, of course, being the aristocrats. They are smarter than we are and know what's best for us better than we do. We are the equivalent of the eternal child, who must always be protected by parents. Look at the recent track record, even worse in some respects than those of the Progressives and FDR's New Dealers. ObamaCare was passed despite a sizable portion of the people opposed to it. And, my guess is the numbers were even higher, given the propensity of the media to cater to the administration and its own role in the aristocracy. What about all the "czars" appointed by Obama? (And why hasn't the term "czar" raised anyone's hackles? Were there ever any rulers more autocratic?) The EPA has skirted the functions of Congress with the carbon emissions regulations. Obama has enacted a good part of the Dream Act (immigration) with executive orders. (I know he's not issued many more exec orders than recent Presidents. It's not the number, but the intent of his relative to others.) And we being driven to drive hybrids and electric cars even though we're pretty clear that we don't want to drive them. Cars are going the same way as light bulbs, television sets, flush toilets, gasoline, etc. We don't like or want those new-fangled light bulbs? Too bad. The arrogant elitists know what's best for us. Oh, and try to get a 20 oz soda in NYC or a Big Mac in LA. For that matter, try to get real KFC or McD's fries that taste good--like they used to before gov't bans on what they are/were cooked in. No, I don't buy either any more.
Government by elitists--aristocracy. How about kakistocracy? Government by incompetents!
The World Turned Upside Down, Redux
When is a cut not a cut? When it's a decrease in a planned increase, at least in DC-speak. All the sequestration talk is mostly of cuts in increased spending, not in current spending. And some of the $85 billion in "cuts" (about 2% of the budget) won't even go into effect until after 2013. Of course, the President is lying about the sequester, but that isn't anything new--the lying, that is. Apparently, some journalists who are calling him on it are being targeted. (It will be interesting to see how the media brothers and sisters react. My guess it will be like the jellyfish they mostly are.) It seem the President is bound and determined to make these "cuts" as painful as he can, to make political hay out of them. The pain is largely unnecessary. There is Presidential discretion to move some funds around and, besides, he's said he'll veto a bill that might come out of Congress that will give him more discretion. Gee, I wonder if all those people who see Obama as a friend of the little guy will even realize any of this. Nah, it won't matter.
Let's pick on the Republicans, too, boobs that they have become. To date, twelve Republican governors have indicated they'll sign on to the Medicare/aid (I still get them confused) portion of ObamaCare. The Supremes gave states the authority to opt out of ObamaCare. But, these Republicans have changed their minds. Hey, wait! Aren't these the guys vehemently opposed to ObamaCare? Weren't they elected in large part because of this opposition? Ah, but hypocrisy knows no party affiliation in politics. Oh, they have their "reasons." The feds will fund, so the feds say, the first two or three years of Medi-whatever in states that opt in. Of course, who can trust what this administration says? And, don't these Republicans decry the federal spending as "unsustainable?" So, more spending, given to the states, is going to ease federal spending? Huh? (Maybe that falls under "When is a cut not a cut?") And, after the first years, the state(s) will have to pick up a chuck of the cost. Where are these states going to come up with the money? They are crying "poverty" now! The governors reason that if they don't opt in, other states and their citizens will get the federal money, leaving their own states and people out. Now, there's a principled stance. It reminds me of the schools: "We have to spend the entire budget this year, even if we don't need anything else, because if we don't spend it, we won't get as much next year." More of that "It's easy to spend other people's money." And doesn't this reek of the same "gimme, gimme, gimme" culture that the Republicans supposedly despise? K is right--parties don't make any difference; they're both the same.
I listened to an interested talk by a Yale professor the other day. Now, it's important to remember than he's an IT guy, teaching computers, at the Ivy League School. He obviously finds a great deal of good in technology, as do most people. (Even I, who won't ever get a cell phone or I-whatever they are called and will only read real books, not those e-books, agree technology has some merits. Even I, who was nearly run over on my run this AM by some dingbat on her cellphone!) He decried our loss of meaningful discussion, of insightful thought that has come with increased technology such as what is called "social media." Oh, we're "talking" to each other more, but actually saying much less. There's little thought behind our discussion. It's too easy to just e-mail, tweet or twit or whatever that is, text, etc. Nobody has to think about what they send. It's sort of an inflation of conversation. We say more, but it means less. (Economic inflation finds more dollars in the economy, but they buy fewer goods and services.) There's more I took from his talk, but I'll get to that later in the week.
Let's pick on the Republicans, too, boobs that they have become. To date, twelve Republican governors have indicated they'll sign on to the Medicare/aid (I still get them confused) portion of ObamaCare. The Supremes gave states the authority to opt out of ObamaCare. But, these Republicans have changed their minds. Hey, wait! Aren't these the guys vehemently opposed to ObamaCare? Weren't they elected in large part because of this opposition? Ah, but hypocrisy knows no party affiliation in politics. Oh, they have their "reasons." The feds will fund, so the feds say, the first two or three years of Medi-whatever in states that opt in. Of course, who can trust what this administration says? And, don't these Republicans decry the federal spending as "unsustainable?" So, more spending, given to the states, is going to ease federal spending? Huh? (Maybe that falls under "When is a cut not a cut?") And, after the first years, the state(s) will have to pick up a chuck of the cost. Where are these states going to come up with the money? They are crying "poverty" now! The governors reason that if they don't opt in, other states and their citizens will get the federal money, leaving their own states and people out. Now, there's a principled stance. It reminds me of the schools: "We have to spend the entire budget this year, even if we don't need anything else, because if we don't spend it, we won't get as much next year." More of that "It's easy to spend other people's money." And doesn't this reek of the same "gimme, gimme, gimme" culture that the Republicans supposedly despise? K is right--parties don't make any difference; they're both the same.
I listened to an interested talk by a Yale professor the other day. Now, it's important to remember than he's an IT guy, teaching computers, at the Ivy League School. He obviously finds a great deal of good in technology, as do most people. (Even I, who won't ever get a cell phone or I-whatever they are called and will only read real books, not those e-books, agree technology has some merits. Even I, who was nearly run over on my run this AM by some dingbat on her cellphone!) He decried our loss of meaningful discussion, of insightful thought that has come with increased technology such as what is called "social media." Oh, we're "talking" to each other more, but actually saying much less. There's little thought behind our discussion. It's too easy to just e-mail, tweet or twit or whatever that is, text, etc. Nobody has to think about what they send. It's sort of an inflation of conversation. We say more, but it means less. (Economic inflation finds more dollars in the economy, but they buy fewer goods and services.) There's more I took from his talk, but I'll get to that later in the week.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Food Memories
This might get me labelled, labelled in a bad way. But, here goes....
I was reminded tonight of how much I enjoyed the school meat loaf when I was a kid. Yep, I really did like it. It came with gravy and mashed potatoes, like powdered ones, too. Another of my favorites was the braised beef on white rice (none of that brown rice or wild rice!). Yummy. The school(s) also made good chicken with rice and chicken noodle soups. It only came once or twice a year, but the turkey dinner near Thanksgiving and Christmas was quite tasty as well. Yep, I liked all of them--a lot.
Of the desserts, about the only one I liked was the cherry pie, not always available though. I remember my second grade teacher, again and again, telling us not to eat sweets. But watching her go through the cafeteria line, she always had a piece of pie!
What a great lunch--a bowl of chicken with rice soup and a piece of cherry pie! Of course, I didn't buy my lunch very often. We couldn't really afford it. I took my lunch more days than not, many more days than not. I would get 2 cents for milk. Often, I wouldn't buy milk and just saved the 2 cents (over time) in case one of the special lunches was available.
No doubt, there were some lousy lunches. But I didn't buy them, so....
I was reminded tonight of how much I enjoyed the school meat loaf when I was a kid. Yep, I really did like it. It came with gravy and mashed potatoes, like powdered ones, too. Another of my favorites was the braised beef on white rice (none of that brown rice or wild rice!). Yummy. The school(s) also made good chicken with rice and chicken noodle soups. It only came once or twice a year, but the turkey dinner near Thanksgiving and Christmas was quite tasty as well. Yep, I liked all of them--a lot.
Of the desserts, about the only one I liked was the cherry pie, not always available though. I remember my second grade teacher, again and again, telling us not to eat sweets. But watching her go through the cafeteria line, she always had a piece of pie!
What a great lunch--a bowl of chicken with rice soup and a piece of cherry pie! Of course, I didn't buy my lunch very often. We couldn't really afford it. I took my lunch more days than not, many more days than not. I would get 2 cents for milk. Often, I wouldn't buy milk and just saved the 2 cents (over time) in case one of the special lunches was available.
No doubt, there were some lousy lunches. But I didn't buy them, so....
Rounds 11 and 12
It was the heaviest snow of the season, no doubt. I'm glad I shoveled last night, after practice, getting in about 10 PM. We had about 3-4" last night and another 2-3" overnight. Visitors and Karen and I driving on the slushy stuff before I shoveled made it a bit more challenging. But, all in all, two very good workouts.
It was very pretty out there, quiet both times, both in the dark of last night and the early AM today. There was very little traffic.
I know we live in a large school district, area-wise. But I don't quite understand why classes were cancelled. I went out this AM, pretty early, and the roads were bad, but certainly drivable. They were much, much better than driving to and from practice last night. I wonder if districts call off school just because other, neighboring districts do. I wonder if they have a common hot line, where the supers all get together and cancel as one. That said, I have never driven a school bus with lots of kids on it; so maybe I don't know.
Certainly we aren't becoming wimps (or is it whimps?)??????
Out to build a snowman with the kids.
It was very pretty out there, quiet both times, both in the dark of last night and the early AM today. There was very little traffic.
I know we live in a large school district, area-wise. But I don't quite understand why classes were cancelled. I went out this AM, pretty early, and the roads were bad, but certainly drivable. They were much, much better than driving to and from practice last night. I wonder if districts call off school just because other, neighboring districts do. I wonder if they have a common hot line, where the supers all get together and cancel as one. That said, I have never driven a school bus with lots of kids on it; so maybe I don't know.
Certainly we aren't becoming wimps (or is it whimps?)??????
Out to build a snowman with the kids.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Nicknames/Mascots
I think I wrote about this before, but there was a column in the newspaper today about "mascots [that] offend Native Americans."
No doubt, names such as "Redskins" are offensive--racist, negative in nature. No matter how hard defenders of such nicknames argue ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), the bottom line is they are offensive.
But not all names associated with Indians are offensive. In fact, many aren't, despite the feelings of, as the column notes, "the supposedly injured party." "Why not change?" the columnist asks. "Offense is in the eye of the offended." But are they really offensive? I say many aren't.
Why is "Warriors" exclusively identified with Native Americans? (OK, symbols that accompany them might be different.) "Chiefs" is a word derived from Latin/French.
I recall the Huron tribe expressing its displeasure when Eastern Michigan changed its nickname to Eagles--just what we need, more Eagles. The Chippewas have often spoken of the pride in the Central Michigan nickname. These people see a compliment in that schools identify wiht their tribes the desired characteristics of their athletes and teams.
So, are Vikings, Spartans, and Fighting Irish also "offensive?" If not, and Hurons and Chippewas are, why not? That someone says he or she is "offended" doesn't make it so. Imagine the victims if we all claimed we are "offended?" Gee, I could clean up from The Godfather movies and all the other television shows and films depicted Italians in a negative light!
It's always good to walk a mile in another's shoes, to have some feeling for others. But sometimes we can be too sensitive.
No doubt, names such as "Redskins" are offensive--racist, negative in nature. No matter how hard defenders of such nicknames argue ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), the bottom line is they are offensive.
But not all names associated with Indians are offensive. In fact, many aren't, despite the feelings of, as the column notes, "the supposedly injured party." "Why not change?" the columnist asks. "Offense is in the eye of the offended." But are they really offensive? I say many aren't.
Why is "Warriors" exclusively identified with Native Americans? (OK, symbols that accompany them might be different.) "Chiefs" is a word derived from Latin/French.
I recall the Huron tribe expressing its displeasure when Eastern Michigan changed its nickname to Eagles--just what we need, more Eagles. The Chippewas have often spoken of the pride in the Central Michigan nickname. These people see a compliment in that schools identify wiht their tribes the desired characteristics of their athletes and teams.
So, are Vikings, Spartans, and Fighting Irish also "offensive?" If not, and Hurons and Chippewas are, why not? That someone says he or she is "offended" doesn't make it so. Imagine the victims if we all claimed we are "offended?" Gee, I could clean up from The Godfather movies and all the other television shows and films depicted Italians in a negative light!
It's always good to walk a mile in another's shoes, to have some feeling for others. But sometimes we can be too sensitive.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Do-Overs
There aren't many times in life where we get "do-overs," but I'm pulling one now. I read my own post from yesterday and didn't care for it. Oh, I liked the topics and my views haven't changed. But I graded my own work and found it lacking. So, here goes....
Yes, my favorite season has become Lent. I enjoy the Friday fish fries, namely the all-you-can-eat ones. After their Fri afternoon/evening walk, we usually join up at a local restaurant for the fish fry. I'm doubly lucky in that I get to eat with the pretty ladies. I walk into a restaurant and, if I think they have already arrived, ask the hostess for "the table with the two pretty ladies." If I suspect I am the first to come, I tell the hostess "I'm waiting for two pretty ladies to arrive." Regardless of the order, my comments always draw smiles.
I'm still trying to digest (no, not my all-you-can-eat dinner) the fact that Facebook and General Electric made billions of dollars last year, yet paid no federal income taxes. And, to boot, FB received a several hundred thousand dollar government credit. Wait! How can one get a credit if one pays no taxes? And hasn't GE laid off tens of thousands of US employees, moving a lot of its operation overseas, you know, hiring foreign workers? I suppose we should emulate GE and file lengthy (tens of thousands of pages) tax returns. Yet, my two paychecks, since Jan 1, are light 15% and 6% due to more taxes being withheld. What are the odds the 99%ers will march on FB? Yeah, right, as if that's going to happen? Why doesn't the label "greedy" get hung on GE? After all, if Big Oil is greedy, what do we call GE? Yeah, you guessed it--political campaign contributions! Two of the things I can't abide are dishonesty and hypocrisy. And this administration seems to have an overflow of each, while constantly preaching its own righteousness.
Detroit native Dr. Ben Carson bears watching. The pediatrician (?) has entered the political debate, recently decimating affirmative action and political correctness. The man seems intelligent, with a great deal of common sense. And, he must be potential danger--the Democrats and their attack dogs are already after the good doctor. Perhaps he will be the answer to our current malaise, malfeasance, and mess.
If you were a Detroit resident, would you pay your property taxes? A recent newspaper story revealed fewer than half of the people with property in Detroit pay their taxes. In today's newspaper, a resident who pays his taxes asked, "Am I the stupid one?" That's a legitimate question. Detroit, as we know, is in dire straits, probably near devastaing bankruptcy and collapse. It needs the tax monies from its citizens. I suppose these scofflaws (and I'm not sure they are) should pay up. But, should they? What do they get in return? No street lights. No trash pick-up. Poor police and fire protection. (And I'm not being critical of the police and fire personnel. They are understaffed and handcuffed. Morale is understandably low.) The schools are terrible, at best. Why should taxpayers give up their money for nothing, literally, nothing?
Detroit was, according to Forbes mag (?), "the most miserable city" in the US. Flint was number two. Warren was in the top five. Hmmmmmm...... Maybe my view is colored by the past. Detroit was a great place to grow up 50 and more years ago. There were great parks, clean and safe. I wasn't afraid to take my bike downtown or to Canada. There was no fear of being out at night. When I now go to Detroit, relatively infrequently I admit, I still feel no fear. So, should this "misery index" encourage people to pay their property taxes?
If the sequester occurs, is it true the federal budget will be reduced by a mere 1.5%? Is that so? If it is, what's the big deal. As noted above, thanks to the Bozos in DC, my income is down quite a bit from just December. Why is it any more of a big deal for the federal government to also have to bite the bullet--and only 1.5%? I'd even submit than much of what will be cut likely didn't really deserve to be in the budget in the first place. I still like the idea of no pay for members of Congress until they submit a budget. I'd even go so far as to say a balanced budget! Oh, I forgot. Pelosi told us members of Congress deserve their pay and the respect that goes with it. My fault.... Hey, when I use the word "Bozos," does that imply "respect?"
Where are all these protesters when Obama does something outrageous? Where are the media? And then they want us to believe they aren't biased. Apparently, Obama golfing with Tiger Woods last week cost US taxpayers about $1 million. Is that above the normal week expenditures? And his wife took a separate vacation?
I was reminded of George Bush (Daddy) last week, in the midst of a malaise myself. Bush, according to sources, went into a deep funk after losing the election of '92. It wasn't that he lost, but that he lost to a guy like Clinton. (I don't remember the exact words, but that certainly was the sentiment.) Imagine losing to someone like Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. Wow! How depressing that would be! What was it the WSJ said about this administration, "dishonest by even modern political standards?" I have felt the same way many times, losing again and again to people for whom I had no respect. I'm pretty competitive, but only in things that matter. I've been lucky enough to have been pretty successful at a high level of competition. I've won far, far more than I've lost, but haven't won all the time. Sometimes the pitcher was better than I was. Sometimes the halfback was better than I was. Sometimes my opponent was just plain better. Of course, there are other factors that might be involved, things outside of my control--weather, officiating, plain dumb luck. But sometimes the other guy was better. So, I learned about losing, how to handle it. But I have a very hard time accepting a lot of the battles I've lost, namely those in education. I've said it before and will say it many more times. There are far too many people in education who make decisions who shouldn't be allowed to make them. Yet, they still do and I was ignored. Yep, as Bush Daddy discovered, it's not necessarily about losing, but about to whom we lose!
Yes, my favorite season has become Lent. I enjoy the Friday fish fries, namely the all-you-can-eat ones. After their Fri afternoon/evening walk, we usually join up at a local restaurant for the fish fry. I'm doubly lucky in that I get to eat with the pretty ladies. I walk into a restaurant and, if I think they have already arrived, ask the hostess for "the table with the two pretty ladies." If I suspect I am the first to come, I tell the hostess "I'm waiting for two pretty ladies to arrive." Regardless of the order, my comments always draw smiles.
I'm still trying to digest (no, not my all-you-can-eat dinner) the fact that Facebook and General Electric made billions of dollars last year, yet paid no federal income taxes. And, to boot, FB received a several hundred thousand dollar government credit. Wait! How can one get a credit if one pays no taxes? And hasn't GE laid off tens of thousands of US employees, moving a lot of its operation overseas, you know, hiring foreign workers? I suppose we should emulate GE and file lengthy (tens of thousands of pages) tax returns. Yet, my two paychecks, since Jan 1, are light 15% and 6% due to more taxes being withheld. What are the odds the 99%ers will march on FB? Yeah, right, as if that's going to happen? Why doesn't the label "greedy" get hung on GE? After all, if Big Oil is greedy, what do we call GE? Yeah, you guessed it--political campaign contributions! Two of the things I can't abide are dishonesty and hypocrisy. And this administration seems to have an overflow of each, while constantly preaching its own righteousness.
Detroit native Dr. Ben Carson bears watching. The pediatrician (?) has entered the political debate, recently decimating affirmative action and political correctness. The man seems intelligent, with a great deal of common sense. And, he must be potential danger--the Democrats and their attack dogs are already after the good doctor. Perhaps he will be the answer to our current malaise, malfeasance, and mess.
If you were a Detroit resident, would you pay your property taxes? A recent newspaper story revealed fewer than half of the people with property in Detroit pay their taxes. In today's newspaper, a resident who pays his taxes asked, "Am I the stupid one?" That's a legitimate question. Detroit, as we know, is in dire straits, probably near devastaing bankruptcy and collapse. It needs the tax monies from its citizens. I suppose these scofflaws (and I'm not sure they are) should pay up. But, should they? What do they get in return? No street lights. No trash pick-up. Poor police and fire protection. (And I'm not being critical of the police and fire personnel. They are understaffed and handcuffed. Morale is understandably low.) The schools are terrible, at best. Why should taxpayers give up their money for nothing, literally, nothing?
Detroit was, according to Forbes mag (?), "the most miserable city" in the US. Flint was number two. Warren was in the top five. Hmmmmmm...... Maybe my view is colored by the past. Detroit was a great place to grow up 50 and more years ago. There were great parks, clean and safe. I wasn't afraid to take my bike downtown or to Canada. There was no fear of being out at night. When I now go to Detroit, relatively infrequently I admit, I still feel no fear. So, should this "misery index" encourage people to pay their property taxes?
If the sequester occurs, is it true the federal budget will be reduced by a mere 1.5%? Is that so? If it is, what's the big deal. As noted above, thanks to the Bozos in DC, my income is down quite a bit from just December. Why is it any more of a big deal for the federal government to also have to bite the bullet--and only 1.5%? I'd even submit than much of what will be cut likely didn't really deserve to be in the budget in the first place. I still like the idea of no pay for members of Congress until they submit a budget. I'd even go so far as to say a balanced budget! Oh, I forgot. Pelosi told us members of Congress deserve their pay and the respect that goes with it. My fault.... Hey, when I use the word "Bozos," does that imply "respect?"
Where are all these protesters when Obama does something outrageous? Where are the media? And then they want us to believe they aren't biased. Apparently, Obama golfing with Tiger Woods last week cost US taxpayers about $1 million. Is that above the normal week expenditures? And his wife took a separate vacation?
I was reminded of George Bush (Daddy) last week, in the midst of a malaise myself. Bush, according to sources, went into a deep funk after losing the election of '92. It wasn't that he lost, but that he lost to a guy like Clinton. (I don't remember the exact words, but that certainly was the sentiment.) Imagine losing to someone like Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. Wow! How depressing that would be! What was it the WSJ said about this administration, "dishonest by even modern political standards?" I have felt the same way many times, losing again and again to people for whom I had no respect. I'm pretty competitive, but only in things that matter. I've been lucky enough to have been pretty successful at a high level of competition. I've won far, far more than I've lost, but haven't won all the time. Sometimes the pitcher was better than I was. Sometimes the halfback was better than I was. Sometimes my opponent was just plain better. Of course, there are other factors that might be involved, things outside of my control--weather, officiating, plain dumb luck. But sometimes the other guy was better. So, I learned about losing, how to handle it. But I have a very hard time accepting a lot of the battles I've lost, namely those in education. I've said it before and will say it many more times. There are far too many people in education who make decisions who shouldn't be allowed to make them. Yet, they still do and I was ignored. Yep, as Bush Daddy discovered, it's not necessarily about losing, but about to whom we lose!
Monday, February 18, 2013
Einstein
Albert Einstein was certainly right about relativity, more specifically, about frames of reference. Yesterday, out running in 6 degree temperatures didn't seem nearly as cold as 22 degrees this AM. The wind wasn't particularly strong today. It just seemed colder and I was out there about an hour later than yesterday.
Speaking of my run, I continue to be amazed, impressed, and inspired by my blind running buddy, Michael Holmes. He and I ran between five and six miles this AM, around a track by his house in Clawson. (He's leery of the pounding his legs get on the roads after knee surgery a while back.) It's really another instance where I ask myself what I would do in another's shoes. Would I run, like Michael does, if I was blind? Boy, that he trusts others (even me!) to be his "eyes" is pretty trusting. I came across a couple of articles I did on Michael some years ago. In speaking with a couple other of his guide runners, I noted their reticence in running with him. Each mentioned the responsibility, the "great responsibility," of guide running. I guess I never think about that; I just do it. Michael has mentioned, though, that he's fallen with me more than all of the others combined. I always wonder if he's pulling my leg, as he's quite a joker. I did laugh at him this AM, though. He had his stocking hat pulled down well over his eyes, halfway down his nose. When I laughed and mentioned it, he just chuckled and asked, "What difference does it make?" Right again, Michael.
Why is the state Dept of Civil Rights sticking its nose in local matters again? Now, it's petitioning the federal government (throught the Civil Rights Act of '64) to force local schools to drop Native American nicknames, mascots, logos, etc. I understand what these people are trying to do. They mean well, as all do-gooders mean (I often called them "doo-gooders"), but they are off-base on this one. Yep, former nicknames of schools, such as "Redskins," were offensive and racist. Despite the insistence of those resisting changes of such names ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), they are racist, have negative historical connotations, etc. Those names deserved to be replaced. Yet, the new offensive takes aim at names that are not offensive. These names include "Chiefs" (Why isn't it "Chieves?" Of course, why is it Toronto Maple Leafs, not "Leaves?"), Warriors, Braves, and the like. Tribes such as the Hurons and Chippewas have officially supported the use of "Hurons" and "Chippewas" as respectful and even flattering--schools wish their students/athletes to exhibit desired characteristics associated with Hurons and Chippewas. But the doo-gooders prevailed, at least at one state university, despite losing the logic battle. (I am told that the "ones state university," at the behest of the Hurons, is bringing back references to "Hurons." Methinks it's also an attempt to reconnect with older alumni and their money.) Warriors, Chiefs, Braves are not at all offensive, any more than Vikings, Dutchmen, Britons, Fighting Irish, or, for that matter, Hurons and Chippewas. "Redskins?" Yes, it's offensive. But the others? Nope and the doo-gooders should find another crusade, one that really matters.
Speaking of Indians--and harkening back to a post of a day or so ago--I am reading a book that reminds me of "pretend history." We are often taught that the Indians were peaceful, pacific, etc., until forced from such lifestyles by the Europeans. Films of more recent vintage and even textbooks and history teachers re-inforce that image. The problem, as this book I'm reading demonstrates, is that such an image is false, very false. It's "pretend history." (This is not to defend the aggression of the Europeans and their own savagery.) For instance, the Iroquois were quite belligerent, toward the Algonquin, the Eries, etc. In fact, the Iroquois often went considerably out of their way to attack, in areas they didn't need for hunting, living, etc. The Eries were particularly hard hit and, to a lesser but still considerable extent, so were the Fox and Sauk. The Chippewas were devastated by the Iroquois. This didn't just include battles/wars, but slavery and butchery that included torture, scalping, and cannibalism. And, of course, the Iroquois are just one example. Again, such brutal slaughters as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, as well as rotten larger episodes like the Trail of Tears and the whole "reservation" travesty, shouldn't be overlooked or forgotten or sugar-coated. They should be revealed for exactly what they were, some of the worst episodes in US history. But we also shouldn't make up history to make other groups look better. History should be about the truth (Napoleon, Hitler, Burgoyne, and other manipulators notwithstanding). More about that in the near future.
Speaking of my run, I continue to be amazed, impressed, and inspired by my blind running buddy, Michael Holmes. He and I ran between five and six miles this AM, around a track by his house in Clawson. (He's leery of the pounding his legs get on the roads after knee surgery a while back.) It's really another instance where I ask myself what I would do in another's shoes. Would I run, like Michael does, if I was blind? Boy, that he trusts others (even me!) to be his "eyes" is pretty trusting. I came across a couple of articles I did on Michael some years ago. In speaking with a couple other of his guide runners, I noted their reticence in running with him. Each mentioned the responsibility, the "great responsibility," of guide running. I guess I never think about that; I just do it. Michael has mentioned, though, that he's fallen with me more than all of the others combined. I always wonder if he's pulling my leg, as he's quite a joker. I did laugh at him this AM, though. He had his stocking hat pulled down well over his eyes, halfway down his nose. When I laughed and mentioned it, he just chuckled and asked, "What difference does it make?" Right again, Michael.
Why is the state Dept of Civil Rights sticking its nose in local matters again? Now, it's petitioning the federal government (throught the Civil Rights Act of '64) to force local schools to drop Native American nicknames, mascots, logos, etc. I understand what these people are trying to do. They mean well, as all do-gooders mean (I often called them "doo-gooders"), but they are off-base on this one. Yep, former nicknames of schools, such as "Redskins," were offensive and racist. Despite the insistence of those resisting changes of such names ("But we don't mean it to be offensive!"), they are racist, have negative historical connotations, etc. Those names deserved to be replaced. Yet, the new offensive takes aim at names that are not offensive. These names include "Chiefs" (Why isn't it "Chieves?" Of course, why is it Toronto Maple Leafs, not "Leaves?"), Warriors, Braves, and the like. Tribes such as the Hurons and Chippewas have officially supported the use of "Hurons" and "Chippewas" as respectful and even flattering--schools wish their students/athletes to exhibit desired characteristics associated with Hurons and Chippewas. But the doo-gooders prevailed, at least at one state university, despite losing the logic battle. (I am told that the "ones state university," at the behest of the Hurons, is bringing back references to "Hurons." Methinks it's also an attempt to reconnect with older alumni and their money.) Warriors, Chiefs, Braves are not at all offensive, any more than Vikings, Dutchmen, Britons, Fighting Irish, or, for that matter, Hurons and Chippewas. "Redskins?" Yes, it's offensive. But the others? Nope and the doo-gooders should find another crusade, one that really matters.
Speaking of Indians--and harkening back to a post of a day or so ago--I am reading a book that reminds me of "pretend history." We are often taught that the Indians were peaceful, pacific, etc., until forced from such lifestyles by the Europeans. Films of more recent vintage and even textbooks and history teachers re-inforce that image. The problem, as this book I'm reading demonstrates, is that such an image is false, very false. It's "pretend history." (This is not to defend the aggression of the Europeans and their own savagery.) For instance, the Iroquois were quite belligerent, toward the Algonquin, the Eries, etc. In fact, the Iroquois often went considerably out of their way to attack, in areas they didn't need for hunting, living, etc. The Eries were particularly hard hit and, to a lesser but still considerable extent, so were the Fox and Sauk. The Chippewas were devastated by the Iroquois. This didn't just include battles/wars, but slavery and butchery that included torture, scalping, and cannibalism. And, of course, the Iroquois are just one example. Again, such brutal slaughters as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, as well as rotten larger episodes like the Trail of Tears and the whole "reservation" travesty, shouldn't be overlooked or forgotten or sugar-coated. They should be revealed for exactly what they were, some of the worst episodes in US history. But we also shouldn't make up history to make other groups look better. History should be about the truth (Napoleon, Hitler, Burgoyne, and other manipulators notwithstanding). More about that in the near future.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Sun AM/PM
What a beautiful AM! There was about an inch of new, powdery snow on the ground and the sun was out in a cloudless sky. OK, the temperatures were a bit brisk, 6 degrees at the outset of my run. But, 11 or so miles later, I was a bit tired, but refreshed at the same time. It was just about the perfect distance today; any longer would have been a drag, esp with those layers of clothes. And, I wondered more than once while finishing up, "How do people run marathons?" I can't imagine doing another 15 miles after what I did this AM. In fact, I couldn't. Hmmm...... Oh, Oh. I have done a marathon, more than one--12 to be exact. And I don't know how many of my training runs, esp for the middle marathons, were 26 or more miles, but there were some. Sometimes I think of 26 miles and I just shake my head.
"Pretend history." Hmmm...... How should we deal with that? What is "pretend history?" It's history that never really happened, but is presented as if it did to advance an agenda or philosophy. I guess the top example of that is "FDR's New Deal pulled us out of the Depression." Well, no it didn't. Unemployment in the US when FDR took over was about 12.9 million, almost 30%. After billions and billions of dollars of federal assistance, by 1937 there were still 11 million Americans out of work, about 22% of the workforce. (Of course, who knows how the figures were determined?) By 1939, Henry Morganthau, the Secretary of the Treasury in FDR's Cabinet, sadly noted, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." In fact, the top tax rate a few years later was 94%! What eventually put Americans back to work were the tax cuts--and lower federal government spending--of the immediate post-war period. Even with the many GIs returning from Europe and the Pacific, unemployment was in the 2-3% range, well under 4%, the benchmark economists use for "full employment." Yet, textbooks and teachers continue with the mantra, "FDR's New Deal pulled us out of the Depression." Another such "pretend history," I think, is the bad rap given the Treaty of Versailles. It has been discredited with causing the Second World War, the rise of Hitler, and probably breast cancer. I say, "Phooey!" Very few people even considered the Versailles Treaty in 1926, 1927, 1928, and early 1929. Only after the onset of the Depression did Versailles become a whipping boy, ironically used by Hitler and those who blamed it for leading to Hitler. Methinks, no Depression, no Hitler. Whether or not there would have been a WW2, well, there are the Japanese to consider. More recently, the justification/defense for Bill Clinton's sexual escapades was clearly, "What's the big deal? They all did it!" "They," of course, were the Presidents. "It" was an affair. Really? Name the Presidents who had affairs. Now, they have to have been Presidents when they had them--not before or after. And, they had to have been married; is it an "affair" if the President isn't married? Yet, people bought this malarkey, this "pretend history." I even worked with college-educated people who bought this. When I asked for specific Presidents from these poorly-educated teachers, I usually was dismissed with something like, "Oh, they really all did, even if we don't know about the affairs." That, probably, is another piece of evidence that their education was lacking. I really have no answer to dealing with "pretend history," other than urging Americans/students to think for themselves, to question what they are told/"taught." (Oops, look where asking students to question got Socrates!)
One Detroit newspaper editor this AM wrote that "sensible" Republicans in the Michigan legislature should take the ObamaCare money. Oh, he had reason, mostly that Michigan can use the money. Sure, who can't use more money? But that's not really the point, is it? Apparently this guy has never read Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus or Goethe's novel Faust (a couple hundred years later). Selling one's soul to the devil results in tragedy. I suppose, in this editor's mind, if we don't spend other people's money, somebody else will. That always grates on me, reminiscent of the Neanderthal attitude of the public schools, that "We have to spend all the money now (even if on unnecessary things) because, if we don't, we won't get as much next time." Once, when I questioned an administrator about this, his reply was, "You'd be cutting your own throat." I think these people are still running our schools.
Here's an example. Some 5-year old kindergartner (I'd assume) was threatened with explusion the next time he made a gun out of Legos! And, according to Walter Williams, other students have been suspended for merely drawing guns. Again, I draw upon my own personal experiences. The diversity guru at the school I once worked was opposed to a number of school nicknames, even The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Her comment to me was, "I oppose any name that includes the word, 'fighting.' I'm against 'fighting.'" What about "fighting" against, say, the Nazis? What about "fighting" for one's rights? I was, she said, just trying to twist her words. Oh?
I was surprised to learn recently that, in 2011 (according to FBI statistics), 50% more murders were committed with "hammers and clubs" than with rifles. I don't know exactly what that means, but it sure gives pause to those handwringers who say, "We have to do something." Obviously, the answer is to ban "hammers and clubs." Similarly, aren't more fatal car accidents caused by young drivers and speeders than by drinking drivers? (Of course, there may be overlaps; I don't know.) If so, why is there no big movement to increase the age of driving to 21 or at least 18? And why don't we again lower our speed limits, like in the '70s and '80s? (And wouldn't lower limits also cut down on petrol usage, lowering our dependence on foreign oil?)
Speaking of oil, I didn't hear a reason, but what has caused gasoline to hit $4 a gallon this time? I passed two stations today with the price at $3.98. Where is the outrage? Have we become inured to this price of gas? Yet, the federal government stands in the way of our own oil production, of buying Canadian oil, etc. And, remember a few years ago, the Republicans in Michigan were demanding the Democrat governor, Jennifer Granholm, to suspend the state tax on gas to lower the price? Now, it's the Republicans who not only aren't considering suspending the state tax, but want to increase it and registration fees. Democrats. Republicans. A pox on both of their houses!
Two jobs I wonder who in his/her right mind would want: mayor of Detroit and public school teacher.
"Pretend history." Hmmm...... How should we deal with that? What is "pretend history?" It's history that never really happened, but is presented as if it did to advance an agenda or philosophy. I guess the top example of that is "FDR's New Deal pulled us out of the Depression." Well, no it didn't. Unemployment in the US when FDR took over was about 12.9 million, almost 30%. After billions and billions of dollars of federal assistance, by 1937 there were still 11 million Americans out of work, about 22% of the workforce. (Of course, who knows how the figures were determined?) By 1939, Henry Morganthau, the Secretary of the Treasury in FDR's Cabinet, sadly noted, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." In fact, the top tax rate a few years later was 94%! What eventually put Americans back to work were the tax cuts--and lower federal government spending--of the immediate post-war period. Even with the many GIs returning from Europe and the Pacific, unemployment was in the 2-3% range, well under 4%, the benchmark economists use for "full employment." Yet, textbooks and teachers continue with the mantra, "FDR's New Deal pulled us out of the Depression." Another such "pretend history," I think, is the bad rap given the Treaty of Versailles. It has been discredited with causing the Second World War, the rise of Hitler, and probably breast cancer. I say, "Phooey!" Very few people even considered the Versailles Treaty in 1926, 1927, 1928, and early 1929. Only after the onset of the Depression did Versailles become a whipping boy, ironically used by Hitler and those who blamed it for leading to Hitler. Methinks, no Depression, no Hitler. Whether or not there would have been a WW2, well, there are the Japanese to consider. More recently, the justification/defense for Bill Clinton's sexual escapades was clearly, "What's the big deal? They all did it!" "They," of course, were the Presidents. "It" was an affair. Really? Name the Presidents who had affairs. Now, they have to have been Presidents when they had them--not before or after. And, they had to have been married; is it an "affair" if the President isn't married? Yet, people bought this malarkey, this "pretend history." I even worked with college-educated people who bought this. When I asked for specific Presidents from these poorly-educated teachers, I usually was dismissed with something like, "Oh, they really all did, even if we don't know about the affairs." That, probably, is another piece of evidence that their education was lacking. I really have no answer to dealing with "pretend history," other than urging Americans/students to think for themselves, to question what they are told/"taught." (Oops, look where asking students to question got Socrates!)
One Detroit newspaper editor this AM wrote that "sensible" Republicans in the Michigan legislature should take the ObamaCare money. Oh, he had reason, mostly that Michigan can use the money. Sure, who can't use more money? But that's not really the point, is it? Apparently this guy has never read Marlowe's play Dr. Faustus or Goethe's novel Faust (a couple hundred years later). Selling one's soul to the devil results in tragedy. I suppose, in this editor's mind, if we don't spend other people's money, somebody else will. That always grates on me, reminiscent of the Neanderthal attitude of the public schools, that "We have to spend all the money now (even if on unnecessary things) because, if we don't, we won't get as much next time." Once, when I questioned an administrator about this, his reply was, "You'd be cutting your own throat." I think these people are still running our schools.
Here's an example. Some 5-year old kindergartner (I'd assume) was threatened with explusion the next time he made a gun out of Legos! And, according to Walter Williams, other students have been suspended for merely drawing guns. Again, I draw upon my own personal experiences. The diversity guru at the school I once worked was opposed to a number of school nicknames, even The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Her comment to me was, "I oppose any name that includes the word, 'fighting.' I'm against 'fighting.'" What about "fighting" against, say, the Nazis? What about "fighting" for one's rights? I was, she said, just trying to twist her words. Oh?
I was surprised to learn recently that, in 2011 (according to FBI statistics), 50% more murders were committed with "hammers and clubs" than with rifles. I don't know exactly what that means, but it sure gives pause to those handwringers who say, "We have to do something." Obviously, the answer is to ban "hammers and clubs." Similarly, aren't more fatal car accidents caused by young drivers and speeders than by drinking drivers? (Of course, there may be overlaps; I don't know.) If so, why is there no big movement to increase the age of driving to 21 or at least 18? And why don't we again lower our speed limits, like in the '70s and '80s? (And wouldn't lower limits also cut down on petrol usage, lowering our dependence on foreign oil?)
Speaking of oil, I didn't hear a reason, but what has caused gasoline to hit $4 a gallon this time? I passed two stations today with the price at $3.98. Where is the outrage? Have we become inured to this price of gas? Yet, the federal government stands in the way of our own oil production, of buying Canadian oil, etc. And, remember a few years ago, the Republicans in Michigan were demanding the Democrat governor, Jennifer Granholm, to suspend the state tax on gas to lower the price? Now, it's the Republicans who not only aren't considering suspending the state tax, but want to increase it and registration fees. Democrats. Republicans. A pox on both of their houses!
Two jobs I wonder who in his/her right mind would want: mayor of Detroit and public school teacher.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Trust?
I came across an article I read several weeks ago--and remember writing something about it, here or elsewhere. Geraldo Rivera purportedly asked a caller to some television or radio show, "How could you not trust your own government?"
He can't be that stupid, can he? Perhaps he is just ignorant. Maybe he is blinded by a personal philosophy, that government is the be-all and end-all, that all good stems from the government (yeah, ask anyone who's had a run-in with the IRS!). How can he utter such a ridiculous statement?
It's not that one is a conspiracy nut or an ultra-right winger or Tea Partier. Rivera, look at your history! (Of course, we all know that history isn't important. As I remarked to several colleagues just the other day, it befuddles me that educated people, even those who run and control our schools, give history--and political science and economics...--short shrift. Apparently, their education was lacking.) "How could you not trust your own government?" Hmmmmmm...... Has he ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? How about the Dred Scott Decision? What about the Trail of Tears and the Internment Camps of WW2? What about McCarthyism and the Palmer Raids? How easily we have forgotten Vietnam. Oh, I know, I know.... There you go again, that ancient history stuff. So, shall we think about l'Affaire Lewinski, Ruby Ridge and Waco, and Fast and Furious?
I'll bet, although I don't know, Rivera is one of those who thinks "Bush lied." Well, could Bush be "trusted?" After all, he "lied." And, despite the hagiographic coverage the LameStream Media give Obama, he lies, too--either that or he is extremely ignorant. Hey, maybe he's both.
Here, here's one that's current. You figure it out. According to "our government," 284,000 new jobs were added to the economy in Nov, Dec, and Jan. How, then, did the unemployment rate actually go up by a couple of tenths of a percent? Hmmm.... More workers and more unemployment? Both went up? So, Rivera, how do I "trust" that, when common sense and logic dictate something isn't quite kosher? Is someone (maybe "government?") being deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest? Hardly a great way to foster "trust" in a citizenry. What was it Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics?" Yep, our trustworthy government has learned how to manipulate statistics.
Has anyone ever read Nobelist Sinclair Lewis's novel, It Can't Happen Here? That might open some eyes.
He can't be that stupid, can he? Perhaps he is just ignorant. Maybe he is blinded by a personal philosophy, that government is the be-all and end-all, that all good stems from the government (yeah, ask anyone who's had a run-in with the IRS!). How can he utter such a ridiculous statement?
It's not that one is a conspiracy nut or an ultra-right winger or Tea Partier. Rivera, look at your history! (Of course, we all know that history isn't important. As I remarked to several colleagues just the other day, it befuddles me that educated people, even those who run and control our schools, give history--and political science and economics...--short shrift. Apparently, their education was lacking.) "How could you not trust your own government?" Hmmmmmm...... Has he ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? How about the Dred Scott Decision? What about the Trail of Tears and the Internment Camps of WW2? What about McCarthyism and the Palmer Raids? How easily we have forgotten Vietnam. Oh, I know, I know.... There you go again, that ancient history stuff. So, shall we think about l'Affaire Lewinski, Ruby Ridge and Waco, and Fast and Furious?
I'll bet, although I don't know, Rivera is one of those who thinks "Bush lied." Well, could Bush be "trusted?" After all, he "lied." And, despite the hagiographic coverage the LameStream Media give Obama, he lies, too--either that or he is extremely ignorant. Hey, maybe he's both.
Here, here's one that's current. You figure it out. According to "our government," 284,000 new jobs were added to the economy in Nov, Dec, and Jan. How, then, did the unemployment rate actually go up by a couple of tenths of a percent? Hmmm.... More workers and more unemployment? Both went up? So, Rivera, how do I "trust" that, when common sense and logic dictate something isn't quite kosher? Is someone (maybe "government?") being deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest? Hardly a great way to foster "trust" in a citizenry. What was it Mark Twain wrote, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics?" Yep, our trustworthy government has learned how to manipulate statistics.
Has anyone ever read Nobelist Sinclair Lewis's novel, It Can't Happen Here? That might open some eyes.
Worth a Laugh
Sometimes, if it isn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Nancy Pelosi, naturally, opposes a Congressional pay cut (whether because of an inability/unwillingness to pass a budget or share the economic pain that others are feeling or whatever). Does she or anyone else take seriously her comments about it? In speaking against any potential cuts, she maintains, "We should respect the work that we [members of Congress?] do." And, she went on the "the dignity of the job" should be "rewarded." Well, of course, lots of people likely side with her. She keeps getting re-elected, which underscores the old H.L. Mencken line, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Members of Congress lie and scheme, are disingenous and dishonest, all while maintaining, as does Pelosi, this air of arrogant superiority. They are, remember, smarter than the rest of us and they know what's best for us better than we do. I'm getting a headache just thinking about her and them. And people make fun of Sarah Palin?!?!?!
I guess three Supreme Court Justices boycotted President Obama's State of the Union. I, for one, fully understand why--for several reasons. But some think it was in bad taste, was disrespectful of the government, etc. In fact, even some columnists on the right (the Supremes who boycotted were all conservatives) were critical of Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Not me.
I disagree that "They should have been there." Recall the big flap over that Boston Bruin goalie who refused to attend the now increasingly comical White House dog-and-pony shows to congratulate athletic teams. I think the Supremes, with their actions, sent a loud-and-clear message. (Of course, most people won't hear it.) I often tell people that if by some odd reason I was invited to the Obama White House, I'd "Just Say No." I wonder if I'd really do that, but think I have the integrity to refuse to attend.
Perhaps (but perhaps not?) in another, but somewhat related vein, if I were a baseball teammate of, say, Roberto Clemente in the 1950s and 1960s and the team bus stopped at a Florida restaurant to eat, would I get out to eat if Clemente, being black, was not permitted in the restaurant? Forget the racial thing (although that can't really be done); Clemente would have been my teammate and, likely, my friend. What about a similar situation at the "before-heading-North" barbecue held for the Pirates--the white ones, that is--at the all-white country club in Bradenton? Would I have refused to attend, even had the Pirates' management insisted I go? Again, I'd like to think I wouldn't.
I worked with a very prissy, even sneaky one might say, person. Oh, he'd get so upset with me for standing up and calling dumb things "dumb things." "What," I once asked him, "am I supposed to do? Just sit there quietly while bad things are happening?" He thought it "rude" to speak up. I guess he would have found George Washington, et al "rude," too.
Sometimes "business as usual" is part of the problem.
I guess three Supreme Court Justices boycotted President Obama's State of the Union. I, for one, fully understand why--for several reasons. But some think it was in bad taste, was disrespectful of the government, etc. In fact, even some columnists on the right (the Supremes who boycotted were all conservatives) were critical of Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Not me.
I disagree that "They should have been there." Recall the big flap over that Boston Bruin goalie who refused to attend the now increasingly comical White House dog-and-pony shows to congratulate athletic teams. I think the Supremes, with their actions, sent a loud-and-clear message. (Of course, most people won't hear it.) I often tell people that if by some odd reason I was invited to the Obama White House, I'd "Just Say No." I wonder if I'd really do that, but think I have the integrity to refuse to attend.
Perhaps (but perhaps not?) in another, but somewhat related vein, if I were a baseball teammate of, say, Roberto Clemente in the 1950s and 1960s and the team bus stopped at a Florida restaurant to eat, would I get out to eat if Clemente, being black, was not permitted in the restaurant? Forget the racial thing (although that can't really be done); Clemente would have been my teammate and, likely, my friend. What about a similar situation at the "before-heading-North" barbecue held for the Pirates--the white ones, that is--at the all-white country club in Bradenton? Would I have refused to attend, even had the Pirates' management insisted I go? Again, I'd like to think I wouldn't.
I worked with a very prissy, even sneaky one might say, person. Oh, he'd get so upset with me for standing up and calling dumb things "dumb things." "What," I once asked him, "am I supposed to do? Just sit there quietly while bad things are happening?" He thought it "rude" to speak up. I guess he would have found George Washington, et al "rude," too.
Sometimes "business as usual" is part of the problem.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
GOP, Lawsuits
A column a couple days in the go lambasted the Republican Party, namely its leadership, for deserting its values. Indeed it has. Founded in 1854 as the party seeking to eliminate slavery, if at first only in the territories, the Republicans counted in its membership A. Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Douglass even stressed, "I am a Republican, a black, dyed-in-the-wool Republican." He added, "I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress."
Today's Republicans seem to shoot themselves in the foot, from that Missouri Congressman Todd Akin to the extremely mediocre candidates they've dished up to us in the past couple of decades. In fear of appearing to live up to the Democrats' charges of "mean-spiritedness," "greed," etc., the Republicans have taken to running away from their traditional values of "liberty and progress."
In fact, most people today likely don't identify the Republican Party this way. And, that's fully understandable. When was the last time it stood up for its founding principles? Republican leaders seem to have one thing on their minds--elections. And, if perchance they are winners, they don't do anything with their victories or, rather, they don't do anything related to their founding principles. and the leadership strongarms or blackballs those like Eric Cantor, Rand Paul, and others, those who are far closer to what Republicans once stood for than any of the "mainstream" party leaders.
And, they have left me as a man without a party. As a matter of fact, I have felt for almost 30 years that neither party represents my interests or values, that neither one gets it right.
It was interesting to see this AM a letter-to-the-editor concerning the above column. I think the letter writer was trying to criticize the columnist. But, he got it all wrong. His supposed criticisms actually made her point. What he was saying, thinking he was criticizing the columnist, was not particularly thoughtful. It reminded me of the columnist E.J. Dionne. If this letter writer is typical of Democratic Party thinking, well, it's lacking. If Dionne is what the liberals hold up as thoughtful, well, he's not.
A former student e-mailed me an article that told of a Lehigh University student who is suing the school because she received a C+ in a course. I think the amount sought is well over $1 million in damages, damages stemming from her inability to get where she wanted to be in her career choice. What have we come to?????? Why isn't this one laughed out of court? No, wait. I think I'll watch this with some interest. Let's see, at Amherst I had quite a few Cs and C+s (I wonder if B-s would also count as being damaging?). And when I returned to Michigan, I applied to well over three dozen different school districts. In fact, I was only interviewed twice--with an Amherst degree, work experience, organization leadership, and athletic experience and leadership. So, the only reasonable answer to why I didn't get any interviews is my C and C+ grades. I was competing against others who all got As and Bs at their schools. (Toss in the fact that lamebrained so-called "educators" in Michigan never heard of Amherst College.) And, since this was more than 40 years ago, the compounding of the losses over that span.... Oh, I could make billions in a lawsuit! Yes, I'm being facetious (well, mostly). I still, to this day and every day, thank heaven for my Amherst education and overall experience. I am a very, very lucky man.
I was informed today that there is an incipient movement afoot to pull Amherst College out of the NCAA. The thought is that the NCAA is antithetic to the values and standards of college education and that Amherst is a leader (or at least purports to be one). If Amherst relishes its role as one of the very best institutions of higher learning in the US, then it has a responsibility. I don't know how far this is going--likely nowhere--but I like the thought. The NCAA has become a caricature of the folly of "student-athlete." (See my previous post about "student-athletes" as I remember them.) Eric Hoffer once wrote, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." The NCAA, once begun with noble intentions, seems to have lost that vision and is in existence only to keep that existence. I hope it can prove me wrong.
Today's Republicans seem to shoot themselves in the foot, from that Missouri Congressman Todd Akin to the extremely mediocre candidates they've dished up to us in the past couple of decades. In fear of appearing to live up to the Democrats' charges of "mean-spiritedness," "greed," etc., the Republicans have taken to running away from their traditional values of "liberty and progress."
In fact, most people today likely don't identify the Republican Party this way. And, that's fully understandable. When was the last time it stood up for its founding principles? Republican leaders seem to have one thing on their minds--elections. And, if perchance they are winners, they don't do anything with their victories or, rather, they don't do anything related to their founding principles. and the leadership strongarms or blackballs those like Eric Cantor, Rand Paul, and others, those who are far closer to what Republicans once stood for than any of the "mainstream" party leaders.
And, they have left me as a man without a party. As a matter of fact, I have felt for almost 30 years that neither party represents my interests or values, that neither one gets it right.
It was interesting to see this AM a letter-to-the-editor concerning the above column. I think the letter writer was trying to criticize the columnist. But, he got it all wrong. His supposed criticisms actually made her point. What he was saying, thinking he was criticizing the columnist, was not particularly thoughtful. It reminded me of the columnist E.J. Dionne. If this letter writer is typical of Democratic Party thinking, well, it's lacking. If Dionne is what the liberals hold up as thoughtful, well, he's not.
A former student e-mailed me an article that told of a Lehigh University student who is suing the school because she received a C+ in a course. I think the amount sought is well over $1 million in damages, damages stemming from her inability to get where she wanted to be in her career choice. What have we come to?????? Why isn't this one laughed out of court? No, wait. I think I'll watch this with some interest. Let's see, at Amherst I had quite a few Cs and C+s (I wonder if B-s would also count as being damaging?). And when I returned to Michigan, I applied to well over three dozen different school districts. In fact, I was only interviewed twice--with an Amherst degree, work experience, organization leadership, and athletic experience and leadership. So, the only reasonable answer to why I didn't get any interviews is my C and C+ grades. I was competing against others who all got As and Bs at their schools. (Toss in the fact that lamebrained so-called "educators" in Michigan never heard of Amherst College.) And, since this was more than 40 years ago, the compounding of the losses over that span.... Oh, I could make billions in a lawsuit! Yes, I'm being facetious (well, mostly). I still, to this day and every day, thank heaven for my Amherst education and overall experience. I am a very, very lucky man.
I was informed today that there is an incipient movement afoot to pull Amherst College out of the NCAA. The thought is that the NCAA is antithetic to the values and standards of college education and that Amherst is a leader (or at least purports to be one). If Amherst relishes its role as one of the very best institutions of higher learning in the US, then it has a responsibility. I don't know how far this is going--likely nowhere--but I like the thought. The NCAA has become a caricature of the folly of "student-athlete." (See my previous post about "student-athletes" as I remember them.) Eric Hoffer once wrote, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." The NCAA, once begun with noble intentions, seems to have lost that vision and is in existence only to keep that existence. I hope it can prove me wrong.
AM Musings
There's not much cooler than watching my grandkids napping or sleeping. They are so serene. I often pull up a chair or even just sit on the floor next to them while I read a book. Then, when they wake up, open their eyes, and give me a great big smile....
Speaking of grandkids, Bopper asked me a question on the drive home from practice last night. He had forgotten his "pack-ack" and couldn't do his homework before practice, so I reminded him he had to get it done as soon as we arrived home. After a few seconds of digesting my words, he asked me, "Grandpa, when you were in college, what did you do about sports and school?" "What do you mean?" "Well, if you had school and games, what did you do?" Ah, the memories! I told him classes and homework always came first. Now we often, in fact, almost always scheduled our classes in the AM so afternoons would be open for practices and games. I told him, "I'd go to class for two or three hours each morning and then work in the dining hall (with my buddies!) until 2 or 2:30. Then we'd head down to practice early. We'd finish our practices in time to get back up for dinner at the dining hall." If we had a game, a home game, and it lasted after the dining hall closed, we'd get money to go eat in town. Away games, we at at restaurants. (And, I must admit, our coaches always stopped at great restaurants, some of the very best in New England!) I then told Michael, "And after dinner I'd go to the library from 6:30 or 7:00 usually until it closed at 11:00 or shortly after." I did admit to him the entire four hours wasn't for studying; I would take extended breaks to yak with people (even the prettiest visiting coeds!) or to read the newspaper. Now, contrary to popular belief, I had nothing to do with the night the keg of beer was smuggled into the library, even though it appeared on my third floor. In fact, regrettably, I wasn't there that night for whatever reason; that was an oddity. I even mentioned to him that after Saturday road games, more than once I'd find a classroom in a classroom building (the library was closed Sat eves) and study for a couple of hours before heading back to the house and the party. True story.
We had a good, a very good, baseball team my senior year. We were ranked somewhere near the top in New England, regardless of division--we had played and beaten a number of Div 1 schools. But, when we received an invitation to the post-season NCAA tournament, the faculty said "no" and that was that. None of us ever complained or whined. We knew what Amherst was all about. If I recall, the basketball team the year before had a similar situation, having defeated a couple of teams that later went far into the Div 3 tournament, but wasn't allowed to play. True stories.
The football team was playing a game in Rochester, NY, flying out on Fri afternoon--after classes, of course. The problem was Doug Swift had a Sat AM class--no "cuts" were allowed in Prof. Ziegler's classes. Oh, Doug was a starting linebacker and a good one. How good? He later started on the two Miami Dolphin teams that won Super Bowls (one team going undefeated!) in the early '70s. A buddy met Doug outside Williston Hall after class and drove him to Bradley Field, where he caught a flight to Rochester. An alum picked him up at the airport and drove him to UR. He played and flew home with the team. Another true story.
Last night the AC basketball team, ranked #2 in the nation in Div 3, defeated #3 ranked Middlebury in a triple overtime game. How exciting! 2 v 3! triple overtime! and, of course, a win! But I found myself, when reading the recap, wondering and hoping that "They still have to go to class don't they?" I'll bet they do--and do the mountain-load of work that's required.
Student-athlete......
Speaking of grandkids, Bopper asked me a question on the drive home from practice last night. He had forgotten his "pack-ack" and couldn't do his homework before practice, so I reminded him he had to get it done as soon as we arrived home. After a few seconds of digesting my words, he asked me, "Grandpa, when you were in college, what did you do about sports and school?" "What do you mean?" "Well, if you had school and games, what did you do?" Ah, the memories! I told him classes and homework always came first. Now we often, in fact, almost always scheduled our classes in the AM so afternoons would be open for practices and games. I told him, "I'd go to class for two or three hours each morning and then work in the dining hall (with my buddies!) until 2 or 2:30. Then we'd head down to practice early. We'd finish our practices in time to get back up for dinner at the dining hall." If we had a game, a home game, and it lasted after the dining hall closed, we'd get money to go eat in town. Away games, we at at restaurants. (And, I must admit, our coaches always stopped at great restaurants, some of the very best in New England!) I then told Michael, "And after dinner I'd go to the library from 6:30 or 7:00 usually until it closed at 11:00 or shortly after." I did admit to him the entire four hours wasn't for studying; I would take extended breaks to yak with people (even the prettiest visiting coeds!) or to read the newspaper. Now, contrary to popular belief, I had nothing to do with the night the keg of beer was smuggled into the library, even though it appeared on my third floor. In fact, regrettably, I wasn't there that night for whatever reason; that was an oddity. I even mentioned to him that after Saturday road games, more than once I'd find a classroom in a classroom building (the library was closed Sat eves) and study for a couple of hours before heading back to the house and the party. True story.
We had a good, a very good, baseball team my senior year. We were ranked somewhere near the top in New England, regardless of division--we had played and beaten a number of Div 1 schools. But, when we received an invitation to the post-season NCAA tournament, the faculty said "no" and that was that. None of us ever complained or whined. We knew what Amherst was all about. If I recall, the basketball team the year before had a similar situation, having defeated a couple of teams that later went far into the Div 3 tournament, but wasn't allowed to play. True stories.
The football team was playing a game in Rochester, NY, flying out on Fri afternoon--after classes, of course. The problem was Doug Swift had a Sat AM class--no "cuts" were allowed in Prof. Ziegler's classes. Oh, Doug was a starting linebacker and a good one. How good? He later started on the two Miami Dolphin teams that won Super Bowls (one team going undefeated!) in the early '70s. A buddy met Doug outside Williston Hall after class and drove him to Bradley Field, where he caught a flight to Rochester. An alum picked him up at the airport and drove him to UR. He played and flew home with the team. Another true story.
Last night the AC basketball team, ranked #2 in the nation in Div 3, defeated #3 ranked Middlebury in a triple overtime game. How exciting! 2 v 3! triple overtime! and, of course, a win! But I found myself, when reading the recap, wondering and hoping that "They still have to go to class don't they?" I'll bet they do--and do the mountain-load of work that's required.
Student-athlete......
Sunday, February 10, 2013
"Whimp" or "Wimp," redux
So, schools were called here with 4 or 5 inches of snow, although some say they received 6 inches (I find it's always a little bit more when people shovel). Imagine New England! I sent out feelers and reports came back in--startling! Portland, ME...32". Newburyport, MA, Simsbury and Farmington, CT...28-29". One mate said he had drifts of 5' and 6', with snow piled a foot over the handle of his front door! I guess, here, schools would be out a couple of weeks? One of my mates thought, just thought, schools were called off tomorrow (Mon) out where he lives. But, worse, imagine being without power in that.
Leonard Pitts had a good column today (and I've not cared much for him the past year or so) about the courage of Rosa Parks. Yes, that was one brave lady. I remember reading that, after she had posted bail and been released from jail, sitting around the kitchen table that evening with her husband, he said, "Rosa, you know they'll kill you." They, or at least he, thought the white supremacists would kill her. And, that was the modus operandi of the South at the time. Tell me that lady wasn't courageous! It was also deflating that Pitts mention, as part of his column, how some people still get their "facts" and "opinions." That is scary.
One of the basketball dads isn't particularly happy with my coaching. Oh, he was polite, nicely phrasing his concerns. It wasn't anything to do with his kid's playing time--all the kids pretty much play the same amount of time. But, he wasn't happy. I won't go into his complaint(s), but it's good that he voiced them--very good. I initially was a bit put off by them, but then realized they give me an opportunity to live what I preach about my historical hero--Abraham Lincoln. I reread his views and, although I still believe in my methods, can work some of his good ideas into the last three weeks' of practices and games. I am not sure they will work, given the skill levels, but Lincoln's lesson is one I'm glad I remembered. Yes, I believe you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Speaking of "old dogs," for whatever reason, 64 seems a lot older to me than 63 did. When I put my age on surveys and whatnot, I think, "Wow! 64...that's getting up there." I think I've noted how my mental faculties are slipping. I know, I know--oh, oh. There wasn't much there anyway and now I'm losing that? And I'm more tired than ever. I hate to get more than 5 or 6 hours of sleep a night; there's too much to do. But I might have to concede I need more rest. I refuse to give up anything as of yet. 64 was the age my mother died, but that doesn't weigh too heavily on me. (Boy, it's been almost 18 years and I miss her as much today as I did, well, 18 years ago.) Yet, I remember, she was in pretty good health, no smoking and no drinking, never had been sick--in the hospital just for her five kids. From out of nowhere, poof magic!, pancreatic and kidney cancer.
You know, I love, just love how the kids talk sometimes. I think it's great Bopper rarely uses a contraction. He says, "I can not" instead of "I can't" and "I would not" instead of "I wouldn't" and so on. Yesterday, he asked me what a "communist" is, since I call a lot of people "commies." And, "Why do you call Uncle Matt a 'semi-communist?'" I'll say, "the proverbial..." whatever. The other day he said, out of nowhere, "The verbial...." It took me a few seconds to catch on, but when I did I burst out laughing. Ash provided a great moment for me yesterday when she asked me to buy her a "hock gawg." How could I pass up buying her a 'hock gawg?" I couldn't. And, although she now corrects me, I still say "pack-ack" for "backpack." And I always get a kick out of four-year old Codester, "But I'm your 'Big Guy!'" Sometimes it's the little things that mean the most.
And, of course, Tue is Abraham Lincoln's 204th birthday. I am always reminded of the words, written in 1922, of W.E.B. DuBois, who said, "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." (My italics.) Wow! "He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." What another great lesson! How uplifting!
Somehow we've created another pair of synonyms that shouldn't be. Americans have come to equate "leaders" with "politicians." I would have thought Lee Iacocca's book of 15 or so years ago would have disspelled that mistaken connection. (He called them--and many self-centered business leaders, too--"Bozos.") Apparently, it didn't. Perhaps when we get over this misconception things will straighten out.
Leonard Pitts had a good column today (and I've not cared much for him the past year or so) about the courage of Rosa Parks. Yes, that was one brave lady. I remember reading that, after she had posted bail and been released from jail, sitting around the kitchen table that evening with her husband, he said, "Rosa, you know they'll kill you." They, or at least he, thought the white supremacists would kill her. And, that was the modus operandi of the South at the time. Tell me that lady wasn't courageous! It was also deflating that Pitts mention, as part of his column, how some people still get their "facts" and "opinions." That is scary.
One of the basketball dads isn't particularly happy with my coaching. Oh, he was polite, nicely phrasing his concerns. It wasn't anything to do with his kid's playing time--all the kids pretty much play the same amount of time. But, he wasn't happy. I won't go into his complaint(s), but it's good that he voiced them--very good. I initially was a bit put off by them, but then realized they give me an opportunity to live what I preach about my historical hero--Abraham Lincoln. I reread his views and, although I still believe in my methods, can work some of his good ideas into the last three weeks' of practices and games. I am not sure they will work, given the skill levels, but Lincoln's lesson is one I'm glad I remembered. Yes, I believe you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Speaking of "old dogs," for whatever reason, 64 seems a lot older to me than 63 did. When I put my age on surveys and whatnot, I think, "Wow! 64...that's getting up there." I think I've noted how my mental faculties are slipping. I know, I know--oh, oh. There wasn't much there anyway and now I'm losing that? And I'm more tired than ever. I hate to get more than 5 or 6 hours of sleep a night; there's too much to do. But I might have to concede I need more rest. I refuse to give up anything as of yet. 64 was the age my mother died, but that doesn't weigh too heavily on me. (Boy, it's been almost 18 years and I miss her as much today as I did, well, 18 years ago.) Yet, I remember, she was in pretty good health, no smoking and no drinking, never had been sick--in the hospital just for her five kids. From out of nowhere, poof magic!, pancreatic and kidney cancer.
You know, I love, just love how the kids talk sometimes. I think it's great Bopper rarely uses a contraction. He says, "I can not" instead of "I can't" and "I would not" instead of "I wouldn't" and so on. Yesterday, he asked me what a "communist" is, since I call a lot of people "commies." And, "Why do you call Uncle Matt a 'semi-communist?'" I'll say, "the proverbial..." whatever. The other day he said, out of nowhere, "The verbial...." It took me a few seconds to catch on, but when I did I burst out laughing. Ash provided a great moment for me yesterday when she asked me to buy her a "hock gawg." How could I pass up buying her a 'hock gawg?" I couldn't. And, although she now corrects me, I still say "pack-ack" for "backpack." And I always get a kick out of four-year old Codester, "But I'm your 'Big Guy!'" Sometimes it's the little things that mean the most.
And, of course, Tue is Abraham Lincoln's 204th birthday. I am always reminded of the words, written in 1922, of W.E.B. DuBois, who said, "Abraham Lincoln was perhaps the greatest figure of the nineteenth century. Certainly of the five masters,--Napoleon, Bismarck, Victoria, Browning and Lincoln, Lincoln is to me the most human and lovable. And I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. The world is full of illegitimate children. The world is full of folk whose taste was educated in the gutter. The world is full of people born hating and despising their fellows. To these I love to say: See this man. He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." (My italics.) Wow! "He was one of you and yet he became Abraham Lincoln." What another great lesson! How uplifting!
Somehow we've created another pair of synonyms that shouldn't be. Americans have come to equate "leaders" with "politicians." I would have thought Lee Iacocca's book of 15 or so years ago would have disspelled that mistaken connection. (He called them--and many self-centered business leaders, too--"Bozos.") Apparently, it didn't. Perhaps when we get over this misconception things will straighten out.
Friday, February 8, 2013
"Whimp" or "Wimp?"
Is it spelled "Whimp" or "Wimp?" Today, it's the schools who are "whimpy" or "wimpy." C'mon...no school with 4" of snow, maybe 4 1/2"? Granted, in our large school district, snow depths can vary by quite a bit. Where we now live might have 2-3", while where we once lived could have 7-8" and vice versa. So I know. But.... There was no reason, that I can see, for no school. Now, last week it was nasty--icy and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to drive or ride on a bus with the slick roads. But today? Now I know the media, once again, blew this one out of proportion. When I got home from class last night and settled, Karen was watching the news, which was all about the weather. Oh, the storm coming in! Stores were surveyed. The road commissions were interviewed. The maps were pulled out. And, fizzle, fizzle, fizzle.... All that for 4"? I haven't seen that any areas around here received more than that. My guess is schools will point to "All the schools around here were closed," as if that's a good reason. What did my mother use to tell me? If everyone else jumped off the roof, would you, too? Still, the kids and Grandma were excited to have another day off.
It sure is pretty out there. I don't know what Round it now is (not with the four or five or six 1-2" snowfalls we've had the past couple of weeks), but today's shoveling was fun and, to my surprise, pretty easy. I expected a heavier/wetter snow, but it was quite powdery. I know, I know...thinking that shoveling show is fun is sick, but I enjoy it.
I still wonder why so many folks, with teenage kids, either have snowblowers or plow services. Shouldn't kids be shoveling? I suppose, though, that the economy, namely snowblower producers and health care (at least the future) providers, will benefit.
It sure is pretty out there. I don't know what Round it now is (not with the four or five or six 1-2" snowfalls we've had the past couple of weeks), but today's shoveling was fun and, to my surprise, pretty easy. I expected a heavier/wetter snow, but it was quite powdery. I know, I know...thinking that shoveling show is fun is sick, but I enjoy it.
I still wonder why so many folks, with teenage kids, either have snowblowers or plow services. Shouldn't kids be shoveling? I suppose, though, that the economy, namely snowblower producers and health care (at least the future) providers, will benefit.
Deficit?
What is the old joke? When is a decrease in spending really an increase in spending?
Well, apparently Congress is at it again. The deficit for the next fiscal year is supposed to be under $1 trillion, about $900 billion. And, our political leaders tell us, that's "good news." "Good news?"
It's great how they aim for, say 15% increases in spending in the budget, and if they only get an increase of 10%, they consider that a "cut." Huh?
And what's with this "Gang of Four" plan for the illegal immigration problem? It sure sounds like an amnesty to me. Now, I'm actually in favor of immigration. After all, each of my four grandparents was an immigrant. And the so-called "anchor babies" are, in my book, natural-born US citizens. But I have some problems with merely giving all those who are now here illegally legal status with one swipe of the magic legislative wand. First, what about all those immigrants who are doing things the right way, that is, legally? What message about not obeying the laws does this amnesty say? Second, what about all the back taxes the illegals have paid over the years? They've taken advantage of living here for free (that is, no taxes)--schools, roads, medical help, etc. And, they've been a burden on the rest of Americans. Third, let's see, wouldn't such a blanket amnesty (oh, these guys won't call it that, but they just make up stuff anyway) encourage a great influx of illegals? The explanation that there would be a cut-off date, perhaps a year (back to 2012), for amnesty is a joke. These guys can't be that stupid, can they? (But, some folks I know who have dealings with the DC-types assure me that can be that stupid.) How do they know exactly when an illegal came here, how long he/she has been here? It a guy says he's been here five years, how can anyone say different? Oh, I see...they'll check is visa/passport.
It's also nice to know that the latest projections have Social Security running out even sooner than what was project just last year. And, if the projections keep getting more and more dire, anyone younger than 50 or 55 won't see a penny. Great job politicians! Over the decades, you have succeeded in making people believe Social Security is an old-age pension, not merely the supplement it was originally intended to be.
Well, apparently Congress is at it again. The deficit for the next fiscal year is supposed to be under $1 trillion, about $900 billion. And, our political leaders tell us, that's "good news." "Good news?"
It's great how they aim for, say 15% increases in spending in the budget, and if they only get an increase of 10%, they consider that a "cut." Huh?
And what's with this "Gang of Four" plan for the illegal immigration problem? It sure sounds like an amnesty to me. Now, I'm actually in favor of immigration. After all, each of my four grandparents was an immigrant. And the so-called "anchor babies" are, in my book, natural-born US citizens. But I have some problems with merely giving all those who are now here illegally legal status with one swipe of the magic legislative wand. First, what about all those immigrants who are doing things the right way, that is, legally? What message about not obeying the laws does this amnesty say? Second, what about all the back taxes the illegals have paid over the years? They've taken advantage of living here for free (that is, no taxes)--schools, roads, medical help, etc. And, they've been a burden on the rest of Americans. Third, let's see, wouldn't such a blanket amnesty (oh, these guys won't call it that, but they just make up stuff anyway) encourage a great influx of illegals? The explanation that there would be a cut-off date, perhaps a year (back to 2012), for amnesty is a joke. These guys can't be that stupid, can they? (But, some folks I know who have dealings with the DC-types assure me that can be that stupid.) How do they know exactly when an illegal came here, how long he/she has been here? It a guy says he's been here five years, how can anyone say different? Oh, I see...they'll check is visa/passport.
It's also nice to know that the latest projections have Social Security running out even sooner than what was project just last year. And, if the projections keep getting more and more dire, anyone younger than 50 or 55 won't see a penny. Great job politicians! Over the decades, you have succeeded in making people believe Social Security is an old-age pension, not merely the supplement it was originally intended to be.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Schools
Sometimes I sit and wonder and sometimes I just sits.
I don't have confirmation of this, but don't at all doubt it. In fact, I wonder what has taken so long for this to happen. Some school district has stopped giving homework because those who do it have an unfair advantage over those who don't do it. Now, like most folks, I'd likely scoff at this, saying, "Nah, this couldn't be true." But, after 42 years in education, I believe it. I'd just like to know where and how widespread this homework thing is.
In my experience, schools have often made a farce of success. Sometimes it is watered down so much as to make in meaningless. I worked, part-time, at a college which annually gave a "teacher-of-the-year" award to someone in a particular department. I don't know what other recognition was included, but "winners" names were etched on a plaque that hung in a corridor, for all to see. I wonder if others saw what I did. The first member (that is, the one who had the most seniority) was the first recipient. Then, another department member, then another. Including new hires, once all the full-timers were "winners," giving the award just started over again, with the same names, winning twice and then beginning a third round. And, often (and not to single out this place, but many places) recognition is given to some who really don't deserve it. Such recognition diminishes that actually deserved by others. But, in the schools, we certainly don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, left out, etc. And I remember some of the comments on my own college papers at Amherst: "No sloppy thinking allowed." "If you can't do better work than this, maybe you better think about transferring to another school." Comments like those--and others!--will get one's attention pretty quickly. They certainly got mine.
You know, speaking of "unfair advantages," maybe, at some big marathon like Chicago, New York, or Boston--one with a big payday--I could start at mile 20 while the elites like the Kenyans and Ethiopians run the entire 26.2 miles. Then, that would eliminate the unfair advantage they have over me and I'd now have a fair chance to win all that money! In fact, they already are cheating by running well over 100 miles a week, pushing their bodies with all that hard work, keeping their weight down, etc. Maybe I should just win the money without racing at all??????
There must be a fine line between doing what's politically expedient and being a coward. I'd like to know where that fine line is located.
Learning? I know time is running out, but I still want to learn it all. There's just so much more to learn. The more I learn the more I realize how much I really don't know. What brought this to mind was something a student asked me. I hadn't even heard of this, but have started some research. And, it's led to more research..... There's just so much more to learn.
Even though we won our first little league basketball game last weekend, after 7 unsuccessful tries (OK, losses), I was bummed out because of the rotten officiating and the lack of apparent concern
demonstrated by the league. I was pumped up a bit again last night, though, at our practice. We scrimmaged, for something new to do, with a team that shares the gym with us. This team whupped us pretty good the first week of the season, game 2 I think. But last night, our first group more than held its own against the other first group, doing a lot of things right, including scoring more than the "bad guys." Our second group pretty much gave all the points back, but still a couple of the guys did some things right for the first time! Hooray! We're back on track--and so am I.
Why have the weekend newspaper coups been so lousy lately, since about Thanksgiving? I thought there'd at least be a nice collection for the Super Bowl, but nope.
Speaking of the Super Bowl...... "Blackout?" What "blackout?" That shows how much I was paying attention. But the food room was a good place to be!
I don't have confirmation of this, but don't at all doubt it. In fact, I wonder what has taken so long for this to happen. Some school district has stopped giving homework because those who do it have an unfair advantage over those who don't do it. Now, like most folks, I'd likely scoff at this, saying, "Nah, this couldn't be true." But, after 42 years in education, I believe it. I'd just like to know where and how widespread this homework thing is.
In my experience, schools have often made a farce of success. Sometimes it is watered down so much as to make in meaningless. I worked, part-time, at a college which annually gave a "teacher-of-the-year" award to someone in a particular department. I don't know what other recognition was included, but "winners" names were etched on a plaque that hung in a corridor, for all to see. I wonder if others saw what I did. The first member (that is, the one who had the most seniority) was the first recipient. Then, another department member, then another. Including new hires, once all the full-timers were "winners," giving the award just started over again, with the same names, winning twice and then beginning a third round. And, often (and not to single out this place, but many places) recognition is given to some who really don't deserve it. Such recognition diminishes that actually deserved by others. But, in the schools, we certainly don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, left out, etc. And I remember some of the comments on my own college papers at Amherst: "No sloppy thinking allowed." "If you can't do better work than this, maybe you better think about transferring to another school." Comments like those--and others!--will get one's attention pretty quickly. They certainly got mine.
You know, speaking of "unfair advantages," maybe, at some big marathon like Chicago, New York, or Boston--one with a big payday--I could start at mile 20 while the elites like the Kenyans and Ethiopians run the entire 26.2 miles. Then, that would eliminate the unfair advantage they have over me and I'd now have a fair chance to win all that money! In fact, they already are cheating by running well over 100 miles a week, pushing their bodies with all that hard work, keeping their weight down, etc. Maybe I should just win the money without racing at all??????
There must be a fine line between doing what's politically expedient and being a coward. I'd like to know where that fine line is located.
Learning? I know time is running out, but I still want to learn it all. There's just so much more to learn. The more I learn the more I realize how much I really don't know. What brought this to mind was something a student asked me. I hadn't even heard of this, but have started some research. And, it's led to more research..... There's just so much more to learn.
Even though we won our first little league basketball game last weekend, after 7 unsuccessful tries (OK, losses), I was bummed out because of the rotten officiating and the lack of apparent concern
demonstrated by the league. I was pumped up a bit again last night, though, at our practice. We scrimmaged, for something new to do, with a team that shares the gym with us. This team whupped us pretty good the first week of the season, game 2 I think. But last night, our first group more than held its own against the other first group, doing a lot of things right, including scoring more than the "bad guys." Our second group pretty much gave all the points back, but still a couple of the guys did some things right for the first time! Hooray! We're back on track--and so am I.
Why have the weekend newspaper coups been so lousy lately, since about Thanksgiving? I thought there'd at least be a nice collection for the Super Bowl, but nope.
Speaking of the Super Bowl...... "Blackout?" What "blackout?" That shows how much I was paying attention. But the food room was a good place to be!
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Sat Thoughts
Can it be 12 years already? There are days when one can recall exactly where he/she was, years after the fact. Twelve years ago today, I know and know well. In fact, I told Bopper, "Twelve years ago today I was holding you and you weren't an hour old yet." He grinned and said, "I bet you can't do that now." Maybe, maybe not. But it was one of the greatest days of my life, no doubt. In fact, I held each of my three grandkids before they were an hour old. Grandma has said the wonder is that I ever gave them up!
I'm upset with my coaching today. OK, we won our first game of the season. But I am left with a sour taste in my mouth from the lousy officiating. Now, to be certain, I could care less if there are never any 3 second calls (it's actually 5 seconds in our little league), travel calls, in-bound violation calls, etc. But fouls? Those are a different matter. It really irks me that they are called. OK, so we can't call everything, at least, every little thing. But I would certainly think running into a dribbler, sort of like a trap block in football, to steal the ball should be called. I would think that if a kid goes home with welt marks all over his forearms, there should have been some fouls called. I would think that if a dribbler is pushed out of bounds a foul should be called instead of whistling the kid for, well, going out of bounds. I should think that if a team is whistled for "deliberate fouls" three times, as if a 5th-6th grader who can hardly run can "deliberately" do anything, on breakaways from behind (I fully agree my kids fouled, just not the "deliberate" part, which was explained as "pushing from behind) then the other team which also did it three or four times should be at least called for fouls, if not "deliberate." Yep, it ruined my appreciation for the win. What makes this esp grating is that I've been pointing it out in polite letters to the league. I've had as many as three kids a game injured, unable to play. In fact, our best player didn't play the second game last week due to a such a foul, most surely preventing our first win then. He didn't play up to par at all today, either. My own kid was undercut on a breakaway layup, landing on his mouth and slicing a tooth in half--no foul. My other kid, after one game, when to the ER for a thigh injury, only to come home with 7 stitches in his head and a calf wrap, neither of which we knew--and he never shot a free throw. What's so hard to see all of the time? Yep, I realize, after 20 years of high school officiating, it's a hard job and that not everything can be seen. But, esp, on breakaways? point guards out in the open at half court? I'm upset that I let the lousy officiating get to me.
Hey, what happened? A week ago, I filled up the gas tank at $3.39 a gallon. I was running low yesterday, after chasing all over after the kids this week, and opted to fill up. Whoa! I went past a station that advertised $3.66 a gallon, wondering where that came from. With only "18 miles to empty," I figured I'd better stop and I did, at a station with $3.71 a gallon! That's almost $5 more a fill-up. And that's a welcome figure, too, after having one of my paychecks (working part-time) $90 short (due to government stealing, er, withholding--that is, tax increases!) and the other about $25 short--since the first of the year! Yeah, I guess I favor an increase in the state gasoline tax, higher auto registration fees, or a rise in the state sales tax from 6% to 8%. Let's not forget, as the President has said, "We don't have a spending problem." I received an e-mail from Congressman Levin last week, touting his efforts at what he termed, "Paycheck Equality." I responded with an e-mail of my own, asking what he was going to do about my paychecks being short since Jan 1. Yeah, you guessed it--I received no reply.
Such a great letter-to-the-editor in today's newspaper! It had a great campaign slogan for candidate for President in 2016 Hillary Clinton--"Who Cares?" That, of course, is in reference to her incredibly ignorant and callous response to a Benghazi question before the Senate committee a couple of weeks ago. But, with the types of voters we have out there today, I think she'd get elected. Of course, I think Kwame Kilpatrick would be re-elected in a heartbeat.
What an odd day! I finished both hard Saturday crosswords--much more difficult than the Sunday New York Times crossword--without too much difficulty. Maybe their creators were giving us a bit of a break, maybe. I really look forward to those Sat crosswords.
Speaking of Sunday newspapers, boy the coups have been pretty rotten since about Thanksgiving or so. There are some good ones, but not nearly as good as usual. BTW, with bottle returns, though, I spent 35 cents for groceries today. Granted, it was a short list and I have to head out to the other store tomorrow for another short list (I won't spend $10, not close). Still...I'll take it for a week's groceries (no meats). Why everyone doesn't clip coups beats me.
Out for the birthday party....
I'm upset with my coaching today. OK, we won our first game of the season. But I am left with a sour taste in my mouth from the lousy officiating. Now, to be certain, I could care less if there are never any 3 second calls (it's actually 5 seconds in our little league), travel calls, in-bound violation calls, etc. But fouls? Those are a different matter. It really irks me that they are called. OK, so we can't call everything, at least, every little thing. But I would certainly think running into a dribbler, sort of like a trap block in football, to steal the ball should be called. I would think that if a kid goes home with welt marks all over his forearms, there should have been some fouls called. I would think that if a dribbler is pushed out of bounds a foul should be called instead of whistling the kid for, well, going out of bounds. I should think that if a team is whistled for "deliberate fouls" three times, as if a 5th-6th grader who can hardly run can "deliberately" do anything, on breakaways from behind (I fully agree my kids fouled, just not the "deliberate" part, which was explained as "pushing from behind) then the other team which also did it three or four times should be at least called for fouls, if not "deliberate." Yep, it ruined my appreciation for the win. What makes this esp grating is that I've been pointing it out in polite letters to the league. I've had as many as three kids a game injured, unable to play. In fact, our best player didn't play the second game last week due to a such a foul, most surely preventing our first win then. He didn't play up to par at all today, either. My own kid was undercut on a breakaway layup, landing on his mouth and slicing a tooth in half--no foul. My other kid, after one game, when to the ER for a thigh injury, only to come home with 7 stitches in his head and a calf wrap, neither of which we knew--and he never shot a free throw. What's so hard to see all of the time? Yep, I realize, after 20 years of high school officiating, it's a hard job and that not everything can be seen. But, esp, on breakaways? point guards out in the open at half court? I'm upset that I let the lousy officiating get to me.
Hey, what happened? A week ago, I filled up the gas tank at $3.39 a gallon. I was running low yesterday, after chasing all over after the kids this week, and opted to fill up. Whoa! I went past a station that advertised $3.66 a gallon, wondering where that came from. With only "18 miles to empty," I figured I'd better stop and I did, at a station with $3.71 a gallon! That's almost $5 more a fill-up. And that's a welcome figure, too, after having one of my paychecks (working part-time) $90 short (due to government stealing, er, withholding--that is, tax increases!) and the other about $25 short--since the first of the year! Yeah, I guess I favor an increase in the state gasoline tax, higher auto registration fees, or a rise in the state sales tax from 6% to 8%. Let's not forget, as the President has said, "We don't have a spending problem." I received an e-mail from Congressman Levin last week, touting his efforts at what he termed, "Paycheck Equality." I responded with an e-mail of my own, asking what he was going to do about my paychecks being short since Jan 1. Yeah, you guessed it--I received no reply.
Such a great letter-to-the-editor in today's newspaper! It had a great campaign slogan for candidate for President in 2016 Hillary Clinton--"Who Cares?" That, of course, is in reference to her incredibly ignorant and callous response to a Benghazi question before the Senate committee a couple of weeks ago. But, with the types of voters we have out there today, I think she'd get elected. Of course, I think Kwame Kilpatrick would be re-elected in a heartbeat.
What an odd day! I finished both hard Saturday crosswords--much more difficult than the Sunday New York Times crossword--without too much difficulty. Maybe their creators were giving us a bit of a break, maybe. I really look forward to those Sat crosswords.
Speaking of Sunday newspapers, boy the coups have been pretty rotten since about Thanksgiving or so. There are some good ones, but not nearly as good as usual. BTW, with bottle returns, though, I spent 35 cents for groceries today. Granted, it was a short list and I have to head out to the other store tomorrow for another short list (I won't spend $10, not close). Still...I'll take it for a week's groceries (no meats). Why everyone doesn't clip coups beats me.
Out for the birthday party....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
