I noted Tiger pitcher Justin Verlander signed a new contract. I don't know what the annual payout is, but it averages to about $28,000,000 a year. I don't begrudge him his money and he is one of the two Tigers I don't mind paying to watch. But doesn't $28,000, 000 a year seem excessive? Isn't that close to $1 million a start? Good for him.
I read where some Hollywood-types make (earn?) more than $20,000--an hour! No doubt some bankers and CEOs of companies brought home equally large amounts. Again, I don't begrudge them their incomes as long as it is gained legally.
I just wonder, as I've written before, where is the anger, the protest with athletes' and Hollywood-types' income? Oh, we see how "greedy" the corporate world is--and it might well be; I'm not arguing one way or the other now--but we never, ever see about any "greed" in professional sports, movies and television, hippy-rock music, etc.
And the income that CEOs, for instance make stems from things we actually need. The head of Fords leads a company that builds cars; the CEO of Mobil runs a company that provides gasoline. We clamor against their incomes. Perhaps it's because we feel trapped, that we have no option but to buy cars and gas. Where do the incomes of movie stars, NFL players, the latest gangsta rappers come from? They come from us, just like the corporate incomes. But there's a difference, to me at least.
We don't need movies or the latest American Idol episode or an NBA game. Yet, we continue to pay such exorbitant salaries by buying tickets, game shirts, DVDs, etc. We pay for tickets--most of which are outlandishly priced. $10 to see an evening movie? Have you tried taking your grandkids to a ball game lately, tossing in a hot dog and pizza and soda?
I wonder how many nasty letters-to-the-editor I will see next week about the signing of Verlander by the Tigers. I'm guessing there will be no nasty ones, but plenty of good ones.
Sometimes I sits and wonder and sometimes I just sits....
Saturday, March 30, 2013
The Supremes
The Supreme Court heard arguments from two potentially significant cases last week. One concerned affirmative action right here in Michigan. The other focused on California's Prop 8 (?) and gay marriages. I haven't heard much about the Michigan case, but the gay marriage issue seemed to have popped at the seams last week. There's much I don't understand....
The issue of gay rights (and gay marriages/unions, families, etc.) is complex, but not complex at the same time. It's a hot-button issue, no doubt. Why does it, for instance, evoke great emotion and, I dare say, more action than all of the murders, especially of our children, going on in our cities? Why are people more stoked up about this than, say, abortions?
It seems to me that if two gay people want to get married, what's the problem? If they are in love and, at least initially going into the relationship, plan a long-term commitment, I don't see why they cannot be legally married. So what if a religion, but by no means all religions or even all members of any certain religion, is opposed? Government should not be in the business of enforcing a religious doctrine/belief. If a religion want to condemn homosexuality and, in that vein, marriage between homosexuals, that's fine. Those who oppose such unions can find a church that reflects their beliefs. Those who don't agree with such a church's views can find another religion. But, should our laws reflect a particular religion's tenets, in effect, legally enforcing a religious doctrine?
I think the argument that kids should be raised by a heterosexual couple because they will be better adjusted kids has been shot down pretty conclusively. Besides, as some anti-gay marriage proponents have argued, is marriage solely for the purpose of having children? If so, what if a couple decides not to have kids? What if they can't have kids because of some physical problems? Then, should they be required to take an oath that they will have kids? If they don't take the oath, should we prohibit them from marrying? Of course not and it's silly to assert so. And, what about all of the divorced marriages and single-parent families? Aren't the deleterious effects of them something to consider, more so than how a loving gay couple which wants kids affects children?
Some argue that the people of California have spoken, that the majority rules and Prop 8 reflects the view of the majority. Well, that's why we have a Constitution and a court system, to prevent tyranny of the majority. Majority rules in this country, except when the rights of the minority are trampled. Should we have not abolished slavery? In the South, the majority, even those who didn't own slaves, didn't favor abolition. I'd bet, although we didn't have polling in the 1860s, a good/sizable number, likely even a majority, in the North didn't favor abolition of slavery. Note the draft riots of 1863 and their root causes (of which there were several).
Several comments/questions from the Supremes, too, are troubling. It was suggested by several (Alito and Sotomayor, perhaps) of them that gay marriage should be allowed to play itself out, that it's too new--newer, one suggested, than technology like computers and cell phones. That suggests that the Supremes should stick a political finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing and then rule accordingly. Nope, that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
Ah, I've lost my train of thought.... I'll be back later.
The issue of gay rights (and gay marriages/unions, families, etc.) is complex, but not complex at the same time. It's a hot-button issue, no doubt. Why does it, for instance, evoke great emotion and, I dare say, more action than all of the murders, especially of our children, going on in our cities? Why are people more stoked up about this than, say, abortions?
It seems to me that if two gay people want to get married, what's the problem? If they are in love and, at least initially going into the relationship, plan a long-term commitment, I don't see why they cannot be legally married. So what if a religion, but by no means all religions or even all members of any certain religion, is opposed? Government should not be in the business of enforcing a religious doctrine/belief. If a religion want to condemn homosexuality and, in that vein, marriage between homosexuals, that's fine. Those who oppose such unions can find a church that reflects their beliefs. Those who don't agree with such a church's views can find another religion. But, should our laws reflect a particular religion's tenets, in effect, legally enforcing a religious doctrine?
I think the argument that kids should be raised by a heterosexual couple because they will be better adjusted kids has been shot down pretty conclusively. Besides, as some anti-gay marriage proponents have argued, is marriage solely for the purpose of having children? If so, what if a couple decides not to have kids? What if they can't have kids because of some physical problems? Then, should they be required to take an oath that they will have kids? If they don't take the oath, should we prohibit them from marrying? Of course not and it's silly to assert so. And, what about all of the divorced marriages and single-parent families? Aren't the deleterious effects of them something to consider, more so than how a loving gay couple which wants kids affects children?
Some argue that the people of California have spoken, that the majority rules and Prop 8 reflects the view of the majority. Well, that's why we have a Constitution and a court system, to prevent tyranny of the majority. Majority rules in this country, except when the rights of the minority are trampled. Should we have not abolished slavery? In the South, the majority, even those who didn't own slaves, didn't favor abolition. I'd bet, although we didn't have polling in the 1860s, a good/sizable number, likely even a majority, in the North didn't favor abolition of slavery. Note the draft riots of 1863 and their root causes (of which there were several).
Several comments/questions from the Supremes, too, are troubling. It was suggested by several (Alito and Sotomayor, perhaps) of them that gay marriage should be allowed to play itself out, that it's too new--newer, one suggested, than technology like computers and cell phones. That suggests that the Supremes should stick a political finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing and then rule accordingly. Nope, that's not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
Ah, I've lost my train of thought.... I'll be back later.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Respect
One of my buddies often remark how we referred and continue to refer after all of these years to our college instructors as "Professor" (me) and "Dr." (him). I think that's the measure of respect we had for them and what they did so well.
I always wear a tie to class. (OK, full disclosure requires admitting that, in 42 years, I didn't wear a tie twice, forgetting it both times. But, one of those times, Karen dropped off a tie on her way to work--after a frantic phone call from me.) It's a personal thing and I understand that others don't and their reasons for them. Wearing a tie, for me, is a way to respect the profession, the position. One of the first things I always notice about Governor Snyder is that he is tie-less.
What reminded me of this was both yesterday and last night seeing other instructors in Levis and tee shirts or flannel shirts with sneakers. Certainly others can dress the way they want to dress. And I'm not at all sure students even notice or if it has any impact on teaching, learning, or classroom dynamics. Nobody would admit it had a negative influence anyway, would they?
I understand, perhaps, elementary teachers and art, physical education, etc. teachers not getting all dressed up. Theirs is a messy world! But there's a difference between dressing down (note, I didn't say "slobby") and otherwise.
Perhaps it was merely coincidence and there's no correlation, but of the half dozen or so lectures I heard last weekend, the best were delivered by professors and authors who wore ties and the worst two were given by those in Levis.
Again, I don't know if it's a correlation and I certainly don't believe in a dress code for teachers, although I would keep a close eye on my staff if I were an administrator. I'm sure those who dress down would argue that has no impact on their teaching. They might be right. But to me it's a matter of respect.
I always wear a tie to class. (OK, full disclosure requires admitting that, in 42 years, I didn't wear a tie twice, forgetting it both times. But, one of those times, Karen dropped off a tie on her way to work--after a frantic phone call from me.) It's a personal thing and I understand that others don't and their reasons for them. Wearing a tie, for me, is a way to respect the profession, the position. One of the first things I always notice about Governor Snyder is that he is tie-less.
What reminded me of this was both yesterday and last night seeing other instructors in Levis and tee shirts or flannel shirts with sneakers. Certainly others can dress the way they want to dress. And I'm not at all sure students even notice or if it has any impact on teaching, learning, or classroom dynamics. Nobody would admit it had a negative influence anyway, would they?
I understand, perhaps, elementary teachers and art, physical education, etc. teachers not getting all dressed up. Theirs is a messy world! But there's a difference between dressing down (note, I didn't say "slobby") and otherwise.
Perhaps it was merely coincidence and there's no correlation, but of the half dozen or so lectures I heard last weekend, the best were delivered by professors and authors who wore ties and the worst two were given by those in Levis.
Again, I don't know if it's a correlation and I certainly don't believe in a dress code for teachers, although I would keep a close eye on my staff if I were an administrator. I'm sure those who dress down would argue that has no impact on their teaching. They might be right. But to me it's a matter of respect.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Teaching?
I must have missed something. Some Florida college instructor used this as a "critical thinking" assignment. He had students write "Jesus" on a piece of paper and then put the paper on the floor. Students were instructed to stomp on the paper. This was supposed to show something about tolerance or intolerance or something of religion?????? I must have missed something; at least I hope I did. How utterly ridiculous!
If it's true, as I heard it, how does this guy have tenure? Who gave it to him if this is the type of "teaching" he does? Maybe he thinks it makes him cool, that his students think him "cool." I don't know. Maybe he doesn't really know anything and this is all he can do. I don't know.
C'mon, this is a college class? Aren't there better ways to teach "tolerance" or "intolerance" and "critical thinking" (whatever that is)? Do parents willingly pay the exorbitant college tuition of today for this kind of "teaching?" I'm pretty sure most of his students just laugh at the guy, at least I hope they do.
And I'm left with two related thoughts. I'm not sure what "critical thinking" actually is. It has been a buzzword in education for some time and buzzwords in education are like scripture--don't ever question or challenge them, no matter how stupid. Over my 42 years, I've confronted a lot of similar things, pretty stupid things. In fact, I'd tell people outside of education about them and they likely thought I was lying--I wasn't. My buddy likes to tell the story of the school that spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars, special ordering television sets. He was incredulous, noting he had recently bought the same set for about one-third as much at one of the local appliance warehouses. Somewhat nonplussed, the school administrator finally blurted out, "But they're not safe!" Huh? "Not safe?" Yeah, he said, "They might blow up." My buddy and I burst out laughing, with me urging him to return the set so he didn't get hurt. The old "Values Clarification" stuff of the '70s was another silly thing.
I think "critical thinking" in my own education was professors writing on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed" and "If this is the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college." Such comments were justly "critical" and they forced me to do a lot more "thinking." There..."critical thinking," I guess.
This whole "stomp on Jesus" silliness makes me wonder about the Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon." I guess it's a spoof of Mormonism, really making fun of it. Of course, there are aspects of Christianity which have been spoofed, too, particular Catholic schools with their nuns ("Nunsense," "Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" come to mind). Yet, the whole world holds its collective breath if someone draws a cartoon critical of Islam?????? I guess there are enough things in this world to make fun of without taking on religions. I'm talking about creeds, tenets, etc., not idiosyncrasies; those are fair game!
I'm reading a book that reminds me of "Pretend History." Many books and Hollywood, especially, have perpetuated the myth of the peaceful Amerinds, the natives the Europeans found when arriving in the New World. According to this view, the episodes of violence--battles, war, death, scalpings, and more--were all the result of those nasty Europeans (and some of them were nasty!). But that's just what it is, a myth. It's "Pretend History." As this book correctly points out, it wasn't the Europeans who introduced slavery to the Indians of the Americas. And the Indians themselves were pretty good at human sacrifices. They didn't need any outside help. There were wars of extinction and the nastiest of brutalities.
I was going to write tonight--a column and a review--but it's later than I thought. Reading sounds better, esp since I just received an e-mail confirming that a new book order shipped out to me today. And, the kids need to be cleaned up....
Out......
If it's true, as I heard it, how does this guy have tenure? Who gave it to him if this is the type of "teaching" he does? Maybe he thinks it makes him cool, that his students think him "cool." I don't know. Maybe he doesn't really know anything and this is all he can do. I don't know.
C'mon, this is a college class? Aren't there better ways to teach "tolerance" or "intolerance" and "critical thinking" (whatever that is)? Do parents willingly pay the exorbitant college tuition of today for this kind of "teaching?" I'm pretty sure most of his students just laugh at the guy, at least I hope they do.
And I'm left with two related thoughts. I'm not sure what "critical thinking" actually is. It has been a buzzword in education for some time and buzzwords in education are like scripture--don't ever question or challenge them, no matter how stupid. Over my 42 years, I've confronted a lot of similar things, pretty stupid things. In fact, I'd tell people outside of education about them and they likely thought I was lying--I wasn't. My buddy likes to tell the story of the school that spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars, special ordering television sets. He was incredulous, noting he had recently bought the same set for about one-third as much at one of the local appliance warehouses. Somewhat nonplussed, the school administrator finally blurted out, "But they're not safe!" Huh? "Not safe?" Yeah, he said, "They might blow up." My buddy and I burst out laughing, with me urging him to return the set so he didn't get hurt. The old "Values Clarification" stuff of the '70s was another silly thing.
I think "critical thinking" in my own education was professors writing on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed" and "If this is the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college." Such comments were justly "critical" and they forced me to do a lot more "thinking." There..."critical thinking," I guess.
This whole "stomp on Jesus" silliness makes me wonder about the Broadway play, "The Book of Mormon." I guess it's a spoof of Mormonism, really making fun of it. Of course, there are aspects of Christianity which have been spoofed, too, particular Catholic schools with their nuns ("Nunsense," "Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" come to mind). Yet, the whole world holds its collective breath if someone draws a cartoon critical of Islam?????? I guess there are enough things in this world to make fun of without taking on religions. I'm talking about creeds, tenets, etc., not idiosyncrasies; those are fair game!
I'm reading a book that reminds me of "Pretend History." Many books and Hollywood, especially, have perpetuated the myth of the peaceful Amerinds, the natives the Europeans found when arriving in the New World. According to this view, the episodes of violence--battles, war, death, scalpings, and more--were all the result of those nasty Europeans (and some of them were nasty!). But that's just what it is, a myth. It's "Pretend History." As this book correctly points out, it wasn't the Europeans who introduced slavery to the Indians of the Americas. And the Indians themselves were pretty good at human sacrifices. They didn't need any outside help. There were wars of extinction and the nastiest of brutalities.
I was going to write tonight--a column and a review--but it's later than I thought. Reading sounds better, esp since I just received an e-mail confirming that a new book order shipped out to me today. And, the kids need to be cleaned up....
Out......
Monday, March 25, 2013
"A Good Man"
I was reminded yesterday of what Abigail Adams once said of George Washington. He was, she remarked, "a dangerous man." That was because Washington could persuade people to do things. of course, many men including tyrants/despots could do that. Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler, Castro, and others immediately come to mind.
But as the speaker was concluding this story, noting how lucky we were to have had Washington when we did, I found myself saying out loud what the speaker was saying, "because he was a good man."
Listening to several lectures over the weekend, I was again reminded of how difficult good lecturing really is. Each of the speakers seemed to know his/her stuff. A couple were quite good, especially the one who spoke of Washington. He had a heartfelt round of applause (not the trendy obligatory and faux standing ovation!) and deserved it. Another was pretty good, although I think his efforts were lost on his audience. Two others were, frankly, lousy. Although the subjects were of interest, they didn't put things together. I think it's also worth noting that the two best (of half a dozen or so) used no Power Points or other visual aids.
In the same vein, I read last week this, from a college professor: "People who don't teach for a living don't [recognize/realize] its difficulty." No, I don't think most people do. I think many folks, including those misplaced in the educational system (that is, charged with decision-making), think that anyone can teach. Whoever came up with "Those who can do and those who can't teach" did a great disservice.
But as the speaker was concluding this story, noting how lucky we were to have had Washington when we did, I found myself saying out loud what the speaker was saying, "because he was a good man."
Listening to several lectures over the weekend, I was again reminded of how difficult good lecturing really is. Each of the speakers seemed to know his/her stuff. A couple were quite good, especially the one who spoke of Washington. He had a heartfelt round of applause (not the trendy obligatory and faux standing ovation!) and deserved it. Another was pretty good, although I think his efforts were lost on his audience. Two others were, frankly, lousy. Although the subjects were of interest, they didn't put things together. I think it's also worth noting that the two best (of half a dozen or so) used no Power Points or other visual aids.
In the same vein, I read last week this, from a college professor: "People who don't teach for a living don't [recognize/realize] its difficulty." No, I don't think most people do. I think many folks, including those misplaced in the educational system (that is, charged with decision-making), think that anyone can teach. Whoever came up with "Those who can do and those who can't teach" did a great disservice.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Capital Punishment
I don't think favoring or opposing the death penalty is an easy matter. On this one, a person can think with his mind or with his heart. I'm not certain which is right. Two recent matters demonstrate this.
Within the past couple of weeks, a man who was held in prison for 27 years in New York was released. It was discovered he was innocent! I assume, with "27 years," the crime was one that in today's New York is a capital offense (but I'm not certain). Regardless, there are other such cases. What if this man had been put to death back then? In fact, there are hundreds of cases in which the convicted were later found to be innocent. One such instance occurred in Michigan in the 1830s, when it was still a territory, which is one reason the death penalty has never been used in Michigan under state laws. The death penalty is final. There is no "Oops!"
Yet, in the past few days comes a story of a guy who shot and killed a one-year old because the baby's mother didn't give the robber any money. The guy shot the baby in the head! Now, well, it's time to rethink the death penalty. This one pulls at the heart strings, shooting and killing a baby because the robber didn't get any money. Life in prison doesn't seem to do enough to punish this one.
The possibility of making an irreversible mistake, a big one, vs the most heinous of crimes that deserves the ultimate penalty??????
Within the past couple of weeks, a man who was held in prison for 27 years in New York was released. It was discovered he was innocent! I assume, with "27 years," the crime was one that in today's New York is a capital offense (but I'm not certain). Regardless, there are other such cases. What if this man had been put to death back then? In fact, there are hundreds of cases in which the convicted were later found to be innocent. One such instance occurred in Michigan in the 1830s, when it was still a territory, which is one reason the death penalty has never been used in Michigan under state laws. The death penalty is final. There is no "Oops!"
Yet, in the past few days comes a story of a guy who shot and killed a one-year old because the baby's mother didn't give the robber any money. The guy shot the baby in the head! Now, well, it's time to rethink the death penalty. This one pulls at the heart strings, shooting and killing a baby because the robber didn't get any money. Life in prison doesn't seem to do enough to punish this one.
The possibility of making an irreversible mistake, a big one, vs the most heinous of crimes that deserves the ultimate penalty??????
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Detroit
I don't like the Emergency Manager law and oppose the appointment of one for Detroit. I don't condone the way the city has been allowed to disintegrate right before our eyes, but the EM law and subsequent appoint hit me in very negative ways.
First, this is a democracy, a government of the people. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are "We the People...." They aren't "We the states" or "We the government." I know, I know, "we aren't really a democracy." Baloney/Bologna! Yes, we are. A democracy is a government in which the people are sovereign, that ultimate authority for governmen stems from them. Of course we aren't a direct democracy, but a representative or republican democracy (or democratic republic, if that doesn't offend anyone as sounding too much like a commie state). The people of Detroit, not an EM appointed by a governor, should govern Detroit. If they do so poorly, as they quite evidently have, well that's the gamble democracy takes. If they ask for help, not have it foisted upon them, they should be helped--with conditions.
Second, EM laws and those who favor them and appoint the EMs smack far too much for my tastes of arrogant elitism. I'm not a big fan of that, arrogant elitism, the idea that some people (and they mostly identify themselves) are smarter than the rest of us. They know better what's best for us. Maybe they do (although history pretty much shows they don't, although we'll never convince them of that; imagine trying to tell Woodrow Wilson that!). But that's not the point, not at all.
I think Detroiters should protest. Maybe that will shake them out of their bad habits on election days. But I see Jesse Jackson has come to town, urging Detroiters to take some sort of action. That's fine, but I have a question. Where was Jesse Jackson before this? Where was he when the city was being dragged down? Where were his eloquent words and scathing indictments then? I don't remember anything coming from him when things were going down the drain. Oh, he might lead a march, a demonstration, and get his picture on the front pages of the newspapers. After all, isn't that how he's earned his living? He'd have a lot more credibility had he been here 20 and more years ago.
I guess that's now how things work....
First, this is a democracy, a government of the people. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution are "We the People...." They aren't "We the states" or "We the government." I know, I know, "we aren't really a democracy." Baloney/Bologna! Yes, we are. A democracy is a government in which the people are sovereign, that ultimate authority for governmen stems from them. Of course we aren't a direct democracy, but a representative or republican democracy (or democratic republic, if that doesn't offend anyone as sounding too much like a commie state). The people of Detroit, not an EM appointed by a governor, should govern Detroit. If they do so poorly, as they quite evidently have, well that's the gamble democracy takes. If they ask for help, not have it foisted upon them, they should be helped--with conditions.
Second, EM laws and those who favor them and appoint the EMs smack far too much for my tastes of arrogant elitism. I'm not a big fan of that, arrogant elitism, the idea that some people (and they mostly identify themselves) are smarter than the rest of us. They know better what's best for us. Maybe they do (although history pretty much shows they don't, although we'll never convince them of that; imagine trying to tell Woodrow Wilson that!). But that's not the point, not at all.
I think Detroiters should protest. Maybe that will shake them out of their bad habits on election days. But I see Jesse Jackson has come to town, urging Detroiters to take some sort of action. That's fine, but I have a question. Where was Jesse Jackson before this? Where was he when the city was being dragged down? Where were his eloquent words and scathing indictments then? I don't remember anything coming from him when things were going down the drain. Oh, he might lead a march, a demonstration, and get his picture on the front pages of the newspapers. After all, isn't that how he's earned his living? He'd have a lot more credibility had he been here 20 and more years ago.
I guess that's now how things work....
Hoops
Admittedly, I haven't watched any NCAA games so far and I don't have any plans to do so. I might turn in on an MSU or UM game if I happen to be doing little or nothing, but I won't set aside any time for them.
But it's always pretty interesting to see the upsets. I guess some Florida Gulf Coast (which I never heard of before this AM) pulled off a biggie, defeating Georgetown (which I have heard of). The beginning of the game was on the boob tube at the fish fry last night, but I paid little attention, not with the fish coming and conversations in between.
I was told last night that Harvard also pulled an upset on Thurs to advance. I'm hoping (and assuming) that the Crimson players actually have to go to class and do the work. It would be cool to see Harvard move on to later rounds, even the finals. Maybe they can think the ball into the basket?
And, the Lord Jeffs are returning to the Final Four. They demolished their quarterfinal opponent by 20, leading most of the second half by more than that. I'm pretty sure they have to go to class and do the work! And, pretty cool, the Women's Team at Amherst also reached the Final Four last weekend. We were tied up all weekend or I might have traveled out to Holland to see the Lady Jeffs (or is Sabrinas more appropriate?) game(s). I think the guys play in VA and then have a two week hiatus before the final game in Atlanta the same weekend of the Div 1 finals. That seems silly to me, but that's the NCAA.
All this is reminiscent of the Mott teams from a couple of years ago, when both the men's and women's teams were national junior college champions.
Sometimes I wish I could be like normal guys and get excited (or at least have in interest) in NCAA basketball (or football or the NFL or other sports). But, I can't fake it. I just don't care to watch much. Gee, I used to be a junkie, when I was a kid. I wonder what turned me away. Maybe it was the money the professionals make. Maybe it was the awakening that, in college, big time sports aren't really played by student-athletes.
I still get a kick, though, out of following the Div 3 Jeffs, esp in baseball. The team is now 5-2 on its southern trip. I do chuckle, favorably of course, at the schedule they now play. Their opponents are all other Div 3 schools, mostly from the North. "Back when I was a kid," we played Div 1 schools (Northwestern and Purdue from the Big Ten, Western Michigan, Navy, UMass, Boston College, Holy Cross, Rutgers, etc.) and top Div 2 schools from the South (four of whom one year were ranked in the top ten Div 2 ratings). I think the year we didn't play in a tournament, we also got in two top-ranked junior colleges. Oh, we held our own and then some.
But it's always pretty interesting to see the upsets. I guess some Florida Gulf Coast (which I never heard of before this AM) pulled off a biggie, defeating Georgetown (which I have heard of). The beginning of the game was on the boob tube at the fish fry last night, but I paid little attention, not with the fish coming and conversations in between.
I was told last night that Harvard also pulled an upset on Thurs to advance. I'm hoping (and assuming) that the Crimson players actually have to go to class and do the work. It would be cool to see Harvard move on to later rounds, even the finals. Maybe they can think the ball into the basket?
And, the Lord Jeffs are returning to the Final Four. They demolished their quarterfinal opponent by 20, leading most of the second half by more than that. I'm pretty sure they have to go to class and do the work! And, pretty cool, the Women's Team at Amherst also reached the Final Four last weekend. We were tied up all weekend or I might have traveled out to Holland to see the Lady Jeffs (or is Sabrinas more appropriate?) game(s). I think the guys play in VA and then have a two week hiatus before the final game in Atlanta the same weekend of the Div 1 finals. That seems silly to me, but that's the NCAA.
All this is reminiscent of the Mott teams from a couple of years ago, when both the men's and women's teams were national junior college champions.
Sometimes I wish I could be like normal guys and get excited (or at least have in interest) in NCAA basketball (or football or the NFL or other sports). But, I can't fake it. I just don't care to watch much. Gee, I used to be a junkie, when I was a kid. I wonder what turned me away. Maybe it was the money the professionals make. Maybe it was the awakening that, in college, big time sports aren't really played by student-athletes.
I still get a kick, though, out of following the Div 3 Jeffs, esp in baseball. The team is now 5-2 on its southern trip. I do chuckle, favorably of course, at the schedule they now play. Their opponents are all other Div 3 schools, mostly from the North. "Back when I was a kid," we played Div 1 schools (Northwestern and Purdue from the Big Ten, Western Michigan, Navy, UMass, Boston College, Holy Cross, Rutgers, etc.) and top Div 2 schools from the South (four of whom one year were ranked in the top ten Div 2 ratings). I think the year we didn't play in a tournament, we also got in two top-ranked junior colleges. Oh, we held our own and then some.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Mortality
I see that Chinua Achebe has died. Achebe was a Nigerian novelist, whose best known book was Things Fall Apart. (It's main character, Okonkwo is unforgettable and comes to mind more often than one might suspect.) The novel is a masterful work, noteworthy for both its style and its message. I've had numerous students read it and, surprise, like it.
Over the years, he led a fight (living here in the US) for democracy in Nigeria. He had experienced dictatorship, a harsh brutal one, and a terrible war in Biafra. He constantly opposed the Nigerian government and its authoritarian brutalities. And, he not only walked the walk, he talked the talk. On more than one occasion, if I recall correctly, he turned down honors and awards from that government he opposed. How easy it would have been for him to swallow his principles and accept the honors from the government of his homeland. On second thought, maybe it wasn't so easy....
That's why I would love to see, just love to see it, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient refuse to accept the prize, citing how the Peace Prize has recently been given to far too many people who don't deserve it. Wouldn't that be great!?!?!? Of course, that would take some courage--esp in forfeiting the monetary grant.
And, another AC classmate has died. I didn't know him well (but with an enrollment of 1200 at the time, it was hard not to know everyone, if only a little bit, at Amherst), but worked occasionally with him in the dining hall. Another classmate's comment has struck home with me. "Just a few years ago, we were sharing the sad news of the passing of our parents. Now, it is we who are passing." Isn't that sobering?
It seems more and more folks I know are being diagnosed with cancer or some other dreaded diseases. That, too, is sobering. I'm not too worried yet, though. My work here isn't done. When I explained this to a former student several years ago, he remarked, "Then you can't die." So, I have that going for me......
Over the years, he led a fight (living here in the US) for democracy in Nigeria. He had experienced dictatorship, a harsh brutal one, and a terrible war in Biafra. He constantly opposed the Nigerian government and its authoritarian brutalities. And, he not only walked the walk, he talked the talk. On more than one occasion, if I recall correctly, he turned down honors and awards from that government he opposed. How easy it would have been for him to swallow his principles and accept the honors from the government of his homeland. On second thought, maybe it wasn't so easy....
That's why I would love to see, just love to see it, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient refuse to accept the prize, citing how the Peace Prize has recently been given to far too many people who don't deserve it. Wouldn't that be great!?!?!? Of course, that would take some courage--esp in forfeiting the monetary grant.
And, another AC classmate has died. I didn't know him well (but with an enrollment of 1200 at the time, it was hard not to know everyone, if only a little bit, at Amherst), but worked occasionally with him in the dining hall. Another classmate's comment has struck home with me. "Just a few years ago, we were sharing the sad news of the passing of our parents. Now, it is we who are passing." Isn't that sobering?
It seems more and more folks I know are being diagnosed with cancer or some other dreaded diseases. That, too, is sobering. I'm not too worried yet, though. My work here isn't done. When I explained this to a former student several years ago, he remarked, "Then you can't die." So, I have that going for me......
Just Asking......
I thought the other day, "Would you go to a doctor or lawyer who lied to you or at least was often deceptive?" And, further, "Would you do business with a person who ignored your questions about his/her product or service or, if there was an answer, obfuscated or didn't address the question?" Of course, I think the overwhelming majority of people would answer, "Certainly not!!!!!!"
So, then, why do we accept or even expect such behavior out of our elected officials? And, we do. Can anyone deny that we condone ("If we accept it, we condone it.") and even reward dishonesty in politicians?
I'm not picking on one party over the other and I'm not singling out the federal government over state and local government. The Democrats were this way with passing ObamaCare (and are now allowing their staunchest supporters to weasel out of ObamaCare's not-so-hot coverage). The Republicans were this way with passing the Right-to-Work legislation (and are now furious that some folks are circumventing the law, legally so, when those same politicians clearly circumvented the legislative process).
They lie about budgets and taxes. They are sneaky about what they are doing and why. Deception follows obfuscation and disingenuous. What's the thing one of my students said to me a couple semesters back? I had never heard it, but she asked, "When can you tell if a politician is lying?" I searched for an answer and finally said, "When?" She replied, "When he moves his lips." And, what I remember most about this is that she said it without a smile.
How are citizens, the ultimate authority in a democratic republic, to make good decisions if their elected offiicals are so devious, deceitful, and dishonest? But maybe that's the point. The politicians are so arrogant, so elitist that they believe they are smarter than we are, that they know what's best for us, better than we do. If that's what any of these Bozos believe, why don't they have the courage to tell us before election day? That's just it--many of them have no sense of honesty, shame, or integrity and have no courage. Just come out and tell us--"I'm smarter than you. I know what's best for you, better than you do. Just go back and watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars and March Madness and we'll do what's best."
Of course, not all politicians lie. There are some who are honest, I'd guess. But why don't they speak up. I guess they remain quiet because they are like most people, "sheeple." When VA Congressman Tom Davis spoke out against his own party's behavior, his leadership came down on him. In fact, he opted to leave his elected office rather than deal with them. So, we lose another good mind, an honest man, because he spoke the truth.
But I blame not only the politicians, but voters. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves." Yes, we reward such behavior--we elect and re-elect the same people from the same parties over and over, regardless. I chuckled, but in a serious way, at a local radio show as Detroit awaited the verdict in the Kwame Kilpatrick case. Callers to the show were debating if Kilpatrick would win if he ran for mayor again!!!!!! That such a question is even raised boggles my mind. I once had a discussion wiht a woman who asked me why I didn't like President Obama. I only had a chance to say, "Because he's a hypocrite...." She didn't let me get in another word, pouncing, "Oh, is that all?" I was taken aback. Being a "hypocrite," to her (and I'd suspect many, if not most folks) is not a bad quality? I was shaken by that thought and walked away.
I wrote a few weeks ago about Senator Carl Levin's campaign against former astronaut Jack Lousma. Although Lousma was a Michigan native, he had spend a number of years out of the state, returning to run for the US Senate. The Levin campaign negatively painted Lousma as "a carpetbagger," a decidely pejorative characterization. The he was out of the state serving in the military, being an astronaut apparently didn't matter. OK, this wasn't dishonest, in the strictest of senses, but it was deceitful. Gee, I wonder where Levin, most mistakenly called by some as the most recent "Conscience of the Senate," stood on Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in NY?????? Or, was it OK for Bobby Kennedy to do the same in '66? In a similar vein, in '10 Congressman John Dingell had a tough battle for the US House. His opponent Rob Steele was lampooned as one of those rich guys who has no clue how the rest of us live. His very nice (and expensive house--or one like it) was included in TV ads. How did Steele get to be wealthy? Did he steal the money? Did he have a Ponzi scheme going? Did he rob the public coffers? No, he is a cardiac surgeon, you know, with transplants and all! He performed hundreds and hundreds of successful surgeries. Gee, doesn't that equate with saving lives and improving the quality of lives? One would think that would be something honorable, not to mention he was successful. In both cases, voters opted for the wrong choices, electing career politicians. Nobody, not the candidates and not their ads, forced voters' choices. But, they made the wrong picks. So, who to blame?
So, then, why do we accept or even expect such behavior out of our elected officials? And, we do. Can anyone deny that we condone ("If we accept it, we condone it.") and even reward dishonesty in politicians?
I'm not picking on one party over the other and I'm not singling out the federal government over state and local government. The Democrats were this way with passing ObamaCare (and are now allowing their staunchest supporters to weasel out of ObamaCare's not-so-hot coverage). The Republicans were this way with passing the Right-to-Work legislation (and are now furious that some folks are circumventing the law, legally so, when those same politicians clearly circumvented the legislative process).
They lie about budgets and taxes. They are sneaky about what they are doing and why. Deception follows obfuscation and disingenuous. What's the thing one of my students said to me a couple semesters back? I had never heard it, but she asked, "When can you tell if a politician is lying?" I searched for an answer and finally said, "When?" She replied, "When he moves his lips." And, what I remember most about this is that she said it without a smile.
How are citizens, the ultimate authority in a democratic republic, to make good decisions if their elected offiicals are so devious, deceitful, and dishonest? But maybe that's the point. The politicians are so arrogant, so elitist that they believe they are smarter than we are, that they know what's best for us, better than we do. If that's what any of these Bozos believe, why don't they have the courage to tell us before election day? That's just it--many of them have no sense of honesty, shame, or integrity and have no courage. Just come out and tell us--"I'm smarter than you. I know what's best for you, better than you do. Just go back and watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars and March Madness and we'll do what's best."
Of course, not all politicians lie. There are some who are honest, I'd guess. But why don't they speak up. I guess they remain quiet because they are like most people, "sheeple." When VA Congressman Tom Davis spoke out against his own party's behavior, his leadership came down on him. In fact, he opted to leave his elected office rather than deal with them. So, we lose another good mind, an honest man, because he spoke the truth.
But I blame not only the politicians, but voters. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves." Yes, we reward such behavior--we elect and re-elect the same people from the same parties over and over, regardless. I chuckled, but in a serious way, at a local radio show as Detroit awaited the verdict in the Kwame Kilpatrick case. Callers to the show were debating if Kilpatrick would win if he ran for mayor again!!!!!! That such a question is even raised boggles my mind. I once had a discussion wiht a woman who asked me why I didn't like President Obama. I only had a chance to say, "Because he's a hypocrite...." She didn't let me get in another word, pouncing, "Oh, is that all?" I was taken aback. Being a "hypocrite," to her (and I'd suspect many, if not most folks) is not a bad quality? I was shaken by that thought and walked away.
I wrote a few weeks ago about Senator Carl Levin's campaign against former astronaut Jack Lousma. Although Lousma was a Michigan native, he had spend a number of years out of the state, returning to run for the US Senate. The Levin campaign negatively painted Lousma as "a carpetbagger," a decidely pejorative characterization. The he was out of the state serving in the military, being an astronaut apparently didn't matter. OK, this wasn't dishonest, in the strictest of senses, but it was deceitful. Gee, I wonder where Levin, most mistakenly called by some as the most recent "Conscience of the Senate," stood on Hillary Clinton running for the Senate in NY?????? Or, was it OK for Bobby Kennedy to do the same in '66? In a similar vein, in '10 Congressman John Dingell had a tough battle for the US House. His opponent Rob Steele was lampooned as one of those rich guys who has no clue how the rest of us live. His very nice (and expensive house--or one like it) was included in TV ads. How did Steele get to be wealthy? Did he steal the money? Did he have a Ponzi scheme going? Did he rob the public coffers? No, he is a cardiac surgeon, you know, with transplants and all! He performed hundreds and hundreds of successful surgeries. Gee, doesn't that equate with saving lives and improving the quality of lives? One would think that would be something honorable, not to mention he was successful. In both cases, voters opted for the wrong choices, electing career politicians. Nobody, not the candidates and not their ads, forced voters' choices. But, they made the wrong picks. So, who to blame?
Monday, March 18, 2013
Class Warfare?
I keep hearing all this "class warfare" stuff, that the President and Democrats are pitting the very rich against the not-so-rich for political purposes. (It certainly can't be ideological, looking at the lavish lifestyles of the President and many Democrats, can it? It's the other "very rich" guys....) I've thought this was a dubious charge, but am not so sure now.
I find quite a few people who have very, very comfortable lives--they have the nicest homes, the biggest televisions, several cars, vacations several times a year, etc.--complaining about "the rich don't pay their fair share." That strikes me as odd that people who have these very, very comfortable lives (Hey, they have more than I do and I can't see my way to complain about my financial status.)can complain about someone who has more. Is it envy? If so, isn't that "greed?" Have they bought into the "class warfare" garbage? Inevitably, their arguments against the wealthy are, "But they have more than I do." Yeah, so what?
If so, I recall the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Empire, but the Republic. This was the time of Julius Caesar, who was involved in the middle of three civil wars fought in a little over a century just before Christ. The Roman Republic was a remarkable place, with Romans and even noncitizens enjoying a greater degree of freedom and government participation than any other people before and quite a few later, at least until the 19th Century. Rome was not a direct democracy and had flaws. Sure, the wealthy (aristocrats) wielded more influence than the plebeians (lower classes). But do you think I have the same pull that, say, George Soros has?????? But compared to other peoples of that time and later, the Romans of the Republic had it pretty good, financially and politically. What brought all this good stuff down, leading to the Empire? It was, as much as anything, class warfare. The not-so-wealthy, although they had pretty darn good lives, were convinced they were getting short-changed by the wealthy. The parallels with today are pretty remarkable. Demagogues then and now were and are convincing people of that. I'm not sure if the Roman trouble-makers convinced the masses that they "deserved" more, but the rabble-rousers of today seem to be making a great deal of headway in that direction. "Deserve." Now there's a word worthy of discussion, especially within the context of "earn." But, there are things to do and books to read (The Boxcar Children with the Codester).
I find quite a few people who have very, very comfortable lives--they have the nicest homes, the biggest televisions, several cars, vacations several times a year, etc.--complaining about "the rich don't pay their fair share." That strikes me as odd that people who have these very, very comfortable lives (Hey, they have more than I do and I can't see my way to complain about my financial status.)can complain about someone who has more. Is it envy? If so, isn't that "greed?" Have they bought into the "class warfare" garbage? Inevitably, their arguments against the wealthy are, "But they have more than I do." Yeah, so what?
If so, I recall the fall of the Roman Republic, not the Empire, but the Republic. This was the time of Julius Caesar, who was involved in the middle of three civil wars fought in a little over a century just before Christ. The Roman Republic was a remarkable place, with Romans and even noncitizens enjoying a greater degree of freedom and government participation than any other people before and quite a few later, at least until the 19th Century. Rome was not a direct democracy and had flaws. Sure, the wealthy (aristocrats) wielded more influence than the plebeians (lower classes). But do you think I have the same pull that, say, George Soros has?????? But compared to other peoples of that time and later, the Romans of the Republic had it pretty good, financially and politically. What brought all this good stuff down, leading to the Empire? It was, as much as anything, class warfare. The not-so-wealthy, although they had pretty darn good lives, were convinced they were getting short-changed by the wealthy. The parallels with today are pretty remarkable. Demagogues then and now were and are convincing people of that. I'm not sure if the Roman trouble-makers convinced the masses that they "deserved" more, but the rabble-rousers of today seem to be making a great deal of headway in that direction. "Deserve." Now there's a word worthy of discussion, especially within the context of "earn." But, there are things to do and books to read (The Boxcar Children with the Codester).
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Income Taxes
It's frightening that we are letting the same people who design our income tax return forms control so much of the rest of our lives.
Take this and add that, then subtract that so you back to what you originally had. It doesn't matter which forms, the federal or the state or the local. Why does Flint need to know anything about the income I make outside of the city? For that matter, why does it need to know what my wife has earned? Add in the amount, then subtract other amounts. Why not just include me, the one who made the money in Flint, and the amount I made there?
I note, too, that the state has eliminated contributions to local governments, schools, etc. as charitable credits. I wonder if the locals are feeling the pinch.
Seriously, why do the tax booklets have to be so very long? I remember a number of years the WSJ had reporters with the exact same tax questions call the IRS Hotlines in different areas. The reporters received different answers almost all of the time. That gibes/jibes with an experience I had. I called the IRS Hotline and, after a lengthy wait on hold, asked my question. The IRS agent (?) replied, "I can't tell you that." "What? That's why I called you." Apparently I had to make the determination myself, but if my determination wasn't right, I could be called on it/audited. "But that's why I'm calling you now!" I still received no answer and, in fact, received not even a hint or push in the right direction.
I am getting a $6 return from one of the levels. I have tried, more than once, to just have the money kept. In a note, I wrote, "Just keep the $6. I don't need it and you will also save on the postage and paper work." Nope, both times I still received a refund check. So, they'll legally steal our money, but won't take it if we voluntarily offer it?
I'll wrap up all of the taxes tomorrow, if the Codester co-operates.
Take this and add that, then subtract that so you back to what you originally had. It doesn't matter which forms, the federal or the state or the local. Why does Flint need to know anything about the income I make outside of the city? For that matter, why does it need to know what my wife has earned? Add in the amount, then subtract other amounts. Why not just include me, the one who made the money in Flint, and the amount I made there?
I note, too, that the state has eliminated contributions to local governments, schools, etc. as charitable credits. I wonder if the locals are feeling the pinch.
Seriously, why do the tax booklets have to be so very long? I remember a number of years the WSJ had reporters with the exact same tax questions call the IRS Hotlines in different areas. The reporters received different answers almost all of the time. That gibes/jibes with an experience I had. I called the IRS Hotline and, after a lengthy wait on hold, asked my question. The IRS agent (?) replied, "I can't tell you that." "What? That's why I called you." Apparently I had to make the determination myself, but if my determination wasn't right, I could be called on it/audited. "But that's why I'm calling you now!" I still received no answer and, in fact, received not even a hint or push in the right direction.
I am getting a $6 return from one of the levels. I have tried, more than once, to just have the money kept. In a note, I wrote, "Just keep the $6. I don't need it and you will also save on the postage and paper work." Nope, both times I still received a refund check. So, they'll legally steal our money, but won't take it if we voluntarily offer it?
I'll wrap up all of the taxes tomorrow, if the Codester co-operates.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
St. Patrick's Day
Forty years ago tomorrow, we had about a 19" snow storm, St. Patrick's Day 1973. I remember vividly because I had to park on a main street, several blocks from Karen's house, to walk back to pick her up for our date. Then, we had to walk back out to the car. She remembered doing the same when stopping by the house of friends, to pick up them, too. I always look at the official rankings of the biggest snowfalls in Detroit and this one doesn't even crack the top ten, the last of which is only about a foot. How does that happen? It must snow different amounts, a lot different amounts, depending on where one is. Another is the blizzard of '78, which purportedly dropped less than 10 inches of the white stuff. Nope, even with the wind of that storm, the drifts were far higher than a mere "10 inches" can account for. And, listed as the second largest snowfall was two weeks before our wedding--and I don't remember it at all being almost 20".
How fitting that the recently appointed Emergency Manager of Detroit has had four liens put on his house in MD for failure to pay taxes!!!! And, of course, the guy was unaware of this situation. He blamed his accountant. Yeah, right. Maybe those people who say there are two sets of laws in this country are correct.
I've had a number of people remark on my op-ed piece in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. It was the one where I take issue with Walter Williams' characterization of Abraham Lincoln, that Lincoln really didn't oppose slavery. The surprising thing is that most of the comments include something like, "I don't like that man," meaning Dr. Williams. The irony is that I almost always agree with WW's views, probably 90% or more. None of the circumstances of my recent conversations were conducive to asking about the dislike of Dr. Williams. I'd be curious to know. He seems to make a lot of sense to me.
For whatever reason, I wondered why the GM and Chrysler workers received bonuses again at the end of 2012. After all, both companies still owe American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Now, if I was an employee of either company, I'd take the money, too. But, still, how much of the supposed turn-around was due to employees' work, a new-found work ethic? My guess it wasn't much. And, I see, the CEOs are still making their millions. Instead of all these bonuses, etc., shouldn't the fact that there are still jobs be thanks enough? Funny, I never received a "bonus" in more than four decades at my job(s). In fact, in the '90s, it was apparently OK that private sector employees were raking in annual pay raises of 6 and 8 and even 10 percent, but in four of those years I had no increase. (A fifth year saw a 2% raise, but I had to work an extra 2 1/2% to get it. So, is that really a "raise?" Not really....) Yet, people are still complaining about my pension. Do you think any of those auto workers put any of their bonuses aside for their pensions????? Me neither.
I can't believe these little league baseball groups plan "tryouts" for the middle of March. Hey, there are 3" of snow on the ground and the white stuff doesn't appear to be going anywhere! OK, they'll move it inside to a junior high gym, with hundreds of kids in an hour and a half. Who does any thinking around here? And, then, the next week, still March, practices will start. The weather will be cold (30 and maybe 40 degrees, wet and/or damp, and windy). That's not real good baseball weather, esp for kids. Why not start the league a month later and then extend the season a month later? Begin in April and end the first of July? I asked that once and was told that parents go on vacations in June, once school let out. Hey, wait a minute! Parents go on vacation over Easter break; we've had practices with as few as 4 or 5 players. But, who listens?
We once played a doubleheader vs Holy Cross in a freak April or May snowstorm. The snow didn't stick to the ground, but it came down through most of the games. And, one of the HC pitchers threw hard, very hard! In fact, he later pitched in the Majors, with the Twins I think, until he shattered his leg in an auto accident. Although we (a Div 3 school) split with Holy Cross (a Div 1 school) is irrelvant. (We beat the future Major Leaguer and lost to a junk throwing pitcher in the nightcap.) Neither game was fun. Hands hurt, both hitting and fielding. There was danger of injuries to arms. But, play we did. And although I reminisce about the games, I still remember it was not any fun. There were some fun games, though, esp my senior year. Wow! I can't imagine anyone having more fun than I/we did that year!
How fitting that the recently appointed Emergency Manager of Detroit has had four liens put on his house in MD for failure to pay taxes!!!! And, of course, the guy was unaware of this situation. He blamed his accountant. Yeah, right. Maybe those people who say there are two sets of laws in this country are correct.
I've had a number of people remark on my op-ed piece in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. It was the one where I take issue with Walter Williams' characterization of Abraham Lincoln, that Lincoln really didn't oppose slavery. The surprising thing is that most of the comments include something like, "I don't like that man," meaning Dr. Williams. The irony is that I almost always agree with WW's views, probably 90% or more. None of the circumstances of my recent conversations were conducive to asking about the dislike of Dr. Williams. I'd be curious to know. He seems to make a lot of sense to me.
For whatever reason, I wondered why the GM and Chrysler workers received bonuses again at the end of 2012. After all, both companies still owe American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Now, if I was an employee of either company, I'd take the money, too. But, still, how much of the supposed turn-around was due to employees' work, a new-found work ethic? My guess it wasn't much. And, I see, the CEOs are still making their millions. Instead of all these bonuses, etc., shouldn't the fact that there are still jobs be thanks enough? Funny, I never received a "bonus" in more than four decades at my job(s). In fact, in the '90s, it was apparently OK that private sector employees were raking in annual pay raises of 6 and 8 and even 10 percent, but in four of those years I had no increase. (A fifth year saw a 2% raise, but I had to work an extra 2 1/2% to get it. So, is that really a "raise?" Not really....) Yet, people are still complaining about my pension. Do you think any of those auto workers put any of their bonuses aside for their pensions????? Me neither.
I can't believe these little league baseball groups plan "tryouts" for the middle of March. Hey, there are 3" of snow on the ground and the white stuff doesn't appear to be going anywhere! OK, they'll move it inside to a junior high gym, with hundreds of kids in an hour and a half. Who does any thinking around here? And, then, the next week, still March, practices will start. The weather will be cold (30 and maybe 40 degrees, wet and/or damp, and windy). That's not real good baseball weather, esp for kids. Why not start the league a month later and then extend the season a month later? Begin in April and end the first of July? I asked that once and was told that parents go on vacations in June, once school let out. Hey, wait a minute! Parents go on vacation over Easter break; we've had practices with as few as 4 or 5 players. But, who listens?
We once played a doubleheader vs Holy Cross in a freak April or May snowstorm. The snow didn't stick to the ground, but it came down through most of the games. And, one of the HC pitchers threw hard, very hard! In fact, he later pitched in the Majors, with the Twins I think, until he shattered his leg in an auto accident. Although we (a Div 3 school) split with Holy Cross (a Div 1 school) is irrelvant. (We beat the future Major Leaguer and lost to a junk throwing pitcher in the nightcap.) Neither game was fun. Hands hurt, both hitting and fielding. There was danger of injuries to arms. But, play we did. And although I reminisce about the games, I still remember it was not any fun. There were some fun games, though, esp my senior year. Wow! I can't imagine anyone having more fun than I/we did that year!
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Sallust
For whatever reason, I thought of the Roman Sallust this afternoon. He was a governor and essayist, if not a historian. His words ring true today, if only to cast light on the concept of "greed."
"Greed" is being used to tear us apart, to divide us into something other than "E Pluribus Unum." Yet, as I've noted before, "greed" is in the eye of the beholder. Historically, the entrepreneurs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, have been treated badly. Even the US national standards (of the early '90s; since, the standards may or may not have changed) referred to them as "robber barons" and included a suggested lesson plan that put them on trial for, I guess, being too rich. Of course, such a suggestion is loaded, more than implying there was something wrong with these guys (and others like them). That is, they were "greedy."
Most certainly, they were rich, filthy rich if I can use a term that might also be perceived as derogatory. I believe they, in purchasing power, might be the two wealthiest men in the history of the world. Yet, do these folks who labeled them "robber barons" ever consider the number of jobs these entrepreneurs created? OK, maybe some of the jobs weren't real nice--but are the alternatives, lack of growth, unemployment, etc. better? Although most Americans were earning less per hour in 1900 than they were a couple of decades before, they had a higher standard of living. In large part that was due to the innovations, the increased productivity demanded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others like them. Yes, they were rich and I have a hard time figuring out how much is enough. (Rockefeller purportedly once said, "Just a little more, just a little more.") And consider the charitable foundations and legacies they left behind.
Let me ask, once again, who wouldn't trade places with them? Well, who wouldn't want their money (wealth)? (I won't consider who would want their wealth without working like they did.) C'mon, who among the Occupy Wall Street protesters wouldn't take the money of those they protested? All of them would? Our own Democratic Senators, throughout the US, talk about making the rich pay "their fair share," yet they travel all over the world, have vacation homes in the nicest places, etc.
And, our anger toward the "wealthy" seems to be very selective. Where are the protesters outside the professional stadiums and arenas? Isn't some guy who makes millions of dollars by playing a game also "greedy?" What about those Hollywood-types and the Hippy-Rock Stars? Where are the boycotts of their movies, television shows, concerts, CDs/albums? Right...they don't exist. That CEOs might actually create jobs for others, while some of the other "rich guys" don't is never (or seldom) considered. (Of course, some CEOs and managers deserve our scorn, but that's for another time.)
Anyway, back to Sallust. He knew of what he wrote/talked. He was a scoundrel himself, using his political position to loot and plunder and then his acquired wealth to bribe his way out of a conviction. I have forgotten the exact words of Sallust, but they went something like this: "[Greed] is boundless and can never be satisfied. He who has not wants. He who has wants more." Certainly, those words are food for thought.
"Greed" is being used to tear us apart, to divide us into something other than "E Pluribus Unum." Yet, as I've noted before, "greed" is in the eye of the beholder. Historically, the entrepreneurs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, have been treated badly. Even the US national standards (of the early '90s; since, the standards may or may not have changed) referred to them as "robber barons" and included a suggested lesson plan that put them on trial for, I guess, being too rich. Of course, such a suggestion is loaded, more than implying there was something wrong with these guys (and others like them). That is, they were "greedy."
Most certainly, they were rich, filthy rich if I can use a term that might also be perceived as derogatory. I believe they, in purchasing power, might be the two wealthiest men in the history of the world. Yet, do these folks who labeled them "robber barons" ever consider the number of jobs these entrepreneurs created? OK, maybe some of the jobs weren't real nice--but are the alternatives, lack of growth, unemployment, etc. better? Although most Americans were earning less per hour in 1900 than they were a couple of decades before, they had a higher standard of living. In large part that was due to the innovations, the increased productivity demanded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others like them. Yes, they were rich and I have a hard time figuring out how much is enough. (Rockefeller purportedly once said, "Just a little more, just a little more.") And consider the charitable foundations and legacies they left behind.
Let me ask, once again, who wouldn't trade places with them? Well, who wouldn't want their money (wealth)? (I won't consider who would want their wealth without working like they did.) C'mon, who among the Occupy Wall Street protesters wouldn't take the money of those they protested? All of them would? Our own Democratic Senators, throughout the US, talk about making the rich pay "their fair share," yet they travel all over the world, have vacation homes in the nicest places, etc.
And, our anger toward the "wealthy" seems to be very selective. Where are the protesters outside the professional stadiums and arenas? Isn't some guy who makes millions of dollars by playing a game also "greedy?" What about those Hollywood-types and the Hippy-Rock Stars? Where are the boycotts of their movies, television shows, concerts, CDs/albums? Right...they don't exist. That CEOs might actually create jobs for others, while some of the other "rich guys" don't is never (or seldom) considered. (Of course, some CEOs and managers deserve our scorn, but that's for another time.)
Anyway, back to Sallust. He knew of what he wrote/talked. He was a scoundrel himself, using his political position to loot and plunder and then his acquired wealth to bribe his way out of a conviction. I have forgotten the exact words of Sallust, but they went something like this: "[Greed] is boundless and can never be satisfied. He who has not wants. He who has wants more." Certainly, those words are food for thought.
Wed AM Thoughts
How can a long tube of metal, carrying 250 or more people, get 2000+ miles in fewer than four hours? That can't be done, can it? I still marvel at it. Imagine how some of the most forward-thinking people of past ages--such as DaVinci and Franklin--would react if we could bring them "back to the future" in some sort of time machine. I wonder if they'd just nod and figure, "We thought so...." Hey, I remain fascinated that I can send e-mails to friends and son, instantaneously, in California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and even Australia. (But, I don't know why the same fascination doesn't hold for telephones. Hmmm......)
I read an amazing, yet sobering thing yesterday. A recent poll of college students (I don't know which college or colleges) indicated they thought JFK and Clinton were better Presidents than George Washington. Other recent polls showed students can't tell what war is associated with US Grant, think Martin Luther King was instrumental in bringing an end to slavery, and more/worse (if it can be any worse). Likely that is a result of things like this: NJ state guidelines for teaching US History make no mention of George Washington. Perhaps they've been revised since, but the US Dept of Education national standards back in the early '90s didn't include anything about the Constitutional Convention, but did have the National Organization of Women in their guidelines and/or benchmarks (oh, that term "benchmarks" is grating). Who writes these standards? My guess is some hateful zealots, with very skewed views of history, who have committees composed of teachers who sign up to get out of teaching classes for a few days/weeks. (OK, let's give some of them some credit; maybe they, too, have skewed views....)
I read an amazing, yet sobering thing yesterday. A recent poll of college students (I don't know which college or colleges) indicated they thought JFK and Clinton were better Presidents than George Washington. Other recent polls showed students can't tell what war is associated with US Grant, think Martin Luther King was instrumental in bringing an end to slavery, and more/worse (if it can be any worse). Likely that is a result of things like this: NJ state guidelines for teaching US History make no mention of George Washington. Perhaps they've been revised since, but the US Dept of Education national standards back in the early '90s didn't include anything about the Constitutional Convention, but did have the National Organization of Women in their guidelines and/or benchmarks (oh, that term "benchmarks" is grating). Who writes these standards? My guess is some hateful zealots, with very skewed views of history, who have committees composed of teachers who sign up to get out of teaching classes for a few days/weeks. (OK, let's give some of them some credit; maybe they, too, have skewed views....)
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Tue AM
There's not much better than getting up to a happy grandson, going for a quality run, and then getting ready to write. OK, I must toss in laundairy [sic] somewhere in the picture, but I can stand that.
That the jury in the Kwame Kilpatrick case took so long led to a bit of a surprise that it found him and his cohorts guilty. From all that I read and heard, they certainly were all of that and more. Now, the sentencing. I wonder why the judge remanded Kilpatrick and Ferguson, without bond, until their sentencing. Hmmm. Maybe it's because of their defiance of previous court rulings. And how was Kilpatrick's dad convicted on only one charge? That one has me. Well, I forgot where I heard it, but it was from someone who claimed to do business in Detroit. He said, "It's pay to play down there." I hope the message isn't "just don't get caught."
Yep. the accolades for Carl Levin were in the newspaper, even the Detroit New, yesterday. I reckon I just have a different set of values than many people. Perhaps I expect too much. But, as Karen always said when asked if I wanted to be an administrator, "No, he could never play the games." I took that as a compliment about integrity and honesty. I guess the same applies to politicians.
So, a NY judge slapped down the city's attempt to limit the sizes of sodas and other sugar-drinks. Good for the judge! I don't know the reasoning, but I hope it's because the government has no business and no authority to tell people what they can sell or buy. (It's not as if soda is "drugs.")
I'm really of two minds about Detroit and the Emergency Manager. I know the city was mismanaged for a long, long time. I know the corruption was rampant, as noted by the Kilpatrick case and, I've heard, more indictments against more people to come. I know the same people or types of people were elected and re-elected. I know that if the city wants to get bailed out, it can't come without strings attached. Yet, this really seems undemocratic, an elitist attempt to take over Detroit. I understand the anger in Detroit. Look at history, namely the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments. Tell me another group of people who needed all this constitutional change to ensure rights of citizenship in the US. (OK, there are women and Indians, but not nearly as much....) And, what's this crap about Wall Street and the banking industry? Didn't those who ran the companies there also "mismanage?" The feds bailed them out, private companies!, because they were, supposedly, "too big to fail." (What a crock!) Well, isn't Detroit pretty "big?" Where's the bailout there? Both Emergency Managers and bailouts leave bad, very bad, tastes in my mouth.
Out to run some errands for K, who just gave me some assignments. I'll write when I get home, since the Codester won't be home until later, after I pick up the kids from school.
That the jury in the Kwame Kilpatrick case took so long led to a bit of a surprise that it found him and his cohorts guilty. From all that I read and heard, they certainly were all of that and more. Now, the sentencing. I wonder why the judge remanded Kilpatrick and Ferguson, without bond, until their sentencing. Hmmm. Maybe it's because of their defiance of previous court rulings. And how was Kilpatrick's dad convicted on only one charge? That one has me. Well, I forgot where I heard it, but it was from someone who claimed to do business in Detroit. He said, "It's pay to play down there." I hope the message isn't "just don't get caught."
Yep. the accolades for Carl Levin were in the newspaper, even the Detroit New, yesterday. I reckon I just have a different set of values than many people. Perhaps I expect too much. But, as Karen always said when asked if I wanted to be an administrator, "No, he could never play the games." I took that as a compliment about integrity and honesty. I guess the same applies to politicians.
So, a NY judge slapped down the city's attempt to limit the sizes of sodas and other sugar-drinks. Good for the judge! I don't know the reasoning, but I hope it's because the government has no business and no authority to tell people what they can sell or buy. (It's not as if soda is "drugs.")
I'm really of two minds about Detroit and the Emergency Manager. I know the city was mismanaged for a long, long time. I know the corruption was rampant, as noted by the Kilpatrick case and, I've heard, more indictments against more people to come. I know the same people or types of people were elected and re-elected. I know that if the city wants to get bailed out, it can't come without strings attached. Yet, this really seems undemocratic, an elitist attempt to take over Detroit. I understand the anger in Detroit. Look at history, namely the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments. Tell me another group of people who needed all this constitutional change to ensure rights of citizenship in the US. (OK, there are women and Indians, but not nearly as much....) And, what's this crap about Wall Street and the banking industry? Didn't those who ran the companies there also "mismanage?" The feds bailed them out, private companies!, because they were, supposedly, "too big to fail." (What a crock!) Well, isn't Detroit pretty "big?" Where's the bailout there? Both Emergency Managers and bailouts leave bad, very bad, tastes in my mouth.
Out to run some errands for K, who just gave me some assignments. I'll write when I get home, since the Codester won't be home until later, after I pick up the kids from school.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Las Vegas
Karen and I don't gamble--even in Las Vegas. Oh, I think one or two times, oh so briefly, she did play the slots. But the vast majority of the time, the only thing we do with the casinos is walk through them. I am always intrigued at how full they are at almost any time of the day or night.
OK, K and I likely would never go to LV again if Matt wasn't living there. We enjoy the place, a lot, and after 15 or more trips out there are getting to know it quite well--without getting lost. It's always great to see Matt and catch up on his doings.
That said, I'm glad we went out there, at least once, and think everyone should experience the phenomenon at least once--gamblers or not. Walks down the Strip, once during the day and once at night, are musts. Is "grandiosity" a word? If it is, that describes Las Vegas--the lights, the casinos and hotels, the entertainment, the people, the works. Even if one isn't a gambler, drinker, etc., I think a three- or four-day trip, at least once, should be in everyone's agenda.
I read that 3.13 million people visited LV in January of this year--one month! And that number was down by .7% from a year ago. Well, the 2012 figure was the highest January since '08, so being down a tad isn't a big worry. Hotel occupancy, the Strip I believe, was close to 80% (78.9%?) for the month! Wow! And profits along the Strip were down about .2% compared to '12. But, as the article I read noted, in '12, Chinese New Year fell in January. This year it was in February. And something like 85% of all baccarat monies are generated during the Chinese New Year (although that seems like an astonishingly high percentage). So, perhaps a Jan/Feb comparison for the two years would be a better measure. But, profits being down .2% doesn't mean a loss, not at all. I believe the figure was about $560 million profit for January.
OK, K and I likely would never go to LV again if Matt wasn't living there. We enjoy the place, a lot, and after 15 or more trips out there are getting to know it quite well--without getting lost. It's always great to see Matt and catch up on his doings.
That said, I'm glad we went out there, at least once, and think everyone should experience the phenomenon at least once--gamblers or not. Walks down the Strip, once during the day and once at night, are musts. Is "grandiosity" a word? If it is, that describes Las Vegas--the lights, the casinos and hotels, the entertainment, the people, the works. Even if one isn't a gambler, drinker, etc., I think a three- or four-day trip, at least once, should be in everyone's agenda.
I read that 3.13 million people visited LV in January of this year--one month! And that number was down by .7% from a year ago. Well, the 2012 figure was the highest January since '08, so being down a tad isn't a big worry. Hotel occupancy, the Strip I believe, was close to 80% (78.9%?) for the month! Wow! And profits along the Strip were down about .2% compared to '12. But, as the article I read noted, in '12, Chinese New Year fell in January. This year it was in February. And something like 85% of all baccarat monies are generated during the Chinese New Year (although that seems like an astonishingly high percentage). So, perhaps a Jan/Feb comparison for the two years would be a better measure. But, profits being down .2% doesn't mean a loss, not at all. I believe the figure was about $560 million profit for January.
US Senate
Returning home after several days away and I was greeted with some good news. The newspaper headlines from one day last week blared, "Levin won't seek re-election...." Well, that's good news to me, at least for now. The 2014 election might provide a different scenario.
My views of Senator Levin are not favorable. His office rarely answers e-mails (and before those, letters). One of the few responses I did receive came more than six months after my initial letter, back in the '90s. And, the reply didn't have anything to do with my concern. I might still have that letter around someplace; I'm not sure.
I wonder, since I haven't caught up on all of the newspapers, if the accolades will start to roll in. I'll bet so. I disagree, but, this is America.
I remember a number of things with which I disagreed with Senator Levin, but two matters are at the forefront. I remember his campaign of '84 (I think) against Jack Lousma. Levin characterized his opponent as "a carpetbagger" because he had recently moved back to Michigan after a number of years away, Houston I believe. Yeah, Lousma was "a carpetbagger" all right. He was in the military and then was an astronaut--Houston! I know a lot of folks refer to Levin as "the conscience of the Senate," as Harry Reid did last week. (Now, there's someone I would like to have endorse me!!!!!!) That honor, "conscience of the Senate," belongs to former Michigan US Senator Philip Hart. To compare Levin with him is degrading to Hart. "A carpetbagger" reminds me of that. And, a second episode was the Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco. I remember, amidst the scandal and degradating of the Presidency, Levin's silence was deafening. I can't imagine Phil Hart sitting so quietly by.
My views of Senator Levin are not favorable. His office rarely answers e-mails (and before those, letters). One of the few responses I did receive came more than six months after my initial letter, back in the '90s. And, the reply didn't have anything to do with my concern. I might still have that letter around someplace; I'm not sure.
I wonder, since I haven't caught up on all of the newspapers, if the accolades will start to roll in. I'll bet so. I disagree, but, this is America.
I remember a number of things with which I disagreed with Senator Levin, but two matters are at the forefront. I remember his campaign of '84 (I think) against Jack Lousma. Levin characterized his opponent as "a carpetbagger" because he had recently moved back to Michigan after a number of years away, Houston I believe. Yeah, Lousma was "a carpetbagger" all right. He was in the military and then was an astronaut--Houston! I know a lot of folks refer to Levin as "the conscience of the Senate," as Harry Reid did last week. (Now, there's someone I would like to have endorse me!!!!!!) That honor, "conscience of the Senate," belongs to former Michigan US Senator Philip Hart. To compare Levin with him is degrading to Hart. "A carpetbagger" reminds me of that. And, a second episode was the Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco. I remember, amidst the scandal and degradating of the Presidency, Levin's silence was deafening. I can't imagine Phil Hart sitting so quietly by.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Mortality?
There's nothing like a lunch date with the old coaches to remind me of my own mortality. Without going into details, I was so reminded this afternoon. But it was a good two hours. Oddly, meeting with them is quite different from meeting with my Amherst buddies and teammates. Today, as with most of the lunches, there is a clear demarcation between talking about "the old days" and today. With the Lord Jeffs, it's always as if we are still there, more than 40 years ago, but talking about current matters. Oh, the past comes up, but it melds in with the current. It's like we never became separated for all those years. Both situtations are good.
I'd like to know how, as one Michigan Republican legislator said, how a higher gas tax will replace the lower sales tax on gasoline, but "wouldn't impact the price at the pump?" Huh? Is this like "when is a cut not a cut?"
The world has really turned upside down. This AM's newspaper had an op-ed piece by a Republcan state legislator who thinks the increased federal spending on Medicaid in the state (by Michigan opting in to ObamaCare) is "a sound decision." Whatever happened to the Republican ideas of limited government, economic responsibility, etc.? Apparently this guy didn't read the op-ed of two or three days ago, in which two MDs outlined a far-sighted health plan that not only wouldn't spend all the ObamaCare money (that we don't have), but would actually save money and result in better health care. This Republican from today has fallen into the same old big government/Big Brother refrain: government will "lead to a healthier population." I say "bologna/baloney." Let's just leave it at this question: Why aren't people responsible/accountable for their own health??????
And the Chickens Little are out in full force today. Again in the newspaper "The consequences of inaction are severe" and "Michigan kids lose in sequester." Have I said, "bologna/baloney" lately? A quick check of what positions/offices these people hold tells us all we need to know. I guess if I could ask each one of these guys a few questions, they'd be, "How do you expect to get a handle on eliminating a $15 trillion debt when you can't stomach $85 billion, 2.4%?" and "How can you guys, along with your President, orchestrate this 'sequester' to do far more damage than is necessary--and I'm not convinced, with skilled leadership, it would do any at all--with a clear conscience?" Of course, I have forgotten one of my own tenets--there is no shame any more. People are not ashamed of the bad things that they do. I don't know if that's because there is no longer a sense of shame or if they really believe the stuff they spout and, if they, do can they be that stupid or naive? Or, I suppose, maybe to them it's all about winning, holding government power. I think I don't really know.
That said, it's really nice to hear wonderful things about one's kids (or grandkids!) at teacher conferences. I don't really care about the grades, not in and of themselves. I've been around the block a few times and know grades have become a means, not an end. My grades, be they in high school or in college, are not at all important to me--now. So, they were important in that they opened doors for me, doors that would have been locked tight otherwise. But more important are three things, all that teachers said. I want good behavior. I want effort. And I want learning, which is sometimes and sometimes not reflected in grades. Working with my grandkids, I can get a pretty good handle on what they are learning. So, I rely on the teachers for reports on behavior and effort. And like Uncle Matt told Bopper again last night, after hearing of the good reports, "Grandma and Grandpa have to take you out to dinner again--at a restaurant of your choice." That Uncle Matt! Fortunately, Bopp's favorite restaurant won't be McDonald's or Wendy's, but one of my two or three favorites, too! Let's eat!
I'd like to know how, as one Michigan Republican legislator said, how a higher gas tax will replace the lower sales tax on gasoline, but "wouldn't impact the price at the pump?" Huh? Is this like "when is a cut not a cut?"
The world has really turned upside down. This AM's newspaper had an op-ed piece by a Republcan state legislator who thinks the increased federal spending on Medicaid in the state (by Michigan opting in to ObamaCare) is "a sound decision." Whatever happened to the Republican ideas of limited government, economic responsibility, etc.? Apparently this guy didn't read the op-ed of two or three days ago, in which two MDs outlined a far-sighted health plan that not only wouldn't spend all the ObamaCare money (that we don't have), but would actually save money and result in better health care. This Republican from today has fallen into the same old big government/Big Brother refrain: government will "lead to a healthier population." I say "bologna/baloney." Let's just leave it at this question: Why aren't people responsible/accountable for their own health??????
And the Chickens Little are out in full force today. Again in the newspaper "The consequences of inaction are severe" and "Michigan kids lose in sequester." Have I said, "bologna/baloney" lately? A quick check of what positions/offices these people hold tells us all we need to know. I guess if I could ask each one of these guys a few questions, they'd be, "How do you expect to get a handle on eliminating a $15 trillion debt when you can't stomach $85 billion, 2.4%?" and "How can you guys, along with your President, orchestrate this 'sequester' to do far more damage than is necessary--and I'm not convinced, with skilled leadership, it would do any at all--with a clear conscience?" Of course, I have forgotten one of my own tenets--there is no shame any more. People are not ashamed of the bad things that they do. I don't know if that's because there is no longer a sense of shame or if they really believe the stuff they spout and, if they, do can they be that stupid or naive? Or, I suppose, maybe to them it's all about winning, holding government power. I think I don't really know.
That said, it's really nice to hear wonderful things about one's kids (or grandkids!) at teacher conferences. I don't really care about the grades, not in and of themselves. I've been around the block a few times and know grades have become a means, not an end. My grades, be they in high school or in college, are not at all important to me--now. So, they were important in that they opened doors for me, doors that would have been locked tight otherwise. But more important are three things, all that teachers said. I want good behavior. I want effort. And I want learning, which is sometimes and sometimes not reflected in grades. Working with my grandkids, I can get a pretty good handle on what they are learning. So, I rely on the teachers for reports on behavior and effort. And like Uncle Matt told Bopper again last night, after hearing of the good reports, "Grandma and Grandpa have to take you out to dinner again--at a restaurant of your choice." That Uncle Matt! Fortunately, Bopp's favorite restaurant won't be McDonald's or Wendy's, but one of my two or three favorites, too! Let's eat!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
