A lot has been made of Michigan lottery winners who have remained on welfare rolls. Winning $1000 isn't going to make anyone rich. My problem with welfare recipients and the lottery isn't winnings, no matter how little or how much. I guess I wonder why someone is on welfare if he or she can afford to purchase lottery tickets. One letter-to-the-editor made the claim that this welfare recipient (the letter writer) had every bit as much right to the American Dream, that is, to reach it by winning the lottery as the next person. Well, not exactly. If that person is buying lottery tickets with other people's money, then that's a problem. Welfare is for food, clothing, and other necessities. I think even tobacco and alcohol should be on the list of no-buys.
I don't know how it started (I must have missed the article in the newspaper), but apparently there is another discussion of drug tests for welfare recipients. OK, that's fine with me. Again, someone on welfare shouldn't be buying drugs. That said, what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander (Dictionary.com's word for today). If companies get government bailouts, subsidies, etc., then the CEOs and other top-level management should also take drug tests. If the CEO refuses, then the board of director has a choice--replace him/her with someone who will take a test or not take the federal handout.
For that matter, those responsible for passing welfare laws including drug testing as a prerequisite, that is, our elected officials, should also be willing to take drug tests. After all, they are taking our money, too. And, with some of the dumb programs and policies they enact, maybe we should see what drug of choice some of them are using!!!!!!
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
"To Praise or Disparage?"
I came across a historian the other day who emphasized that his job was "not to praise or disparage" an event or historical figure, but merely to explain. I'm not sure I agree.
I know this gets into the slippery slope area of "value judgments," but we make "value judgments" every day. Many of them affect only us, personally, but some can have impacts on other people, too.
Historians engage in "value judgment" all of the time. When they teach their courses, they spend more time on say The Jacksonian Period of Democracy than on the John Marshall Court. Why do they spend more time on one aspect than another? Isn't that a value judgment, deeming one to be more worthy of study than the other? And, in fact, don't historians make value judgments in the courses that are taught. Why, for instance, is there a World History/Studies course that gives equal time to Asia, Africa, and Latin America rather than a Western Civilizations course that focuses on the roots of American society? I'm not arguing for one or the other, but to suggest that it's as important to study BC China or 12th Africa as the Enlightenment is a value judgment. Why are there courses on The US Civil War, but not courses on The Gilded Age? Again, I'm not saying that's appropriate or inappropriate (although I have my views). I am saying it's a value judgment. In many ways this is like the media--they influence the news not so much in how they cover it, but in what they choose to cover.
I think historians should "praise or disparage" those who deserve to be praised or disparaged. Now, we can get carried away and bestow sainthood on some (OK, I admit to that!). Everyone has warts, at least a few tiny ones. Well, Mother Teresa might be an exception. It's important to value good things; it sends a message. It's equally important to criticize that which needs to be "disparaged."
I hope this historian wasn't suggesting historians should be neutral, without passion, or even objective. My guess is that's not at all possible. But more to the point is attempting to be fair. (Oops! There's that slippery slope again.) Being fair doesn't mean not taking sides, but merely giving each side, no matter how many there are, a hearing.
When I heard this fellow say "not to praise or disparage" I immediately thought of the trendy diversity courses now being taught in many schools. The aim is to teach that all people and all cultures are deserving of acceptance and respect. That strikes me as not only silly, but also dangerous. Of course there are some matters and people over which historians and students may well disagree. FDR is an example. Most historians (and hence most students and people) hold him in high regard. I do not, but I also explain that I do not, but that most do.
Some people deserve to be praised and some to be disparaged. There is a reason we name cities, schools, parks, streets, etc. after some people, but not after others. How can a teacher not disparage Hitler or Stalin, the KKK or mass murders of the 20th Century communists? In the same vein, how can a teacher not praise ML King and Rosa Parks for the commitment and courage, Lincoln or Washington? It doesn't mean we present them as perfect or canonize them; we aren't hagiographers after all.
Yes, we present students with information and ask them to make up their own minds. They can think and believe what they want. But I think it's good to give, perhaps, a little nudge in the right direction. And, yes despite the trendy diversity courses, there is a "right" direction.
I know this gets into the slippery slope area of "value judgments," but we make "value judgments" every day. Many of them affect only us, personally, but some can have impacts on other people, too.
Historians engage in "value judgment" all of the time. When they teach their courses, they spend more time on say The Jacksonian Period of Democracy than on the John Marshall Court. Why do they spend more time on one aspect than another? Isn't that a value judgment, deeming one to be more worthy of study than the other? And, in fact, don't historians make value judgments in the courses that are taught. Why, for instance, is there a World History/Studies course that gives equal time to Asia, Africa, and Latin America rather than a Western Civilizations course that focuses on the roots of American society? I'm not arguing for one or the other, but to suggest that it's as important to study BC China or 12th Africa as the Enlightenment is a value judgment. Why are there courses on The US Civil War, but not courses on The Gilded Age? Again, I'm not saying that's appropriate or inappropriate (although I have my views). I am saying it's a value judgment. In many ways this is like the media--they influence the news not so much in how they cover it, but in what they choose to cover.
I think historians should "praise or disparage" those who deserve to be praised or disparaged. Now, we can get carried away and bestow sainthood on some (OK, I admit to that!). Everyone has warts, at least a few tiny ones. Well, Mother Teresa might be an exception. It's important to value good things; it sends a message. It's equally important to criticize that which needs to be "disparaged."
I hope this historian wasn't suggesting historians should be neutral, without passion, or even objective. My guess is that's not at all possible. But more to the point is attempting to be fair. (Oops! There's that slippery slope again.) Being fair doesn't mean not taking sides, but merely giving each side, no matter how many there are, a hearing.
When I heard this fellow say "not to praise or disparage" I immediately thought of the trendy diversity courses now being taught in many schools. The aim is to teach that all people and all cultures are deserving of acceptance and respect. That strikes me as not only silly, but also dangerous. Of course there are some matters and people over which historians and students may well disagree. FDR is an example. Most historians (and hence most students and people) hold him in high regard. I do not, but I also explain that I do not, but that most do.
Some people deserve to be praised and some to be disparaged. There is a reason we name cities, schools, parks, streets, etc. after some people, but not after others. How can a teacher not disparage Hitler or Stalin, the KKK or mass murders of the 20th Century communists? In the same vein, how can a teacher not praise ML King and Rosa Parks for the commitment and courage, Lincoln or Washington? It doesn't mean we present them as perfect or canonize them; we aren't hagiographers after all.
Yes, we present students with information and ask them to make up their own minds. They can think and believe what they want. But I think it's good to give, perhaps, a little nudge in the right direction. And, yes despite the trendy diversity courses, there is a "right" direction.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
The Temptations
Back 40 years ago, the Temptations gave us the solution to all of our ills. They sang, "More taxes will solve everything...." Of course, they were being facetious, critical of the "tax, tax, tax" mentality. But, apparently, not everyone recognizes that.
Donna Brazile, a Democratic Party "strategist" or, more accurately, "a senior Democratic strategist," wrote a column today about the need to wake up and recognize that only raising taxes, well, "will solve everything." She cites the growing trend among Republicans, esp Republican governors, to raise taxes to try to balance state budgets. (Just as an aside, Gee, I wonder what she brings home in pay for being "a senior Democratic strategist.") Any gains made in any states is due, not to cuts in state taxes, but to the efforts of the Obama administration in raising taxes to restore the economy. That this is the slowest economic recovery from a recession in 70 years--thanks to raising taxes--escapes her thinking. And, of course, I risk being called a "bigot" in even questioning her views.
But here's one I question. She claims, "Michigan automotive industry survived (thanks to Obama)." Hmmm...... I guess one must say the auto industry seems to be on the right path again. It certainly is looking much, much better than it did five years ago. But, again at the risk of being labeled a "bigot," here are some questions I'd like to see addressed before I'm willing to concede "thanks to Obama." Who, initially, began giving money to the auto companies, namely GM and Chrysler? People claimed that GM and Chrysler were "too big to fail." Yet, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of just that, failing. Why weren't they allowed to fail? There are many here in Detroit who think they should have been, that they were producing a lousy product inefficiently. There can be no definitive answer, but who says that GM and Chrysler couldn't have survived without federal bailouts? I know their situations were different (producing a lousy product inefficiently), but Fords seemed to come out of all of this smelly quite good! Iacocca's Chrysler made a miraculous comeback a few decades ago, not with bailouts, but federal guarantees. At what cost was the "survival?" US taxpayers will be out tens of billions of dollars in the end, likely never to be repaid. What cost was there to bond- and stockholders, retirees both blue- and white-collar, suppliers and distributors, not to mention dealerships and the many they employed? What precedent was set for future "bailouts" in instances of "too big to fail?" Who determines "too big?" What message was sent to Americans, millions of them, who lost their homes and businesses? Hey, the GM and Chrysler execs and their unions ran their companies into the ground--the federal government will jump to help them. Oh, but many of you lost your homes and businesses--we're sorry about that. Couple that sincere expression of empathy with the fact that those companies that foreclosed on many of those homes and businesses were given big fat checks by the feds, too.
Of course, the main message of Brazile and the Democrats finally comes through in the final paragraphs of her column. "Money to repair roads and provide services must come from somwhere.... raise taxes on the wealthy." Yep, it's the same old refrain. Before I'll countenance any of this claptrap from Brazile, Obama, the Levins, Stabenow, or any of the Democrats I want to see them donate, yes donate, enough of their hefty incomes until they live on what I earn. After all, "raise taxes on the wealthy." I think I'm pretty comfortable and these folks make a bundle more than I do. That must make them "the wealthy." And, besides, why wouldn't they want to give their money to the federal government? After all, the federal government knows what's best and can fix anything if it's just given enough money...... Hypocrites!
Donna Brazile, a Democratic Party "strategist" or, more accurately, "a senior Democratic strategist," wrote a column today about the need to wake up and recognize that only raising taxes, well, "will solve everything." She cites the growing trend among Republicans, esp Republican governors, to raise taxes to try to balance state budgets. (Just as an aside, Gee, I wonder what she brings home in pay for being "a senior Democratic strategist.") Any gains made in any states is due, not to cuts in state taxes, but to the efforts of the Obama administration in raising taxes to restore the economy. That this is the slowest economic recovery from a recession in 70 years--thanks to raising taxes--escapes her thinking. And, of course, I risk being called a "bigot" in even questioning her views.
But here's one I question. She claims, "Michigan automotive industry survived (thanks to Obama)." Hmmm...... I guess one must say the auto industry seems to be on the right path again. It certainly is looking much, much better than it did five years ago. But, again at the risk of being labeled a "bigot," here are some questions I'd like to see addressed before I'm willing to concede "thanks to Obama." Who, initially, began giving money to the auto companies, namely GM and Chrysler? People claimed that GM and Chrysler were "too big to fail." Yet, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of just that, failing. Why weren't they allowed to fail? There are many here in Detroit who think they should have been, that they were producing a lousy product inefficiently. There can be no definitive answer, but who says that GM and Chrysler couldn't have survived without federal bailouts? I know their situations were different (producing a lousy product inefficiently), but Fords seemed to come out of all of this smelly quite good! Iacocca's Chrysler made a miraculous comeback a few decades ago, not with bailouts, but federal guarantees. At what cost was the "survival?" US taxpayers will be out tens of billions of dollars in the end, likely never to be repaid. What cost was there to bond- and stockholders, retirees both blue- and white-collar, suppliers and distributors, not to mention dealerships and the many they employed? What precedent was set for future "bailouts" in instances of "too big to fail?" Who determines "too big?" What message was sent to Americans, millions of them, who lost their homes and businesses? Hey, the GM and Chrysler execs and their unions ran their companies into the ground--the federal government will jump to help them. Oh, but many of you lost your homes and businesses--we're sorry about that. Couple that sincere expression of empathy with the fact that those companies that foreclosed on many of those homes and businesses were given big fat checks by the feds, too.
Of course, the main message of Brazile and the Democrats finally comes through in the final paragraphs of her column. "Money to repair roads and provide services must come from somwhere.... raise taxes on the wealthy." Yep, it's the same old refrain. Before I'll countenance any of this claptrap from Brazile, Obama, the Levins, Stabenow, or any of the Democrats I want to see them donate, yes donate, enough of their hefty incomes until they live on what I earn. After all, "raise taxes on the wealthy." I think I'm pretty comfortable and these folks make a bundle more than I do. That must make them "the wealthy." And, besides, why wouldn't they want to give their money to the federal government? After all, the federal government knows what's best and can fix anything if it's just given enough money...... Hypocrites!
Friday, April 19, 2013
Santa Claus?
The newspaper had a short blurb about Kerry Bentivolio, elected Congressman last year in the wake of the Thaddeus McCotter petition scandal. How I chuckled at the obligatory reference to Bentivolio as a "reindeer farmer." I'm surprised there wasn't also a reference to the fact that he "played Santa Claus."
I sent out a letter asking why there were constant references in the newspapers to Bentivolio as "reindeer farmer" and "Santa Claus." It's as if raising reindeer or playing Santa Claus for kids is a bad thing or at least something at which to laugh. I asked why the continual references concerning Bentivolio but never any references to other politicians in similar manners. After all, do the newspapers ever refer to Sen X as "panderer to interest groups, always with a hand out" or Congressman/woman "habitual liar?"
I didn't expect any response to my letter and I didn't get any. I guess the lesson is doing honest work, making kids happy, etc. is something to belittle. But to be disingenuous, duplicitous, and even perhaps dishonest is something to overlook or ignore. Perhaps we have fallen farther than I have realized.
I casually mentioned to a friend a few weeks ago, "When you were in college, did you ever not hand in an assignment?" His response was immediate and emphatic. "No." He added, "Even though I knew Dr. Gary was going to hammer me on it." In my experiences, me, too. I never, ever failed to hand in a paper. And, although people I tell don't really believe me, we often had 3 to 5 page papers due in most classes every Monday. Hey, I'm not sure I believe it! A 3 to 5 page paper in high school was a term paper! Now, every Monday, every class except calculus (on which I actually spent more of my study time). A week or so later, I asked another friend about finishing her college papers. She was a bit aghast. Of course she always turned in assignments. She wanted to know why I asked. We often exchange views on the current state of education. I told her some, not all, of my classes have significant numbers of student who don't turn in papers/essays, some one-third or more. She just shook her head in disbelief, not at my revelation, but that students would even think of not doing the work. But, of course, as the former governor of Michigan loudly exclaimed, "Everybody goes to college!" And, our current governor seems to have the same view, that everyone should go to college or at least be prepared to do so (which might be different, maybe).
Several e-mails from college mates have rekindled a peeve of mine. And the target is my alma mater. Years ago, my father asked me wife (if not in exactly these terms), "Can't you talk Ron into being a principal?" The implication, clear enough, was that my father didn't value teaching and that I could and should "do better." Karen, to her credit, defended my occupation. She knows that, Heavens!, I could never have looked at myself in the mirror had I succumbed to such a thing--become an administrator. I mentioned this to a college friend of mine, quite a few years later, and he was appalled. "How can anyone who graduated from Amherst have such a view of teaching?" Well, it wasn't my view, but led me to thinking. In fact, my thinking also led to a letter to the Amherst Alumni Mag. I asked, if Amherst was so committed to teaching and learning, why doesn't it single out educators for accolades. I certainly wasn't fishing for compliments and wasn't at all pushing myself as a teacher. I noted that the college gives out honorary degrees, almost exclusively to politicians (dread!), doctors, corporate leaders, etc. Occasionally there is an educator, only very occasionally and almost always someone in higher education, a college. Never was there a high school teacher, an elementary teacher--never. I don't know if my letter had any influence, but for a while (I'm not certain if this still occurs) some Amherst students were asked to nominate teachers who affected their lives. The teachers were then acknowledged, but not with honorary degrees. The college also has a campaigan called "Lives of Consequence." One of the class list serves has taken aim and umbrage at the inferences that involves. The college, in part, disavowed that at the suggestion that "consequence" meant financially successful. Of course, it was a campaign for financial contributions. One of the e-mails informed me that one of my classmates will get an honorary degree for his work in medical research. And Bob's work has been phenomenal and very important. He deserves his honorary degree. The other e-mail brought up the concept of "consequence," citing his AC-graduate daughter who read a recent college survey and took that view of "consequence" as a slight, to her--a school psychologist. That, as my good friend cited above has repeated, is one of the causes of the problems with American education. If even Amherst College can't bring itself to recognize as "consequence" good pre-college teaching, then where are we?
I sent out a letter asking why there were constant references in the newspapers to Bentivolio as "reindeer farmer" and "Santa Claus." It's as if raising reindeer or playing Santa Claus for kids is a bad thing or at least something at which to laugh. I asked why the continual references concerning Bentivolio but never any references to other politicians in similar manners. After all, do the newspapers ever refer to Sen X as "panderer to interest groups, always with a hand out" or Congressman/woman "habitual liar?"
I didn't expect any response to my letter and I didn't get any. I guess the lesson is doing honest work, making kids happy, etc. is something to belittle. But to be disingenuous, duplicitous, and even perhaps dishonest is something to overlook or ignore. Perhaps we have fallen farther than I have realized.
I casually mentioned to a friend a few weeks ago, "When you were in college, did you ever not hand in an assignment?" His response was immediate and emphatic. "No." He added, "Even though I knew Dr. Gary was going to hammer me on it." In my experiences, me, too. I never, ever failed to hand in a paper. And, although people I tell don't really believe me, we often had 3 to 5 page papers due in most classes every Monday. Hey, I'm not sure I believe it! A 3 to 5 page paper in high school was a term paper! Now, every Monday, every class except calculus (on which I actually spent more of my study time). A week or so later, I asked another friend about finishing her college papers. She was a bit aghast. Of course she always turned in assignments. She wanted to know why I asked. We often exchange views on the current state of education. I told her some, not all, of my classes have significant numbers of student who don't turn in papers/essays, some one-third or more. She just shook her head in disbelief, not at my revelation, but that students would even think of not doing the work. But, of course, as the former governor of Michigan loudly exclaimed, "Everybody goes to college!" And, our current governor seems to have the same view, that everyone should go to college or at least be prepared to do so (which might be different, maybe).
Several e-mails from college mates have rekindled a peeve of mine. And the target is my alma mater. Years ago, my father asked me wife (if not in exactly these terms), "Can't you talk Ron into being a principal?" The implication, clear enough, was that my father didn't value teaching and that I could and should "do better." Karen, to her credit, defended my occupation. She knows that, Heavens!, I could never have looked at myself in the mirror had I succumbed to such a thing--become an administrator. I mentioned this to a college friend of mine, quite a few years later, and he was appalled. "How can anyone who graduated from Amherst have such a view of teaching?" Well, it wasn't my view, but led me to thinking. In fact, my thinking also led to a letter to the Amherst Alumni Mag. I asked, if Amherst was so committed to teaching and learning, why doesn't it single out educators for accolades. I certainly wasn't fishing for compliments and wasn't at all pushing myself as a teacher. I noted that the college gives out honorary degrees, almost exclusively to politicians (dread!), doctors, corporate leaders, etc. Occasionally there is an educator, only very occasionally and almost always someone in higher education, a college. Never was there a high school teacher, an elementary teacher--never. I don't know if my letter had any influence, but for a while (I'm not certain if this still occurs) some Amherst students were asked to nominate teachers who affected their lives. The teachers were then acknowledged, but not with honorary degrees. The college also has a campaigan called "Lives of Consequence." One of the class list serves has taken aim and umbrage at the inferences that involves. The college, in part, disavowed that at the suggestion that "consequence" meant financially successful. Of course, it was a campaign for financial contributions. One of the e-mails informed me that one of my classmates will get an honorary degree for his work in medical research. And Bob's work has been phenomenal and very important. He deserves his honorary degree. The other e-mail brought up the concept of "consequence," citing his AC-graduate daughter who read a recent college survey and took that view of "consequence" as a slight, to her--a school psychologist. That, as my good friend cited above has repeated, is one of the causes of the problems with American education. If even Amherst College can't bring itself to recognize as "consequence" good pre-college teaching, then where are we?
History and Cell Phones
I finished up my previous post, having been called on an errand. And, now I have a couple of more thoughts.
First, within the past few weeks it has been suggested that teaching history is "lost on young people." I don't remember if those were anyone's exact words, but that was the sentiment. One suggested that it's a "waste" to teach history to students, even high school students, that history shouldn't be taught until college. I disagree, vehemently. I might agree that the teaching of history has often been very poor teaching. I don't think, though, that's a reason to not teach it. It's not history or teaching it that's the problem; it's poor teachers. I think I've written about how the discipline of history has been given short shrift, sort of second-class status. "Anyone can teach history" is a mantra that has been heard from administrators for decades. Principals assign a history class to anyone who needs an extra class to fill a schedule. The all-important state tests (yes, I'm being facetious) including science, math, reading, and writing, but not history. Why, then, should schools give history and its teaching the time of day? But, how many students never "get" math? Should we stop teaching it if, in effect, it is "lost" on them? Is it a "waste" if so many, self-admittedly even as adults, "don't get it?" Who would argue that we should not teach math? For that matter, science is often the same "Greek" to some folks. Stop teaching science? The solution is, among other things, to know how to teach history. That includes finding teachers who really know history. Far too many college graduates today, even history majors, really don't know history. We also have to do a better job with textbooks. For many reasons, they are often far too bland, too vanilla. And more......
Cell phones? One of my buddies today had to return to the Coney Island Restaurant later to retrieve his forgotten cell phone. I've been thinking about cell phones the past few days. Of course, those who know me know my views toward cell phones. There's a special place in Hell for the guy who invented them. OK, that's a bit harsh and it's no more his fault about the misuse of cell phones than it is Alfred Nobel's fault that dynamite has been used so destructively. (At least, on a guilt trip, Nobel left money for the Nobel Prizes.) But I noticed two other things about cell phones, although my perceptions might be off base. I seem to hear a lot of people speaking quite angrily into their cell phones. That is, they seem to be having angry conversations, either with the person on the other end or angrily explaining some other incident to the person on the other end. I wonder if this leads us to allow our anger to fester, to grow. We don't let anger go. And, does that then lead to further, maybe bigger problems? I don't know. Also, it seems to me that cell phones, at least possessing them, gives people a sense of accomplishment. It as if having a cell phone is evidence that the owner has really done something of importance. Now, of course, owning a cell phone doesn't make one "cool" and is certainly not anything of accomplishment. "Hey, I have a 3.5 GPA!" "Hey, I finished a marathon!" "Hey, I rewired my own house!" "Hey, I saved a life!" "Hey, I have a cell phone!" Again, I don't know, but I don't think I'm too far off base on either of these thoughts.
First, within the past few weeks it has been suggested that teaching history is "lost on young people." I don't remember if those were anyone's exact words, but that was the sentiment. One suggested that it's a "waste" to teach history to students, even high school students, that history shouldn't be taught until college. I disagree, vehemently. I might agree that the teaching of history has often been very poor teaching. I don't think, though, that's a reason to not teach it. It's not history or teaching it that's the problem; it's poor teachers. I think I've written about how the discipline of history has been given short shrift, sort of second-class status. "Anyone can teach history" is a mantra that has been heard from administrators for decades. Principals assign a history class to anyone who needs an extra class to fill a schedule. The all-important state tests (yes, I'm being facetious) including science, math, reading, and writing, but not history. Why, then, should schools give history and its teaching the time of day? But, how many students never "get" math? Should we stop teaching it if, in effect, it is "lost" on them? Is it a "waste" if so many, self-admittedly even as adults, "don't get it?" Who would argue that we should not teach math? For that matter, science is often the same "Greek" to some folks. Stop teaching science? The solution is, among other things, to know how to teach history. That includes finding teachers who really know history. Far too many college graduates today, even history majors, really don't know history. We also have to do a better job with textbooks. For many reasons, they are often far too bland, too vanilla. And more......
Cell phones? One of my buddies today had to return to the Coney Island Restaurant later to retrieve his forgotten cell phone. I've been thinking about cell phones the past few days. Of course, those who know me know my views toward cell phones. There's a special place in Hell for the guy who invented them. OK, that's a bit harsh and it's no more his fault about the misuse of cell phones than it is Alfred Nobel's fault that dynamite has been used so destructively. (At least, on a guilt trip, Nobel left money for the Nobel Prizes.) But I noticed two other things about cell phones, although my perceptions might be off base. I seem to hear a lot of people speaking quite angrily into their cell phones. That is, they seem to be having angry conversations, either with the person on the other end or angrily explaining some other incident to the person on the other end. I wonder if this leads us to allow our anger to fester, to grow. We don't let anger go. And, does that then lead to further, maybe bigger problems? I don't know. Also, it seems to me that cell phones, at least possessing them, gives people a sense of accomplishment. It as if having a cell phone is evidence that the owner has really done something of importance. Now, of course, owning a cell phone doesn't make one "cool" and is certainly not anything of accomplishment. "Hey, I have a 3.5 GPA!" "Hey, I finished a marathon!" "Hey, I rewired my own house!" "Hey, I saved a life!" "Hey, I have a cell phone!" Again, I don't know, but I don't think I'm too far off base on either of these thoughts.
April?
Is this April, with more than half of the month over? It's 39 degrees here right now, with a very strong wind blowing. Tonight and tomorrow are due to be just as cold. Brrrrrr......
Yesterday was "Tax Day." So, today we, yes we, actually get to spend our own money. The average American worked until April 18 to pay taxes for the year. Now, the rest belongs to us...maybe. "Tax Day" came five days later this year. That's not good.
I see Max Baucus, the US Senator from Montana, in a Senate Committee meeting said, "I see a train wreck coming" with ObamaCare. Hmmm...... Wasn't Baucus one of the biggest supporters of ObamaCare? Yep. Wasn't he one of the ones I heard on the radio who admitted he never read the bill? Yep. Yet now he "see[s] a train wreck coming?" Except for the fact that we elected these Bozos, I'd say we deserve better.
Regarding all the media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, I am reminded of one thing: "Dewey Defeats Truman."
President Obama the other day was angry. I heard him on the radio, vehemently saying, "[The NRA] told willful lies" about the gun control legislation that didn't get out of the Senate. Yet, in this same rant, he told a couple of little white lies himself, didn't he? Do "the vast majority of Americans" support more intense background checks of firearm purchasers? I don't think any of the polls show that; again, I might be mistaken, but I don't remember any. And what about the "willful lies" the President has told over the course of the previous five or more years? It's interesting that he criticized lobbyists in this, in that they supposedly influenced Senators' votes. No kidding, but who has closer ties to lobbyists than Obama? It's interesting that he claimed, since "the vast majority of Americans" desire greater background checks, their "elected representatives aren't representing them very well!" Gee, a sizable majority of Americans have always opposed ObamaCare, but their "elected representatives" passed it anyway. What's the different with that??????
He also used an argument I usually find quite disingenuous. He said, "...if even one life is saved," as if that is a valid reason for passing the gun control legislation. That, "if even..." doesn't fly with me. Of course, I'd love to see no deaths from weapons. But that's not my point. Why don't we return to the 55 mph speed limits on freeways? We certainly know the lower speed limits save lives--we've known that for a long time, so why don't we revert to the lower limits? Of course we know why. Our time and money are more valuable than the lives we'd save. Why don't we completely ban cell phone usage while driving? For that matter, why don't we wait until age 20 or 21 to issue drivers' licenses? After all, "if even...?" So, unless we really mean that, let's refrain from using it.
And I realize sometimes I'm piling on with President Obama, but.... What was he thinking when speaking in Boston, "They [the bombers] picked the wrong city." Now, I think I know what he meant (at least I hope that's what he meant), but that's not what he said. "They picked the wrong city" implies that there was a right city. Piling on? Maybe, but this is, at least according to the Bobbleheads, the most intelligent President since Jefferson. The Bobbleheads also claim he's the most eloquent speaker, which, of course, leads me to believe these sycophants know nothing of Abraham Lincoln. Piling on? I don't think so.
What really galls me is that, other than many of the more extreme conservatives who have (rightly or wrongly) lost credibility, nobody calls him on this or on anything.
Yesterday was "Tax Day." So, today we, yes we, actually get to spend our own money. The average American worked until April 18 to pay taxes for the year. Now, the rest belongs to us...maybe. "Tax Day" came five days later this year. That's not good.
I see Max Baucus, the US Senator from Montana, in a Senate Committee meeting said, "I see a train wreck coming" with ObamaCare. Hmmm...... Wasn't Baucus one of the biggest supporters of ObamaCare? Yep. Wasn't he one of the ones I heard on the radio who admitted he never read the bill? Yep. Yet now he "see[s] a train wreck coming?" Except for the fact that we elected these Bozos, I'd say we deserve better.
Regarding all the media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, I am reminded of one thing: "Dewey Defeats Truman."
President Obama the other day was angry. I heard him on the radio, vehemently saying, "[The NRA] told willful lies" about the gun control legislation that didn't get out of the Senate. Yet, in this same rant, he told a couple of little white lies himself, didn't he? Do "the vast majority of Americans" support more intense background checks of firearm purchasers? I don't think any of the polls show that; again, I might be mistaken, but I don't remember any. And what about the "willful lies" the President has told over the course of the previous five or more years? It's interesting that he criticized lobbyists in this, in that they supposedly influenced Senators' votes. No kidding, but who has closer ties to lobbyists than Obama? It's interesting that he claimed, since "the vast majority of Americans" desire greater background checks, their "elected representatives aren't representing them very well!" Gee, a sizable majority of Americans have always opposed ObamaCare, but their "elected representatives" passed it anyway. What's the different with that??????
He also used an argument I usually find quite disingenuous. He said, "...if even one life is saved," as if that is a valid reason for passing the gun control legislation. That, "if even..." doesn't fly with me. Of course, I'd love to see no deaths from weapons. But that's not my point. Why don't we return to the 55 mph speed limits on freeways? We certainly know the lower speed limits save lives--we've known that for a long time, so why don't we revert to the lower limits? Of course we know why. Our time and money are more valuable than the lives we'd save. Why don't we completely ban cell phone usage while driving? For that matter, why don't we wait until age 20 or 21 to issue drivers' licenses? After all, "if even...?" So, unless we really mean that, let's refrain from using it.
And I realize sometimes I'm piling on with President Obama, but.... What was he thinking when speaking in Boston, "They [the bombers] picked the wrong city." Now, I think I know what he meant (at least I hope that's what he meant), but that's not what he said. "They picked the wrong city" implies that there was a right city. Piling on? Maybe, but this is, at least according to the Bobbleheads, the most intelligent President since Jefferson. The Bobbleheads also claim he's the most eloquent speaker, which, of course, leads me to believe these sycophants know nothing of Abraham Lincoln. Piling on? I don't think so.
What really galls me is that, other than many of the more extreme conservatives who have (rightly or wrongly) lost credibility, nobody calls him on this or on anything.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Diversity
A local school district has shown again education's hypocrisy regarding "diversity." Apparently some students raised money to bring in Rick Santorum, a quite conservative politico. I am no fan of Santorum, although I see many worse pols out there.
I guess the principal/superintendent (maybe both) cancelled the speaking engagement. And, of course, we know why. Oh, of course, they had their reasons. (I almost used the word "rationale," but opted against it because there was nothing "rational" about their original cancellation.) These reasons seem to me to be quite "lame," if not outright silly. And, certainly I'm sure they wouldn't be applied to other, more acceptable speakers.
I guess I misunderstood the diversity crowd. I thought diversity meant to "accept and respect all people and all views." I forgot, "all" doesn't really mean "all." It means the ones the diversity crowd want others to "accept and respect."
Eventually, the kids at the high school will be allowed to hear the speaker--if they bring a permission slip from their parents. What? Gee, I wonder if the President came students would be required to have parental permission. He has some pretty far out there views, quite controversial. (How did you like his talk the other day, when he insisted he has decreased the deficit? Talk about "new math......") I wonder if Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (I can't ever forgot, when Arizona passed its immigration law, he wanted a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea--which is actually made and marketed in New York!), and others of their ilk. No, I don't wonder. They bring in folks to talk to high school kids about abortion and birth control..... The diversity folks are hypocrites. Only their sorts of "diversity" are embraced. Those ideas they don't like are not "acceptable."
And I strongly suspect, what happened at this school district is the norm rather than the exception. I know the sort of people who run our schools.
I guess the principal/superintendent (maybe both) cancelled the speaking engagement. And, of course, we know why. Oh, of course, they had their reasons. (I almost used the word "rationale," but opted against it because there was nothing "rational" about their original cancellation.) These reasons seem to me to be quite "lame," if not outright silly. And, certainly I'm sure they wouldn't be applied to other, more acceptable speakers.
I guess I misunderstood the diversity crowd. I thought diversity meant to "accept and respect all people and all views." I forgot, "all" doesn't really mean "all." It means the ones the diversity crowd want others to "accept and respect."
Eventually, the kids at the high school will be allowed to hear the speaker--if they bring a permission slip from their parents. What? Gee, I wonder if the President came students would be required to have parental permission. He has some pretty far out there views, quite controversial. (How did you like his talk the other day, when he insisted he has decreased the deficit? Talk about "new math......") I wonder if Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (I can't ever forgot, when Arizona passed its immigration law, he wanted a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea--which is actually made and marketed in New York!), and others of their ilk. No, I don't wonder. They bring in folks to talk to high school kids about abortion and birth control..... The diversity folks are hypocrites. Only their sorts of "diversity" are embraced. Those ideas they don't like are not "acceptable."
And I strongly suspect, what happened at this school district is the norm rather than the exception. I know the sort of people who run our schools.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water
I may be off base here, but it seems to me on a number of issues we are, in our willingness to get rid of the bathwater in a hurry, also ready to toss out the baby still in it.
With ObamaCare, for instance, of 300 million people, only about 10-15% have no health insurance. (That doesn't mean they don't get care or treatment.) And a number of those are by choice, although I don't know the exact numbers. So, what do the politicians do? They worsen health care for 85-90% of Americans to take care of the 10-15%. Huh? And it's like gun control and the hysteria surrounding it. An overwhelming percentage (99.9999%?) of gun owners are not mass murderers, despite the ravings of that Congressman a few weeks ago (I have forgotten his name). And, I'd guess, well over 90% of people with guns don't commit crimes with them. So, what are the up to now? Yep, they are taking aim, not at the few scofflaws, but at everybody. Instead of targeting the lawbreakers, the pols are going to punish/penalize those who are responsible.
I thought of this the other night, when the house was a bit too warm for my comfort level. Instead of lowering the heat or opening a door, why don't I just throw a chair through the front window? That would have let in enough cool air to make it more comfortable. Of course, that's ridiculous. But it seems to me that this is exactly what politicians do--again and again and again.
I read last week that ObamaCare, over the next couple of years, will require the hiring of thousands of bureaucrats. (The frightening prospect that some pencil-pusher will have more authority over my health care than my doctor or I will is not the point here, not this time.) The CBO (?) estimates of the cost of those additional bureaucrats would be enough for the federal government to purchase health insurance for at least half of those who are not covered now. That is, the cost of ObamaCare could pretty much alleviate the health insurance crisis (not my term) without fouling up everyone else's insurance. Perhaps those conspiracy nuts have it right--maybe it's not really about health care.
With ObamaCare, for instance, of 300 million people, only about 10-15% have no health insurance. (That doesn't mean they don't get care or treatment.) And a number of those are by choice, although I don't know the exact numbers. So, what do the politicians do? They worsen health care for 85-90% of Americans to take care of the 10-15%. Huh? And it's like gun control and the hysteria surrounding it. An overwhelming percentage (99.9999%?) of gun owners are not mass murderers, despite the ravings of that Congressman a few weeks ago (I have forgotten his name). And, I'd guess, well over 90% of people with guns don't commit crimes with them. So, what are the up to now? Yep, they are taking aim, not at the few scofflaws, but at everybody. Instead of targeting the lawbreakers, the pols are going to punish/penalize those who are responsible.
I thought of this the other night, when the house was a bit too warm for my comfort level. Instead of lowering the heat or opening a door, why don't I just throw a chair through the front window? That would have let in enough cool air to make it more comfortable. Of course, that's ridiculous. But it seems to me that this is exactly what politicians do--again and again and again.
I read last week that ObamaCare, over the next couple of years, will require the hiring of thousands of bureaucrats. (The frightening prospect that some pencil-pusher will have more authority over my health care than my doctor or I will is not the point here, not this time.) The CBO (?) estimates of the cost of those additional bureaucrats would be enough for the federal government to purchase health insurance for at least half of those who are not covered now. That is, the cost of ObamaCare could pretty much alleviate the health insurance crisis (not my term) without fouling up everyone else's insurance. Perhaps those conspiracy nuts have it right--maybe it's not really about health care.
Margaret Thatcher
Margaret Thatcher's passing (at 87, suffering from dementia) has had the airwaves buzzing. I suppose the print media will soon follow. She was one of those figures who was either loved and respected or hated and villifed. There are several stories I remember about Thatcher.
One, she defined "Socialists' Disease" as discovering they've run out of other people's money.
Two, she was once told that Hillary Clinton admired her and that Clinton thought they were very much alike. Thatcher apparently didn't take that as a compliment, not at all. She replied with something like, "How can she be at all like me? I'm nothing like her."
Three, she once was asked about liberals, "Can't you at least respect their position?" Thatcher's response was, "They have nothing to respect."
I had forgotten that she had a degree in chemistry, I believe it was.
One, she defined "Socialists' Disease" as discovering they've run out of other people's money.
Two, she was once told that Hillary Clinton admired her and that Clinton thought they were very much alike. Thatcher apparently didn't take that as a compliment, not at all. She replied with something like, "How can she be at all like me? I'm nothing like her."
Three, she once was asked about liberals, "Can't you at least respect their position?" Thatcher's response was, "They have nothing to respect."
I had forgotten that she had a degree in chemistry, I believe it was.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Humility
Watching the Amherst team yesterday win the Div III championship brought back some memories of years past. The current coach, I believe, is an AC grad and played basketball for Rick Wilson (again, I think). Coach Wilson was a legendary basketball coach, the first recipient of the prestigious Doggie Julian Award for basketball coaching excellence.
He was my freshman baseball coach. I'm so old, freshmen weren't eligible for varsity competition when I played. (In fact, our freshman team, like the UCLA basketball teams of Lew Alcindor, et al, could beat the varsity.) I won't go into the lengthy story (humorous, too) of how Coach Wilson and I finally arrived on the same wavelength, but I'm certainly glad we did. That arrival was on his terms and I learned much from it. From that day/practice on, I held Coach Wilson in the utmost regard and respect. He became a mentor (I don't like that term, but can't think of a better one right now.) of sorts for me. And what he taught me, with many conversations, was not necessarily about the world of sports, but life. I made a point to look him up each time I returned to campus. I hope he recognized that was my way of saying "Thanks!" As wise as he was, I'm pretty sure he did.
At a class reunion about three years ago, I had a lengthy conversation with a basketball player, one of the very best in the college's history. He and Coach Wilson butted heads--a lot!--and much more intensely and more often than I did. Our talk came to how much Coach Wilson meant to our lives, how much he influenced them. When I think of those who say athletics have no place in academia, I think of what I learned from him and immediately dismiss any such claptrap.
As I've noted, I feel very fortunate to have graduated from a school such as Amherst. Most of the professors were tops, what I can only dream of being. But, I have wondered one thing over the years. OK, I can never match, regardless of my studies, teaching, etc. their knowledge in their chosen fields. For instance, who could ever know more than Professor Czap about Russian History or Professor Havighurst about British or Professor Ratte about European and Intellectual History? Yet, I wonder if they knew as much, say, US History as I do or if Professor Rozwenc knew as much European/World History as I do. Hmmm...... I suppose not, but I do wonder. But I'm still betting on them.
What resparked that thought were a couple of List Serves to which I belong, history ones. Sometimes they bring up questions or whatnot of things/events of which I am only vaguely familiar. I don't know if I never knew them or have forgotten them. Regardless, such posts on these List Serves are reminders that there is still so very much out there to learn.
He was my freshman baseball coach. I'm so old, freshmen weren't eligible for varsity competition when I played. (In fact, our freshman team, like the UCLA basketball teams of Lew Alcindor, et al, could beat the varsity.) I won't go into the lengthy story (humorous, too) of how Coach Wilson and I finally arrived on the same wavelength, but I'm certainly glad we did. That arrival was on his terms and I learned much from it. From that day/practice on, I held Coach Wilson in the utmost regard and respect. He became a mentor (I don't like that term, but can't think of a better one right now.) of sorts for me. And what he taught me, with many conversations, was not necessarily about the world of sports, but life. I made a point to look him up each time I returned to campus. I hope he recognized that was my way of saying "Thanks!" As wise as he was, I'm pretty sure he did.
At a class reunion about three years ago, I had a lengthy conversation with a basketball player, one of the very best in the college's history. He and Coach Wilson butted heads--a lot!--and much more intensely and more often than I did. Our talk came to how much Coach Wilson meant to our lives, how much he influenced them. When I think of those who say athletics have no place in academia, I think of what I learned from him and immediately dismiss any such claptrap.
As I've noted, I feel very fortunate to have graduated from a school such as Amherst. Most of the professors were tops, what I can only dream of being. But, I have wondered one thing over the years. OK, I can never match, regardless of my studies, teaching, etc. their knowledge in their chosen fields. For instance, who could ever know more than Professor Czap about Russian History or Professor Havighurst about British or Professor Ratte about European and Intellectual History? Yet, I wonder if they knew as much, say, US History as I do or if Professor Rozwenc knew as much European/World History as I do. Hmmm...... I suppose not, but I do wonder. But I'm still betting on them.
What resparked that thought were a couple of List Serves to which I belong, history ones. Sometimes they bring up questions or whatnot of things/events of which I am only vaguely familiar. I don't know if I never knew them or have forgotten them. Regardless, such posts on these List Serves are reminders that there is still so very much out there to learn.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Div III Champions!
Well, the Lord Jeff's men's basketballers won the Div III championship today. It was quite a victory, the good guys winning by 17. The scoring seemed pretty well spread out. (I'll get the game summary tomorrow.) Gee, imagine a college championship by players who actually have to go to class and do the work. Yep, hard to imagine.
I was most impressed by something at the end of the game. Some girls were handing out championship hats to the Jeffs out on the court, in the midst of the celebration. And every player I saw took the time to say, "Thanks" or "Thank you." How cool! Of course, I'm probably the only one who noticed and was "most impressed."
Memories were evoked, too. Back 42 years ago, the faculty voted, as we fully expected, not to allow our team my senior year to accept a post-season tournament berth. No, we weren't bitter or, if I recall, even disappointed. We were students first, athletes second. But, I must admit, some of us were better athletes than students!
Regardless, congratulations to the Jeffs. I've noted that even some of the decidedly "unathletic" among my mates have posted e-mails of pride.
I was most impressed by something at the end of the game. Some girls were handing out championship hats to the Jeffs out on the court, in the midst of the celebration. And every player I saw took the time to say, "Thanks" or "Thank you." How cool! Of course, I'm probably the only one who noticed and was "most impressed."
Memories were evoked, too. Back 42 years ago, the faculty voted, as we fully expected, not to allow our team my senior year to accept a post-season tournament berth. No, we weren't bitter or, if I recall, even disappointed. We were students first, athletes second. But, I must admit, some of us were better athletes than students!
Regardless, congratulations to the Jeffs. I've noted that even some of the decidedly "unathletic" among my mates have posted e-mails of pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
