Hats off to the late Bob Talbert, quite a writer......
As I tossed my empty bag of weed 'n' feed in the trash--recyclables--yesterday, I had a good chuckle. Boldly printed across its front was "Kills More Than 250 Varieties of Weeds." I guess I found three or four "varieties" it doesn't kill. And, it's a brand name......
Is Cabrera on a tear? What's he had in the last 4 or 5 games, about 15 RBIs? I don't know for sure, but he is rocking the ball. Porcello, in today's newspaper, revealed that he's a pretty intelligent guy, saying, "I'd walk Cabrera every time up." Yep.
Has Apple Computers broken the law? Apparently, our pompous, know-everything US Senators is launching an investigation into why Apple pays little or no federal taxes. Hey, if Apple has broken the law, toss some folks in jail. If Apple is merely playing by the rules established by Congress and the US by legally taking deductions, exemptions, credits, leave Apple alone. Gee, I wonder how many jobs the sanctimonius, look-down-over-his-glasses Carl Levin has created. I wonder if Levin and his fellow Senators of arrogance take deductions, exemptions, credits when filing their taxes. And, I wonder why they aren't more concerned with the direction our federal government seems to be headed.
If there's any more reason to vote against Gary Peters in '14 for the US Senate than the endorsement of Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, I can't think of many. For good measure, toss in the fact that he's a current member of the House of Representatives, that is, yet another one responsible for the mess emanating from DC.
The Common Core standards are yet another wasted and misguided attempt at school reform. That private companies and their lobbyists are at the root of Common Core should be enough of a warning. After all, check most of the so-called innovations in education over the past three or four decades. Who has benefitted from them? Yep, private companies who have sold unwitting administrators, school boards, and government officials bills of goods after bills of goods. That's what happens when people, in the schools, who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions are allowed to make decisions. Instead of choosing from those who have experienced quality, rigorous education to lead, we select from the other end, those who have no idea that quality education requires rigor. I know I offend some people, but many of those education degrees are, to me, fake degrees. A number of studies and books have demonstrated how these are so. And some of my more forthwith former colleagues have fully agreed with that assessment, just about laughing all the way to the bank as the school district paid more money for taking these easy courses and fake degrees. I guess a tried-and-true dictum would be a wise one concerning Common Core, "Follow the money......"
Isn't Michigan great?!?!?! I know we grouse about the weather, but it's always interesting. Two weeks ago, I ran on a 28-degree AM. Two AMs later, it was 66 degrees. Last Mon eve, I tossed about 45 mins of BP when it was 92; Wed's BP of 30 mins was in the lower 80s. I ran yesterday AM and it was 67 and very, very humid--"schweaty" as Matt used to call it--while it was 44 when I picked up Bopper from school. This AM's run was in 38 degrees, with some frost on the cars. One think I have noticed is that it sure seems to have been windy around here, since about Thanks or Chris, maybe as windy as it's ever been, long-term. Matt says it's in the 90s in Las Vegas. By the time we get there in about a month or so, it'll be in the 100s, maybe pushing 110 or 112 or higher.
Busy day--out to do coups, grocery shop, grade papers, do attendance, mow the front, and, with luck, write a review that's due June 1.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Two Quick Matters
First, (and remember I know "Bush lied!," although he really didn't) I can't imagine there isn't a greater outcry about the executive department bombshells--IRS, Justice Department, State Department. That our government has so behaved is, frankly, chilling, very chilling. I don't think that's a new strain of paranoia overcoming me.
Imagine the IRS targeting groups, then intimidating them by asking questions such as, "About what do you pray?" What business is that of government? Where, BTW, is our US Senator Carl Levin with this? I ask only because some have--quite erroneously--labeled him "the Conscience of the Senate." (As I've written before, Phil Hart must be spinning in his grave!) How about asking anti-abortion groups if they will promise not to demonstrate against Planned Parenthood? (See my previous post about "the low value we place on human lives." C'mon! That some in the Obama administration knew about such actions, but didn't tell him--yeah, I'm going to believe that. Even if I did, my next question would be, "Doesn't this guy have any control over his administration?" Of course, we can wait a few minutes and get a newer version, like the 15 or so that have come out about Benghazi.
Imagine, too, the IRS supervisor who was in charge while all this was going on is now going to run the IRS operations involving ObamaCare--yet another intrusive, unconstitutionl government power-grab. (Usually, I side with the Supremes, even when I disagree, but not this time.)
Not to make light of the multiple tragedies the US has experience over the past month or so, but perhaps it's fortuitous, for the Obama administration, that they occurred when they did. I know, I know, "But Bush lied!"
Equally troubling for me is the current thread going around, "Is college worth it?" "It," of course, is the cost of a college education. I'm not sure where this started, but Bill Bennett has co-authored a book of the same or similar title. Now, I shouldn't grouse since Amherst was one of the 43 colleges and, I think, only one of a dozen private schools to be deemed "worth it." (It's disappointing to me that Bennett would suggest this.) The implication, maybe even it's stronger than an implication, is that a college education is "worth it" only if it leads directly to a job. What a misguided idea!!!!!! Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton on the ability of people to rule themselves, but he had a caveat. People needed to be educated. (When Jefferson was asked what he wanted on his tombstone, his purported reply was that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote the Virginia religious freedom statutes, and that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. Note, he didn't mention being President of the US!) To be "worth it," a college education must be focused primarily on jobs. Again, what a misguided idea!!!!!! What about civic responsibility? What about quality of life? What about the ability to think, to engage in dialogue!?!?!? "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Now, I would agree that many, likely most jobs, do not require a college education. Therefore, if one believes college is merely to "get a job," then it might not be "worth it."
Perhaps I rely too much on my own experiences. They have influenced my life in more ways than I can imagine and I often discover new ways. I've written many times about that, so there's no reason to rehash it. Maybe I've just been very lucky/fortunate in having the college experience I've had. My next question then would be, "Why aren't others getting the same or a similar experience?"
Imagine the IRS targeting groups, then intimidating them by asking questions such as, "About what do you pray?" What business is that of government? Where, BTW, is our US Senator Carl Levin with this? I ask only because some have--quite erroneously--labeled him "the Conscience of the Senate." (As I've written before, Phil Hart must be spinning in his grave!) How about asking anti-abortion groups if they will promise not to demonstrate against Planned Parenthood? (See my previous post about "the low value we place on human lives." C'mon! That some in the Obama administration knew about such actions, but didn't tell him--yeah, I'm going to believe that. Even if I did, my next question would be, "Doesn't this guy have any control over his administration?" Of course, we can wait a few minutes and get a newer version, like the 15 or so that have come out about Benghazi.
Imagine, too, the IRS supervisor who was in charge while all this was going on is now going to run the IRS operations involving ObamaCare--yet another intrusive, unconstitutionl government power-grab. (Usually, I side with the Supremes, even when I disagree, but not this time.)
Not to make light of the multiple tragedies the US has experience over the past month or so, but perhaps it's fortuitous, for the Obama administration, that they occurred when they did. I know, I know, "But Bush lied!"
Equally troubling for me is the current thread going around, "Is college worth it?" "It," of course, is the cost of a college education. I'm not sure where this started, but Bill Bennett has co-authored a book of the same or similar title. Now, I shouldn't grouse since Amherst was one of the 43 colleges and, I think, only one of a dozen private schools to be deemed "worth it." (It's disappointing to me that Bennett would suggest this.) The implication, maybe even it's stronger than an implication, is that a college education is "worth it" only if it leads directly to a job. What a misguided idea!!!!!! Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton on the ability of people to rule themselves, but he had a caveat. People needed to be educated. (When Jefferson was asked what he wanted on his tombstone, his purported reply was that he was the author of the Declaration of Independence, that he wrote the Virginia religious freedom statutes, and that he was the founder of the University of Virginia. Note, he didn't mention being President of the US!) To be "worth it," a college education must be focused primarily on jobs. Again, what a misguided idea!!!!!! What about civic responsibility? What about quality of life? What about the ability to think, to engage in dialogue!?!?!? "Is love of learning no longer enough?" Now, I would agree that many, likely most jobs, do not require a college education. Therefore, if one believes college is merely to "get a job," then it might not be "worth it."
Perhaps I rely too much on my own experiences. They have influenced my life in more ways than I can imagine and I often discover new ways. I've written many times about that, so there's no reason to rehash it. Maybe I've just been very lucky/fortunate in having the college experience I've had. My next question then would be, "Why aren't others getting the same or a similar experience?"
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Punishing for Excellence
I noted the past week that maybe half a dozen MLB batters tried to bunt. Now, this is significant in that I really don't watch the Tigers very often. Some bunters were trying to sacrifice and others were trying to bunt for hits. I thought this was unusual in that I don't see Major League batters bunting very much. (I also see them play deep in the outfield, far too deep in my view. I have always been a believer in playing more shallow. More hits can be taken away by doing that than playing so darn deep. And, many of the balls hit over the outfielders' heads are over the fences anyway. But, perhaps they aren't very good defensively and certainly playing deeper does cover for defensive weaknesses.)
First, I was, as usual not at all surprised at the poor sacrifice bunt technique of MLB players. They, frankly, can't bunt very well. It's a shame because bunting is a useful tool and, when executed properly, fun to watch. It puts pressure on the defense and I wonder, if more teams were threats to bunt, if more batted balls would scoot through the infield with infielders just a couple of steps in.
Second, some of the batters, in fact all of them, who were trying to bunt for hits did it all wrong. Each one was thrown out, if they even got the ball down in fair territory. In large part that was because they had rotten technique. In most instances, they merely used sacrifice bunt techniques.
I guess a logical question is, Don't they practice this? My guess is they don't, at least not very much. If they do, I'll bet their hearts aren't in it. After all, who makes the big bucks, the bunter or the home run hitter? And managers seem to eschew bunting, likely harkening back to the Earl Weaver theory of offense--a couple of three-run homers will win the game.
Back when, we'd practice bunting much more religiously. Our coach would put his hat or a glove down the third base line, oh, maybe 40-50 down, about five feet inside the foul line. We'd aim for it. And, some of us never practiced sacrifice bunts, but bunting for hits. Even in games, sacrifice situations were, for a couple of us, bunt-for-hit situations. (I always thought that was a big, big mistake by MLB scorers, not giving a batter a sacrifice and no time-at-bat and hence not hurting his batting average who moved up a runner when he bunted for a hit instead of using the sacrifice technique. The logic, if it can be called that, is that the batter wasn't giving himself up, not sacrificing himself to move up the runner(s). But the other side of the coin is that these guys, bunting for hits in sacrifice situations, have perfected a more difficult technique. They have convinced their coaches/managers of their skill. So, by doing this--achieving, if not excellence, at least a higher degree of skill, they are punished by being given a time at bat. It seems quite foolish to me.)
OK, I could bunt for a hit pretty darn well. Yep, I could hit my coach's hat or glove more often than not. He once told me, "With my [his] wheels, if could have bunted like you I could have made the majors." Unfortunately, I had "wheels" like, well, me! I have frequently wondered what I might have batted--average-wise--my senior year had I bunted for hits a few more times. I was hitting clean-up and, well, clean-up hitters usually aren't in bunt situations. (Hey, isn't that a sacrifice, too? Nah, I'm kidding.) I didn't have a bunt hit all year, none that I remember, and don't remember even trying.
Bunting, a lost art......
First, I was, as usual not at all surprised at the poor sacrifice bunt technique of MLB players. They, frankly, can't bunt very well. It's a shame because bunting is a useful tool and, when executed properly, fun to watch. It puts pressure on the defense and I wonder, if more teams were threats to bunt, if more batted balls would scoot through the infield with infielders just a couple of steps in.
Second, some of the batters, in fact all of them, who were trying to bunt for hits did it all wrong. Each one was thrown out, if they even got the ball down in fair territory. In large part that was because they had rotten technique. In most instances, they merely used sacrifice bunt techniques.
I guess a logical question is, Don't they practice this? My guess is they don't, at least not very much. If they do, I'll bet their hearts aren't in it. After all, who makes the big bucks, the bunter or the home run hitter? And managers seem to eschew bunting, likely harkening back to the Earl Weaver theory of offense--a couple of three-run homers will win the game.
Back when, we'd practice bunting much more religiously. Our coach would put his hat or a glove down the third base line, oh, maybe 40-50 down, about five feet inside the foul line. We'd aim for it. And, some of us never practiced sacrifice bunts, but bunting for hits. Even in games, sacrifice situations were, for a couple of us, bunt-for-hit situations. (I always thought that was a big, big mistake by MLB scorers, not giving a batter a sacrifice and no time-at-bat and hence not hurting his batting average who moved up a runner when he bunted for a hit instead of using the sacrifice technique. The logic, if it can be called that, is that the batter wasn't giving himself up, not sacrificing himself to move up the runner(s). But the other side of the coin is that these guys, bunting for hits in sacrifice situations, have perfected a more difficult technique. They have convinced their coaches/managers of their skill. So, by doing this--achieving, if not excellence, at least a higher degree of skill, they are punished by being given a time at bat. It seems quite foolish to me.)
OK, I could bunt for a hit pretty darn well. Yep, I could hit my coach's hat or glove more often than not. He once told me, "With my [his] wheels, if could have bunted like you I could have made the majors." Unfortunately, I had "wheels" like, well, me! I have frequently wondered what I might have batted--average-wise--my senior year had I bunted for hits a few more times. I was hitting clean-up and, well, clean-up hitters usually aren't in bunt situations. (Hey, isn't that a sacrifice, too? Nah, I'm kidding.) I didn't have a bunt hit all year, none that I remember, and don't remember even trying.
Bunting, a lost art......
Friday, May 17, 2013
"...the low value we place on human life."
Grant, in a comment he made to one of my posts a couple weeks ago, had this insightful note, "...the low value we place on human life." Yep, he's nailed that one.
Can we pick up a daily newspaper and not see a story about yet another shooting, often resulting in a murder or murders? Imagine the society we've created where so many people think it's fine to pick up a gun and start shooting people?
And the Philadelphia case against the abortionist has highlighted how cavalierly (OK, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh) we kill our babies. I'm not saying that the decision to have an abortion is an easy one; not at all. Yet, far too often killing a baby takes precedence over career, other inconveniences in life, etc.
Perhaps in light of this, I can amend Grant's insight to this, the low value we place on human life of others.
Can we pick up a daily newspaper and not see a story about yet another shooting, often resulting in a murder or murders? Imagine the society we've created where so many people think it's fine to pick up a gun and start shooting people?
And the Philadelphia case against the abortionist has highlighted how cavalierly (OK, perhaps I'm being a bit harsh) we kill our babies. I'm not saying that the decision to have an abortion is an easy one; not at all. Yet, far too often killing a baby takes precedence over career, other inconveniences in life, etc.
Perhaps in light of this, I can amend Grant's insight to this, the low value we place on human life of others.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Science!
I have been thinking a lot of science lately, namely how it seems to dominate our lives. No, I'm not talking specifics, in chemistry or biology. But, in general, how science or at least terms that science has defined make the world go 'round.
Before I start, science is often at the forefront of my thoughts. I still think that, although I was a history major at AC, two of my very best instructors were my physics professors, Professors Romer and Dempesy. That's not to deny the outstanding instruction of my history and other teachers such as Professor Havighurst, Petropoulous, Starr, Czap, and many, many more. (Yes, I had some dogs, too, but not many.) To this day, I still think of them and their influence on my life.
Relativity..... Now there's a term Einstein would like. More and more I have come to realize the significance of relativity. Relativity depends on frames of reference. Here are two examples from daily life. There can be no doubt that as one age, time speeds up. Where younger folks complain of "boredom" and the like, oldsters find that time never drags. What "takes forever" for a young person, zips by for a senior citizen. Didn't I just visit my son in Las Vegas? Yep--way back in March! It wasn't last week? Nope. Remember a couple of weeks ago, the fun we had at the New Year's Eve Party--the food, the music, the dancing? Wait, New Year's Eve, a couple of weeks ago?
Inertia..... I sometimes am entirely convinced that much of the world operates on inertia. How can some businesses run by some people ever succeed? But they do and the only explanation I can think of is inertia. How can our federal government, esp, continue to operate, so big, so dysfunctional, so impersonal? It must be inertia. The wheels start turning and they don't stop, but keep rolling.
Margin.... OK, so that's an economics term, a social science, but I'll include it because, well, this is my blog! In effect, margin suggests that advance or regression occurs by increments--they are not all or nothng. A little change can produce different effects, a little more change even more different effects, and so on. That's a good lesson for, at least, me. Things aren't always black and white. There are gray (or is it grey?) areas. Things don't always have to be all or nothing, but can increase or decrease incrementally, a bit at a time. "Margin," then, might be the key to compromise.
I do have to make one paid political comment. It's about Marco Rubio (as opposed to that Irish politician, Mark O'Rubio). Now, hasn't this guy been in the US Senate for two or three years? Is he a slow learner? With this immigration bill (The Gang of Eight, boy doesn't that smack of the commies in China!), it appears Rubio was snookered by Chuck Schumer. How did that happen?????? I guess Rubio didn't ever really read the immigration bill offered by the Gang; he merely took Schumer at his word when Schumer explained what was in it. And, apparently, Schumer didn't exactly explain the whole thing very clearly. Rubio, I guess, blindly accepted what Schumer said was in it. Can there be any other explanation? I would then think that anyone looking at Rubio as a possible candidate for President might want to rethink that.
Off to tee ball game number two--great fun will be had by all!
Before I start, science is often at the forefront of my thoughts. I still think that, although I was a history major at AC, two of my very best instructors were my physics professors, Professors Romer and Dempesy. That's not to deny the outstanding instruction of my history and other teachers such as Professor Havighurst, Petropoulous, Starr, Czap, and many, many more. (Yes, I had some dogs, too, but not many.) To this day, I still think of them and their influence on my life.
Relativity..... Now there's a term Einstein would like. More and more I have come to realize the significance of relativity. Relativity depends on frames of reference. Here are two examples from daily life. There can be no doubt that as one age, time speeds up. Where younger folks complain of "boredom" and the like, oldsters find that time never drags. What "takes forever" for a young person, zips by for a senior citizen. Didn't I just visit my son in Las Vegas? Yep--way back in March! It wasn't last week? Nope. Remember a couple of weeks ago, the fun we had at the New Year's Eve Party--the food, the music, the dancing? Wait, New Year's Eve, a couple of weeks ago?
Inertia..... I sometimes am entirely convinced that much of the world operates on inertia. How can some businesses run by some people ever succeed? But they do and the only explanation I can think of is inertia. How can our federal government, esp, continue to operate, so big, so dysfunctional, so impersonal? It must be inertia. The wheels start turning and they don't stop, but keep rolling.
Margin.... OK, so that's an economics term, a social science, but I'll include it because, well, this is my blog! In effect, margin suggests that advance or regression occurs by increments--they are not all or nothng. A little change can produce different effects, a little more change even more different effects, and so on. That's a good lesson for, at least, me. Things aren't always black and white. There are gray (or is it grey?) areas. Things don't always have to be all or nothing, but can increase or decrease incrementally, a bit at a time. "Margin," then, might be the key to compromise.
I do have to make one paid political comment. It's about Marco Rubio (as opposed to that Irish politician, Mark O'Rubio). Now, hasn't this guy been in the US Senate for two or three years? Is he a slow learner? With this immigration bill (The Gang of Eight, boy doesn't that smack of the commies in China!), it appears Rubio was snookered by Chuck Schumer. How did that happen?????? I guess Rubio didn't ever really read the immigration bill offered by the Gang; he merely took Schumer at his word when Schumer explained what was in it. And, apparently, Schumer didn't exactly explain the whole thing very clearly. Rubio, I guess, blindly accepted what Schumer said was in it. Can there be any other explanation? I would then think that anyone looking at Rubio as a possible candidate for President might want to rethink that.
Off to tee ball game number two--great fun will be had by all!
Friday, May 10, 2013
Tired Friday Thoughts
Ugh! I must be getting old. The legs were tough to crank up for my run this AM; dead, just dead they were. But once I started rolling, it ended up a nice jaunt--in the rain. I had fun with Bopper as he headed to school, asking for "a big hug for Grandpa." Grandpa was still wearing his sweat- and rain-soaked clothes. No, Bopper didn't give Grandpa "a big hug." Instead he ran giggling all the way to Grandma's car. He did think, from the car, that Grandpa should give Grandma "a big hug" good-bye. Grandma didn't agree.
Sometimes I wonder what to believe. Some of the stuff I read is almost beyond credence. There was an article in the newspaper several days ago about how some school districts (I have forgotten which) "wasted" federal food intended for student lunches. But, then, over the next couple of days something else emerged. Apparently, to save money, the school districts purchase surplus government food. That's OK. My mom used to buy the surplus stuff when I was a kid and we survived just fine. But then the schools find they can't serve the surplus government food because it doesn't meet government nutrition guidelines. Huh? Is this yet another instance of government being far too big? Yet again one hand doesn't know what the other is doing? It's hard to blame the schools in this. It's a legitimate question to ask why the federal government is selling to schools surplus food that doesn't meet nutrition standards for serving in schools. It reminds me of the story of the doo-gooder (and I do mean doo) who saw a man drowning. The doo-gooder rushed to throw the drowning guy a life ring, holding on to the attached line. Once the flailing swimmer grabbed the life ring, the doo-gooder let go of the line and moved on to do another good deed.
I read a defense of a woman's right to an abortion based on a majority of voters approving the current state law (some state out east) protecting "a woman's right to do with her body...." (Now, remember, I find that argument specious at best.) But this line of reasoning resonates with my recollections of Ante-Bellum slavery in the South and the principle of popular sovereignty that was prominent then. Yes, voters approved of slavery, but it seems nobody asked the slaves what they thought. With abortions, the fetuses aren't asked what they think of being killed.
There's a lot to this Benghazi scandal. Where were Obama and Clinton on this? Who gave the orders to "stand down?" Was it Obama? If so, why? If not, why did he abdicate his duty? Why was Clinton in absentia for so long afterward? Why were deliberate lies told? (If they weren't, Susan Rice is an incredible simpleton!) And there's more. But I don't think Benghazi is going anywhere. Can anyone imagine, 40 years ago, the LameStream Media ignoring Nixon's role in Watergate? Nope. The question(s) asked then is (are) the same question(s) that should be asked now. "What did the President know and when did he know it?" I guess I have forgotten how many Americans died because of the Watergate scandal; I know how many died in Benghazi, not to mention the beatings and torture. I forgot who said it, but it goes something like this. It's not necessary to lie to the people; they just have to be distracted. Yep..."breaking news" in Cleveland, in Phoenix.... They are compelling stories (although I admit the other day K had to explain the one trial in Phoenix; I had no knowledge of it), but one might well ask why them and not Benghazi. I don't think we really have to ask that of our LameStreams, do we?
One of my favorite pleasures is listening to the rich baritone notes of Levi Stubbs, the late lead singer of the Four Tops. I never put the Tops in the same category as the Temptations or Smokey, although my mother did. Their music/songs just didn't quite seem to be pure Motown. That might just be my tastes. But as far as a voice, Levi (esp on several selected tunes) ranks right there with Smokey and the Temptations Paul Williams (how smokey was his voice!) and David Ruffin. He can really evoke emotions.
I often wonder if crossword puzzle creators collaborate--or its the same person masquerading as several. That's because it seems uncanny that unusual clues/answers show up in different crosswords at about the same time, say, a weekend. That's OK with me; I just wonder. Now, why I wonder such things is a different matter, one I don't think I want to explore!
Sometimes I wonder what to believe. Some of the stuff I read is almost beyond credence. There was an article in the newspaper several days ago about how some school districts (I have forgotten which) "wasted" federal food intended for student lunches. But, then, over the next couple of days something else emerged. Apparently, to save money, the school districts purchase surplus government food. That's OK. My mom used to buy the surplus stuff when I was a kid and we survived just fine. But then the schools find they can't serve the surplus government food because it doesn't meet government nutrition guidelines. Huh? Is this yet another instance of government being far too big? Yet again one hand doesn't know what the other is doing? It's hard to blame the schools in this. It's a legitimate question to ask why the federal government is selling to schools surplus food that doesn't meet nutrition standards for serving in schools. It reminds me of the story of the doo-gooder (and I do mean doo) who saw a man drowning. The doo-gooder rushed to throw the drowning guy a life ring, holding on to the attached line. Once the flailing swimmer grabbed the life ring, the doo-gooder let go of the line and moved on to do another good deed.
I read a defense of a woman's right to an abortion based on a majority of voters approving the current state law (some state out east) protecting "a woman's right to do with her body...." (Now, remember, I find that argument specious at best.) But this line of reasoning resonates with my recollections of Ante-Bellum slavery in the South and the principle of popular sovereignty that was prominent then. Yes, voters approved of slavery, but it seems nobody asked the slaves what they thought. With abortions, the fetuses aren't asked what they think of being killed.
There's a lot to this Benghazi scandal. Where were Obama and Clinton on this? Who gave the orders to "stand down?" Was it Obama? If so, why? If not, why did he abdicate his duty? Why was Clinton in absentia for so long afterward? Why were deliberate lies told? (If they weren't, Susan Rice is an incredible simpleton!) And there's more. But I don't think Benghazi is going anywhere. Can anyone imagine, 40 years ago, the LameStream Media ignoring Nixon's role in Watergate? Nope. The question(s) asked then is (are) the same question(s) that should be asked now. "What did the President know and when did he know it?" I guess I have forgotten how many Americans died because of the Watergate scandal; I know how many died in Benghazi, not to mention the beatings and torture. I forgot who said it, but it goes something like this. It's not necessary to lie to the people; they just have to be distracted. Yep..."breaking news" in Cleveland, in Phoenix.... They are compelling stories (although I admit the other day K had to explain the one trial in Phoenix; I had no knowledge of it), but one might well ask why them and not Benghazi. I don't think we really have to ask that of our LameStreams, do we?
One of my favorite pleasures is listening to the rich baritone notes of Levi Stubbs, the late lead singer of the Four Tops. I never put the Tops in the same category as the Temptations or Smokey, although my mother did. Their music/songs just didn't quite seem to be pure Motown. That might just be my tastes. But as far as a voice, Levi (esp on several selected tunes) ranks right there with Smokey and the Temptations Paul Williams (how smokey was his voice!) and David Ruffin. He can really evoke emotions.
I often wonder if crossword puzzle creators collaborate--or its the same person masquerading as several. That's because it seems uncanny that unusual clues/answers show up in different crosswords at about the same time, say, a weekend. That's OK with me; I just wonder. Now, why I wonder such things is a different matter, one I don't think I want to explore!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Random Thoughts
Some random thoughts on a beautiful Tue afternoon before mowing the lawn and heading out to tee ball practice:
Coming from one who still doesn't own a cell phone, I still can't quite figure out this FaceBook thing. Specifically, I get e-mails, mail inserts, even newspaper items asking me to "Like" somebody or something or some company on FB. What's the deal with that?????? Are we that insecure? Is it a marketing ploy for companies?
I can't imagine anyone, other than a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, voting for Gary Peters for the US Senate. First, I believe he's got big bucks, likely a millionaire; yet, he sides with the "99%ers," the "occupy" movements. I wonder why he doesn't forfeit his wealth, donating it or giving it away so he can live like his "99%ers" or the "occupiers." Is hypocrisy rearing its ugly head yet again?
I wonder if the supporters of the national Core Curriculum Standards think they are such a good thing, why the colleges and universities haven't made the slightest move toward adopting a similar core. The argument in favor of them is that we must be able to compare schools from state to state. Fine, let's have college cores so we can compare UCLA with UNC with U of M, etc. And, we could also institute cores for U of M, MSU, Central, Western, Oakland, and all the state schools so we can compare them, too. All this core stuff does is to engender more testing, deleterious on its own merits. It does nothing to ensure better teaching/teachers, which all research shows is the number one factor in producing quality education.
In baseball, there are some frustrating moments. I don't know which is more frustrating. Is it hitting a high foul pop-up and being forced to watch the fielder move over to catch it, knowing even if he drops it, there's no getting on base involved? Is it hitting a frozen rope right at a fielder, who makes, as my late father used to say, "a fielder's choice--catch it or get killed by it?" It wasn't frustrating to me, but the thing I hated the most about batting was striking out. Boy, I hated it! It was the worst, to me an event of complete failure. I think I remember my strikeouts as much or more than any big hits.
I wonder if more major leaguers had such a dislike of striking out instead of opting for one more swing for the fences (where the money is!~)......
Coming from one who still doesn't own a cell phone, I still can't quite figure out this FaceBook thing. Specifically, I get e-mails, mail inserts, even newspaper items asking me to "Like" somebody or something or some company on FB. What's the deal with that?????? Are we that insecure? Is it a marketing ploy for companies?
I can't imagine anyone, other than a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, voting for Gary Peters for the US Senate. First, I believe he's got big bucks, likely a millionaire; yet, he sides with the "99%ers," the "occupy" movements. I wonder why he doesn't forfeit his wealth, donating it or giving it away so he can live like his "99%ers" or the "occupiers." Is hypocrisy rearing its ugly head yet again?
I wonder if the supporters of the national Core Curriculum Standards think they are such a good thing, why the colleges and universities haven't made the slightest move toward adopting a similar core. The argument in favor of them is that we must be able to compare schools from state to state. Fine, let's have college cores so we can compare UCLA with UNC with U of M, etc. And, we could also institute cores for U of M, MSU, Central, Western, Oakland, and all the state schools so we can compare them, too. All this core stuff does is to engender more testing, deleterious on its own merits. It does nothing to ensure better teaching/teachers, which all research shows is the number one factor in producing quality education.
In baseball, there are some frustrating moments. I don't know which is more frustrating. Is it hitting a high foul pop-up and being forced to watch the fielder move over to catch it, knowing even if he drops it, there's no getting on base involved? Is it hitting a frozen rope right at a fielder, who makes, as my late father used to say, "a fielder's choice--catch it or get killed by it?" It wasn't frustrating to me, but the thing I hated the most about batting was striking out. Boy, I hated it! It was the worst, to me an event of complete failure. I think I remember my strikeouts as much or more than any big hits.
I wonder if more major leaguers had such a dislike of striking out instead of opting for one more swing for the fences (where the money is!~)......
Friday, May 3, 2013
Rarry Heid
I often wonder how this guy became the Majority Leader of the US Senate. (Of course, I also wonder how he's managed to avoid a Senate ethics hearing, not to mention a criminal trial. Kwame Kilpatrick went to jail......)
Last week, Reid proclaimed, ObamaCare "needs more money." "More money?" He must be kidding, but I know he's not. This in the face of 33 states (and counting) opting not to establish the health exchanges of ObamaCare. This in the face of a new federal lawsuit, not by states, but by small businesses challenging the already overreaching by the IRS, yes, already. Who didn't see that one coming? This in the face of South Carolina's house of representatives passing bill outlawing the implementation of ObamaCare. "More money" indeed.
Then, today I read he claims it's the Tea Party Congressmen/women who are responsible for the dysfunction of the House. Yeah, right. Who does he blame for the dysfunction before these Tea Partiers were elected? Oh, I forgot...before that, the House wasn't dysfunctional. My bad. This feeds into a mini-theory I have that the Democrats are show more concern for Tea Parties than for potential terrorists. I know that is a bit extreme, but boy they sure make it easy to believe that.
Last week, Reid proclaimed, ObamaCare "needs more money." "More money?" He must be kidding, but I know he's not. This in the face of 33 states (and counting) opting not to establish the health exchanges of ObamaCare. This in the face of a new federal lawsuit, not by states, but by small businesses challenging the already overreaching by the IRS, yes, already. Who didn't see that one coming? This in the face of South Carolina's house of representatives passing bill outlawing the implementation of ObamaCare. "More money" indeed.
Then, today I read he claims it's the Tea Party Congressmen/women who are responsible for the dysfunction of the House. Yeah, right. Who does he blame for the dysfunction before these Tea Partiers were elected? Oh, I forgot...before that, the House wasn't dysfunctional. My bad. This feeds into a mini-theory I have that the Democrats are show more concern for Tea Parties than for potential terrorists. I know that is a bit extreme, but boy they sure make it easy to believe that.
Virtual Education
What's that they say about "full disclosure?" OK, I still don't have a cell phone and see no time in my remaining years that I will get one. How's that for "full disclosure?"
I understand that online courses, "virtual" education, and all that other technology is the wave of the future. I can't stop it, although I wish I could. I find it interesting that the lead definition of "virtual" is "almost, nearly...not quite complete...." Yep, my thoughts exactly.
Here's a recent article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/education/san-jose-state-philosophy-dept-criticizes-online-courses.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
There's a reference in the above article to the Amherst College faculty's disapproval of online courses, virtual education, or whatevr it's called.
Perhaps coincidentally, I heard a high level officer (CEO?) of edX (or was it Udacity?) the other day on the radio. (I was very disappointed to hear Bill Bennett to be so supportive.) The guy was explaining how virtual ed worked, the advantages, etc. Of course, he pointed to none of the questions surrounding it. In fact, a caller to the radio show, with specific instances he knew of, asked how "rampant cheating" was going to be stopped with the online courses. The CEO (?) merely brushed aside the concern with an almost, "Oh, no, we won't let that happen." He gave no indication of any steps to stop it or prevent it, just the dismissal.
I remember about half a dozen teachers who took that same online course, oh, maybe ten years ago. Once a week they'd meet together and cheat like heck on the assignments, etc. When I expressed some concern, I just got a smile that said, "Nobody will ever know." Oh, OK--I guess that makes it all right.
I've spoken to several students who've taken online courses. One, a particularly bright fellow, fully admitted, "They are jokes." But he added, "But they got me a raise!" Yep, the real colleges must compete with the growing number of "McColleges." "Get your four-year degree in one year?" "Take your required courses without taking off your pajamas?"
I've spoken to teachers who've taught online courses. Some try to defend them, at least their quality, but not convincingly. One was candid enough, when I asked if the online courses matched the rigor of regular/traditional classrooms, to admit, "Oh, Good Lord No!"
I think of classes with the likes of Profs Romer, Havighurst, Turgeon, Ratte, Petropoulous, a whole list of them, and can't imagine being deprived of face-to-face meetings with each of them several times a week.
I understand the competition is fierce and the economics is inviting. But it seems to fly in the face of our politicians' cries for more rigor and greater quality and accountability while they push for this "virtual education," making things easier, less rigorous. I think I smell money, as many of the so-called reforms in education have been about money. Some slick-talking folks hoodwinked easily hoodwinked administrators into these new-fangled, but ineffective schemes and programs, only to return a few years later with a newer bottle of snake oil.
I think, in many instances, much of this online education is a fraud, perpetrated more for opportunities to make money that to improve education. Gee, do you think the Governor would listen to such heresy? Nah, neither do I.
After all, I still roast my turkey in the oven, not zap it in the microwave.
I understand that online courses, "virtual" education, and all that other technology is the wave of the future. I can't stop it, although I wish I could. I find it interesting that the lead definition of "virtual" is "almost, nearly...not quite complete...." Yep, my thoughts exactly.
Here's a recent article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/education/san-jose-state-philosophy-dept-criticizes-online-courses.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0
There's a reference in the above article to the Amherst College faculty's disapproval of online courses, virtual education, or whatevr it's called.
Perhaps coincidentally, I heard a high level officer (CEO?) of edX (or was it Udacity?) the other day on the radio. (I was very disappointed to hear Bill Bennett to be so supportive.) The guy was explaining how virtual ed worked, the advantages, etc. Of course, he pointed to none of the questions surrounding it. In fact, a caller to the radio show, with specific instances he knew of, asked how "rampant cheating" was going to be stopped with the online courses. The CEO (?) merely brushed aside the concern with an almost, "Oh, no, we won't let that happen." He gave no indication of any steps to stop it or prevent it, just the dismissal.
I remember about half a dozen teachers who took that same online course, oh, maybe ten years ago. Once a week they'd meet together and cheat like heck on the assignments, etc. When I expressed some concern, I just got a smile that said, "Nobody will ever know." Oh, OK--I guess that makes it all right.
I've spoken to several students who've taken online courses. One, a particularly bright fellow, fully admitted, "They are jokes." But he added, "But they got me a raise!" Yep, the real colleges must compete with the growing number of "McColleges." "Get your four-year degree in one year?" "Take your required courses without taking off your pajamas?"
I've spoken to teachers who've taught online courses. Some try to defend them, at least their quality, but not convincingly. One was candid enough, when I asked if the online courses matched the rigor of regular/traditional classrooms, to admit, "Oh, Good Lord No!"
I think of classes with the likes of Profs Romer, Havighurst, Turgeon, Ratte, Petropoulous, a whole list of them, and can't imagine being deprived of face-to-face meetings with each of them several times a week.
I understand the competition is fierce and the economics is inviting. But it seems to fly in the face of our politicians' cries for more rigor and greater quality and accountability while they push for this "virtual education," making things easier, less rigorous. I think I smell money, as many of the so-called reforms in education have been about money. Some slick-talking folks hoodwinked easily hoodwinked administrators into these new-fangled, but ineffective schemes and programs, only to return a few years later with a newer bottle of snake oil.
I think, in many instances, much of this online education is a fraud, perpetrated more for opportunities to make money that to improve education. Gee, do you think the Governor would listen to such heresy? Nah, neither do I.
After all, I still roast my turkey in the oven, not zap it in the microwave.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Wed Thoughts
I wonder what's really behind all this Benghazi stuff. It seems there is something rotten in Denmark. I don't know any specifics, but what is it some folks say about passing the "smell test?" And perhaps I can have my memory jogged: Were the LameStream Media as silent with Watergate?
Speaking of the LameStreams, where were they with the incredible politics, even reckless and dangerous, being played with the sequester/fiscal cliff? There was no reason, none at all, to delay air flights by cutting back on air traffic controllers. It was politics, pure and simple, and something that potentially could have put Americans' lives in danger. But apparently that is of no concern to those in the current administration. How many in FAA and TSA management/administration were "furoughed?" Right. And the sequester didn't cut anyone's funds. All it did was cut the increases. There is still more money being spent, just not as much as the spendaholics wanted to spend--you know, spending other people's money.
I sometimes wonder about our educational system. For instance, our so-called idea makers, including newspaper editors have recently urged the state legislature to establish the ObamaCare health markets or exchanges. The argument is that the feds have promised to pay all or most of the costs of Medicare for the next half dozen or more years. First, does anyone trust the feds, that is, that they will honor their "promise?" Second, the argument that the state will "save money" is specious, at best. Where doe these editors think the federal money originates, on trees in the backyard? Federal spending or state spending--it all comes from taxpayers. ??????
It's interesting to see former educational leaders (and I'm using that term very loosely) now clamoring for more reforms because the system is worse now than before. Hey, weren't these the same guys who put in the disastrous programs and policies like No Child Left Behind? So, they made a bigger mess of things and now want us to do more of what they want to do? I don't remember the exact words, but back in the day, every one of my administrators/principals said something like, "Let's not cast blame...." Well, why not? How are we to know who not to trust, who not to let make more lousy decisions if we don't "cast blame?" Fools.....
Out to do a radio interview at 12:30....
Speaking of the LameStreams, where were they with the incredible politics, even reckless and dangerous, being played with the sequester/fiscal cliff? There was no reason, none at all, to delay air flights by cutting back on air traffic controllers. It was politics, pure and simple, and something that potentially could have put Americans' lives in danger. But apparently that is of no concern to those in the current administration. How many in FAA and TSA management/administration were "furoughed?" Right. And the sequester didn't cut anyone's funds. All it did was cut the increases. There is still more money being spent, just not as much as the spendaholics wanted to spend--you know, spending other people's money.
I sometimes wonder about our educational system. For instance, our so-called idea makers, including newspaper editors have recently urged the state legislature to establish the ObamaCare health markets or exchanges. The argument is that the feds have promised to pay all or most of the costs of Medicare for the next half dozen or more years. First, does anyone trust the feds, that is, that they will honor their "promise?" Second, the argument that the state will "save money" is specious, at best. Where doe these editors think the federal money originates, on trees in the backyard? Federal spending or state spending--it all comes from taxpayers. ??????
It's interesting to see former educational leaders (and I'm using that term very loosely) now clamoring for more reforms because the system is worse now than before. Hey, weren't these the same guys who put in the disastrous programs and policies like No Child Left Behind? So, they made a bigger mess of things and now want us to do more of what they want to do? I don't remember the exact words, but back in the day, every one of my administrators/principals said something like, "Let's not cast blame...." Well, why not? How are we to know who not to trust, who not to let make more lousy decisions if we don't "cast blame?" Fools.....
Out to do a radio interview at 12:30....
Opening Day (Let's try this again!)
Apparently, what I wrote last weekend didn't appear. So, here goes again.
The day was beautiful and I noted that a good number of my neighbors were out working in their yards. Not this guy......
Last Saturday the Pirates opened their season with a 14-9 win. If I recall, it's only the second time Bopper has won his first game. And, he played a bit of a role in the win, too.
The skies were sunny and blue, with temperatures in the 60s. It was one of the first shirt-sleeve days. Ah, a good day for baseball, esp after the lousy spring we've had so far.
14-9, yep. But I think there were only about six or seven hits by both teams. There had to have been close to 30 or more walks. With the league mercy rule (There is a maximum of six runs in an inning, except for the last inning, a rule I don't at all like;it makes little sense to not include the mercy the last inning. The argument that no-mercy in the last inning allows a team to win flies in the face of a team that could have won with no mercy in an earlier inning(s).), I think there were only eleven putouts by the Pirates and five by the Indians. In more than two hours, only 3 1/2 innings were played.
We started late, due to previous games backlogging. A field adjacent to ours opened up with no teams waiting to play on it. I suggested using that one, to avoid a longer wait. No, the umpires said; we coudn't do that. We had to wait for the other teams on our field to finish. After half an hour, the umpires decided we could use the other field after all. So, it wasn't OK to use the field at 11:30, but it was OK at noon? Hmmm......
I am not the head coach. I don't want the job of making line-ups, calling parents, determining who brings what snacks on what days, etc. And, I don't like the league's idea of a draft. But I can still teach baseball and am given free rein. The players still don't always listen--a couple do. I pointed out how we took advantage of situations that I try to have our team prevent, but I'm not sure many of the players paid attention. For instance, Michael was on third and the catcher threw a ball back to the pitcher wildly. Bopper noted that and raced home. I try to get our 2nd basemen and SSs to back up every throw from the catcher to the pitcher to prevent that, which had the other team backed up the throw, Michael woudln't have scored. And, what do the 2nd basemen and SSs have to do between pitches, pick their noses? Bopp, who plays 2B knows to do that, but other kids don't seem to want to do it. It's not a big or a hard thing to do. But it's real baseball and can make a difference if only a few times each season. I really like one of the other assistant coach's work, esp with Bopper. He's convinced him he can throw strikes and has been, so far, a decent pitcher.
Bopp had a walk and one of our three or four hits. He was aggressive on the bases and scored two runs in two at-bats. He came on to pitch in the 3rd, with two guys on and four runs in in that inning. (How's that for using "in?"). He induced two ground balls, one for a putout and the other we made three errors on the same play, two by the same kid. (We had 7 or 8 errors on the day--not good.) Two runs scored, which meant a mercy, but all six runs were charged to the other guy. Then, in the top of the 4th (the last inning), Bopp struck out the leadoff guy, threw an easy ground ball to first, and then struck out the final batter after going 3-1 on him. Michael isn't a flame thrower, not by any means. But has thrown strikes and, as noted, the other dad has him thinking he can actually pitch. Good! It was fun to watch.
I enjoy the drives home, talking over the games and just baseball in general with Michael. Of course, now he thinks (after last Thur and Sat, equally good jobs) he's the second coming of Justin Verlander, which he's not. But I still enjoy our chats. And I tossed about half an hour of BP before the game. Boy, my arm didn't hurt after about an hour of BP to Bopper on Fri, but my back did! Can it be this guy is getting old?!?!?!
And, getting home after the game we had the family birthday party for Ashley, her 7th birthday. She ordered "hock gawgs" (hot dogs) and potato chips for her birthday dinner. Her choice...... Next week is her friends' party--about 11 kids over here. Ugh! Wow! 7 years old already.
BTW, her tee ball team is called the Iron Pigs. Yep, Iron Pigs. I don't know where that one came from, but that's it. I am helping to coach that team, too. I had a riot with some of the kids last night. I laughed a lot, not at them, but with them--well, OK it was at them a bit, too. But I kept my snickers to myself.
Until the end of June, it's baseball Mon through Thur with often a double dose on Sats. How lucky am I?!?!?! I get to be with my grandkids all that time.
The day was beautiful and I noted that a good number of my neighbors were out working in their yards. Not this guy......
Last Saturday the Pirates opened their season with a 14-9 win. If I recall, it's only the second time Bopper has won his first game. And, he played a bit of a role in the win, too.
The skies were sunny and blue, with temperatures in the 60s. It was one of the first shirt-sleeve days. Ah, a good day for baseball, esp after the lousy spring we've had so far.
14-9, yep. But I think there were only about six or seven hits by both teams. There had to have been close to 30 or more walks. With the league mercy rule (There is a maximum of six runs in an inning, except for the last inning, a rule I don't at all like;it makes little sense to not include the mercy the last inning. The argument that no-mercy in the last inning allows a team to win flies in the face of a team that could have won with no mercy in an earlier inning(s).), I think there were only eleven putouts by the Pirates and five by the Indians. In more than two hours, only 3 1/2 innings were played.
We started late, due to previous games backlogging. A field adjacent to ours opened up with no teams waiting to play on it. I suggested using that one, to avoid a longer wait. No, the umpires said; we coudn't do that. We had to wait for the other teams on our field to finish. After half an hour, the umpires decided we could use the other field after all. So, it wasn't OK to use the field at 11:30, but it was OK at noon? Hmmm......
I am not the head coach. I don't want the job of making line-ups, calling parents, determining who brings what snacks on what days, etc. And, I don't like the league's idea of a draft. But I can still teach baseball and am given free rein. The players still don't always listen--a couple do. I pointed out how we took advantage of situations that I try to have our team prevent, but I'm not sure many of the players paid attention. For instance, Michael was on third and the catcher threw a ball back to the pitcher wildly. Bopper noted that and raced home. I try to get our 2nd basemen and SSs to back up every throw from the catcher to the pitcher to prevent that, which had the other team backed up the throw, Michael woudln't have scored. And, what do the 2nd basemen and SSs have to do between pitches, pick their noses? Bopp, who plays 2B knows to do that, but other kids don't seem to want to do it. It's not a big or a hard thing to do. But it's real baseball and can make a difference if only a few times each season. I really like one of the other assistant coach's work, esp with Bopper. He's convinced him he can throw strikes and has been, so far, a decent pitcher.
Bopp had a walk and one of our three or four hits. He was aggressive on the bases and scored two runs in two at-bats. He came on to pitch in the 3rd, with two guys on and four runs in in that inning. (How's that for using "in?"). He induced two ground balls, one for a putout and the other we made three errors on the same play, two by the same kid. (We had 7 or 8 errors on the day--not good.) Two runs scored, which meant a mercy, but all six runs were charged to the other guy. Then, in the top of the 4th (the last inning), Bopp struck out the leadoff guy, threw an easy ground ball to first, and then struck out the final batter after going 3-1 on him. Michael isn't a flame thrower, not by any means. But has thrown strikes and, as noted, the other dad has him thinking he can actually pitch. Good! It was fun to watch.
I enjoy the drives home, talking over the games and just baseball in general with Michael. Of course, now he thinks (after last Thur and Sat, equally good jobs) he's the second coming of Justin Verlander, which he's not. But I still enjoy our chats. And I tossed about half an hour of BP before the game. Boy, my arm didn't hurt after about an hour of BP to Bopper on Fri, but my back did! Can it be this guy is getting old?!?!?!
And, getting home after the game we had the family birthday party for Ashley, her 7th birthday. She ordered "hock gawgs" (hot dogs) and potato chips for her birthday dinner. Her choice...... Next week is her friends' party--about 11 kids over here. Ugh! Wow! 7 years old already.
BTW, her tee ball team is called the Iron Pigs. Yep, Iron Pigs. I don't know where that one came from, but that's it. I am helping to coach that team, too. I had a riot with some of the kids last night. I laughed a lot, not at them, but with them--well, OK it was at them a bit, too. But I kept my snickers to myself.
Until the end of June, it's baseball Mon through Thur with often a double dose on Sats. How lucky am I?!?!?! I get to be with my grandkids all that time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
