Temperatures reached 117 degrees here in Las Vegas this afternoon. This follows a record-tying 115 yesterday. At 10 PM last night, when we checked into the Monte Carlo, it was still 107 degrees! Tomorrow is a repeat of today. Things cool off, I guess, next weekend, when we leave. "Cool off" takes a new meaning when the temperatures will still reach 107 or so.
That said, we really weren't uncomfortable out there this afternoon for four hours or so at a water park. We took the kids, at Uncle Matt's and Linda's suggestion (and they joined us), to Wet 'n' Wild.
As Karen said, "It really was more uncomfortable" back in Michigan last week at 85 degrees and 90 percent humididity.
I know that's all hard to believe. I guess this is one of those situations where, "You have to be there."
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Major Sports at Major Colleges
There's a lawsuit agains the NCAA, an athlete trying to get paid for playing a college sport. This NY Times blogger posted this:
For instance, the N.C.A.A.’s legal arguments in the O’Bannon case are almost laughably weak. It argues that if the players were paid, then college sports would lose its appeal. Says who? It claims that college athletes must continue to be amateurs because, well, that’s the way it’s always been. It even argues that if O’Bannon wins, schools like Michigan, with its 110,000-seat football stadium, would downgrade its athletic status to that of, say, Amherst. I’m told that there were times on Thursday when people were openly chortling at some of the N.C.A.A.’s oral arguments.
I will disregard the poor writing. But this is offensive not to mention sloppy thinking. Pay athletes, like this blogger obviously wants--but don't do it through the colleges. Develop some sort of "farm system," a semi-pro league, etc. Don't make a mockery of the term "student-athlete." I know credibility and principles are out of vogue--perhaps never to return--but why hide behind the college athletic programs?
In many instances, esp at the big schools, but not exclusively, and in the big-time sports, athletes are anything but students. They don't pay tuition or room and board. They get tutors not available to most students. They have facilities, such as weight rooms, not available to most students. They eat food not available to most students. You get the picture. Oh, many of these so-called "student-athletes" don't go to class, yet still, miraculously, pass all of them. With all of this, barely half of them graduate. I'd be curious to see how many of them who do get degrees actually did the work!
What is most offensive to me, of course, is this piece of arrogance, "downgrade it's athletic status to that of, say, Amherst." "Downgrade," eh? Yeah, let's perpetuate a system that mocks education, cheats, fosters corruption, and worse. Can you say "Penn State?" Hey, I actually had to go to class, do the work (and lots and lots of it!), and more. Oh, we, back then at least, also played Div I schools (Boston College, Holy Cross, Purdue, Northwestern--the Big Ten!--Rutgers, UMass, Western Michigan, Navy, etc.) and, as often as not, beat them!
I know, I know...even the alumni at these big schools don't want to make "student-athletes" students. They apparently don't care that their own degrees are diminished by this mockery. Oh, they might even argue their degrees aren't diminished. I guess I would disagree.... There's something to be said with the adage, "You're known by the company you keep."
For instance, the N.C.A.A.’s legal arguments in the O’Bannon case are almost laughably weak. It argues that if the players were paid, then college sports would lose its appeal. Says who? It claims that college athletes must continue to be amateurs because, well, that’s the way it’s always been. It even argues that if O’Bannon wins, schools like Michigan, with its 110,000-seat football stadium, would downgrade its athletic status to that of, say, Amherst. I’m told that there were times on Thursday when people were openly chortling at some of the N.C.A.A.’s oral arguments.
I will disregard the poor writing. But this is offensive not to mention sloppy thinking. Pay athletes, like this blogger obviously wants--but don't do it through the colleges. Develop some sort of "farm system," a semi-pro league, etc. Don't make a mockery of the term "student-athlete." I know credibility and principles are out of vogue--perhaps never to return--but why hide behind the college athletic programs?
In many instances, esp at the big schools, but not exclusively, and in the big-time sports, athletes are anything but students. They don't pay tuition or room and board. They get tutors not available to most students. They have facilities, such as weight rooms, not available to most students. They eat food not available to most students. You get the picture. Oh, many of these so-called "student-athletes" don't go to class, yet still, miraculously, pass all of them. With all of this, barely half of them graduate. I'd be curious to see how many of them who do get degrees actually did the work!
What is most offensive to me, of course, is this piece of arrogance, "downgrade it's athletic status to that of, say, Amherst." "Downgrade," eh? Yeah, let's perpetuate a system that mocks education, cheats, fosters corruption, and worse. Can you say "Penn State?" Hey, I actually had to go to class, do the work (and lots and lots of it!), and more. Oh, we, back then at least, also played Div I schools (Boston College, Holy Cross, Purdue, Northwestern--the Big Ten!--Rutgers, UMass, Western Michigan, Navy, etc.) and, as often as not, beat them!
I know, I know...even the alumni at these big schools don't want to make "student-athletes" students. They apparently don't care that their own degrees are diminished by this mockery. Oh, they might even argue their degrees aren't diminished. I guess I would disagree.... There's something to be said with the adage, "You're known by the company you keep."
Equal Time
Congressman Sander Levin, quite the liberal, was cited in an article in today's newspaper that "liberals were targeted" by the IRS, too. As if that justifies any such "targeting" by the IRS. More so, he was right, but only to an extent, a very, very small extent. House hearings revealed that, yes, liberal groups were also "targeted". Yep, six of them! And there were 292 conservative groups that were singled out by the IRS. Hmmm...... 6 vs 292? That's about equal, isn't it? With the new math? With the Common Core Curriculum standards? I would just like to ask Congessman Levin one question about this: Are your comments designed to smooth over all this? "See, we were targets, too!" Levin certainly displays the qualifications to be a multi-term Congressman (and that's not at all a compliment!). I think it was John Arbuckle who said more than a century ago, "You get what you pay for." And, citizens get what they vote for.
I see conservatives are up in arms over the Supreme Court ruling in the Defense of Marriage Act case. In this, conservatives are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Supremes too a step in the right direction. It is blatantly unconstitutional to single out one group and deny it 14th Amendment rights: equal protection of the law. It took us a while, but we finally figured it out and extended those rights to blacks (former slaves), women, Indians--and now gays. Conservatives cite "traditional" definitions of marriage, as if that justifies denial of rights. They, who often seem so intent on using history in their arguments, forget that "traditional" views, even using the Bible, were employed in perpetuating slavery and second-class citizenship for women. They often continue to cite the Bible--picking and choosing as use of the Bible frequently requires--to "bolster" their argument. They are entitled to their religious beliefs about traditional marriage. They are not entitled to impose their religious beliefs on other people. Nonsequiturs all over the place. They can approve or disapprove of gay marriages or unions or whatever the newest descriptor. That is their right. But they can't force their views on others, in contradistinction of the Constitution. They can, if they really want to walk the walk not just talk the talk, take actions. They can boycott businesses, companies, even media outlets that support gay marriage. That's their right to do so, as wrong-headed as it may be. I even heard or read a pro-DOMA advocate claim that gays raising kids is deleterious. That's really laughable. What can be more deleterious to raising kids than what many people are doing now--fatherless families, single-parent families (that so many have done outstanding jobs is a marvel to me!), indulgent parenting, etc. It's not gays who are raising kids who shoot others out on the streets. It's not gays who are raising kids not interested in education. It's not gays who are raising drug addicts. It's not gays who are doing any of these any more than so-called "straight" parents. Several decried the judicial activism of the Court, that the Court undid what voters and legislatures/Congress did. That's really pretty laughable. What do these people think of, say, Brown v Board of Education? Was that judicial activism, too? Hadn't, for decades if not centuries, even with the imprimatur of the Supreme Court (of Dred Scott, of Plessy), voters and legislaures/Congress denied "equal protection of the law" to another group, blacks/slaves? So, if I follow this reasoning, the Supremes under Warren should have just let the status quo continue until Congress, state legislatures, and voters finally decided that blacks were also guaranteed "equal protection?" As my professors wrote on a number of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed."
Just to repeat from a previous post of a few days ago, I wonder what those friends of China are thinking now--still "friends" I bet--with the anti-American actions of the past week. And these weren't the openly anti-US hostilities of the Chinese commie government, but the people (who may or may not have been following orders). Why US companies continue to "exploit" the exploding Chinese market in search of profits (at the expense of giving away our technology) is beyond me. Why American shills continue to laud their "friends" the Chinese is beyond me. V.I. Lenin used a term to describe such American companies and shills: "useful idiots." Oh, I keep forgetting: History isn't important.
I see conservatives are up in arms over the Supreme Court ruling in the Defense of Marriage Act case. In this, conservatives are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Supremes too a step in the right direction. It is blatantly unconstitutional to single out one group and deny it 14th Amendment rights: equal protection of the law. It took us a while, but we finally figured it out and extended those rights to blacks (former slaves), women, Indians--and now gays. Conservatives cite "traditional" definitions of marriage, as if that justifies denial of rights. They, who often seem so intent on using history in their arguments, forget that "traditional" views, even using the Bible, were employed in perpetuating slavery and second-class citizenship for women. They often continue to cite the Bible--picking and choosing as use of the Bible frequently requires--to "bolster" their argument. They are entitled to their religious beliefs about traditional marriage. They are not entitled to impose their religious beliefs on other people. Nonsequiturs all over the place. They can approve or disapprove of gay marriages or unions or whatever the newest descriptor. That is their right. But they can't force their views on others, in contradistinction of the Constitution. They can, if they really want to walk the walk not just talk the talk, take actions. They can boycott businesses, companies, even media outlets that support gay marriage. That's their right to do so, as wrong-headed as it may be. I even heard or read a pro-DOMA advocate claim that gays raising kids is deleterious. That's really laughable. What can be more deleterious to raising kids than what many people are doing now--fatherless families, single-parent families (that so many have done outstanding jobs is a marvel to me!), indulgent parenting, etc. It's not gays who are raising kids who shoot others out on the streets. It's not gays who are raising kids not interested in education. It's not gays who are raising drug addicts. It's not gays who are doing any of these any more than so-called "straight" parents. Several decried the judicial activism of the Court, that the Court undid what voters and legislatures/Congress did. That's really pretty laughable. What do these people think of, say, Brown v Board of Education? Was that judicial activism, too? Hadn't, for decades if not centuries, even with the imprimatur of the Supreme Court (of Dred Scott, of Plessy), voters and legislaures/Congress denied "equal protection of the law" to another group, blacks/slaves? So, if I follow this reasoning, the Supremes under Warren should have just let the status quo continue until Congress, state legislatures, and voters finally decided that blacks were also guaranteed "equal protection?" As my professors wrote on a number of my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed."
Just to repeat from a previous post of a few days ago, I wonder what those friends of China are thinking now--still "friends" I bet--with the anti-American actions of the past week. And these weren't the openly anti-US hostilities of the Chinese commie government, but the people (who may or may not have been following orders). Why US companies continue to "exploit" the exploding Chinese market in search of profits (at the expense of giving away our technology) is beyond me. Why American shills continue to laud their "friends" the Chinese is beyond me. V.I. Lenin used a term to describe such American companies and shills: "useful idiots." Oh, I keep forgetting: History isn't important.
A Feel-Good Day
Today was one of those really "feel-good" days. I had two great workouts--a long run in the humididity (OK, that part wasn't so great) and then hard rain and a long bike ride later in the afternoon.
My grades for my spring class were pretty good, esp some of the essays on the final exam. And I received a few nice notes from students--they were flattering and, as always, appreciated! I thank them.
I also received an e-mail from on of my Amherst professors. He informed me we won't be able to meet in October during Homecoming Weekend since he and his wife are moving to Kansas City (her home?). "I'm always glad to hear from you," he wrote. Talk about making one feel good! But, esp in light of the previous paragraph, such notes from my professors serve to keep me from getting a big head. In their presence, even Internet presence, still, after all these years, I am humbled. He was a great teacher and person.
About the only downer today was Ashley's game was stormed out. I was bummed as it is the Iron Pigs' penultimate game. But, in keeping with the "feel-good" nature of the day, I was informed that the game will be made up tomorrow eve. I'd better get my pitching arm ready! And, in lieu of the washout, I took the kids to Dairy Queen for Blizzards. I kidded Ash and the Codester that they were going to buy "Smelly Socks-flavored" Blizzards. When that idea didn't go over too well, I suggested "Tuna-flavored" Blizzards. Nope, they settled for chocolate chip cookie dough--good choices.
My grades for my spring class were pretty good, esp some of the essays on the final exam. And I received a few nice notes from students--they were flattering and, as always, appreciated! I thank them.
I also received an e-mail from on of my Amherst professors. He informed me we won't be able to meet in October during Homecoming Weekend since he and his wife are moving to Kansas City (her home?). "I'm always glad to hear from you," he wrote. Talk about making one feel good! But, esp in light of the previous paragraph, such notes from my professors serve to keep me from getting a big head. In their presence, even Internet presence, still, after all these years, I am humbled. He was a great teacher and person.
About the only downer today was Ashley's game was stormed out. I was bummed as it is the Iron Pigs' penultimate game. But, in keeping with the "feel-good" nature of the day, I was informed that the game will be made up tomorrow eve. I'd better get my pitching arm ready! And, in lieu of the washout, I took the kids to Dairy Queen for Blizzards. I kidded Ash and the Codester that they were going to buy "Smelly Socks-flavored" Blizzards. When that idea didn't go over too well, I suggested "Tuna-flavored" Blizzards. Nope, they settled for chocolate chip cookie dough--good choices.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sometimes...
...I just sits. Sometimes I sits and thinks.
Great column in the newspaper the other day about the lack of quality candidates, from both parties, in the Congressional elections next year. The best part involved columnist Dale McFeatters insisting that "no skills to speak of" are required for "a job program of sorts" created by Congress. The jobs, of course, are US Senator and US Congressman/woman. It's "a career," he goes on, "but one that's not too demanding." It includes $174,000 for "33 weeks of work, a 'week...' generally being only four days."
Getting the job might require one "to grovel, beg, and pander, but these are easily learnable skills." A key is "getting over the hump" of realizing "having no apparent qualifications for this or any other job." Once in the seat, "as long as you begin your speech with 'My fellow Americans' and end it with "God bless you and God bless the united States of America," you can get away with any amount of nonsense." And, "If you're ever at a loss for words, look a donor in the eye and give him a heartfelt 'God Bless America. It works!"
Can there be much more of a slam on Congress?
Is it true the Calgary, Canada public schools are going to eliminate grades until high school? Ostensibly, the move is to prevent students from seeing themselves as failures. I think there's another way for students to avoid seeing themselves as "failures."
And, I heard, in it's infinite wisdom, the state of Michigan Dept of Ed is going to begin testing first and second grade students on their computer skills, along with whatever else they are tested on. But, I guess students don't start getting real computer teaching until 3rd grade. Huh?
Michigan high school student scores on the ACT and the other state test went up this year. I suppose that's cause for applause. But, maybe not. There are still far too many "not prepared for college," almost 80% of high school graduates. More significantly, to an anti-test person like me, this "improvement" assumes the tests are worthwhile. I refuse to make that concession. And, with all of the emphasis on the tests--the tests themselves, test-taking, teaching to the tests (and we all know it is going on, esp with so much of teacher and school evaluation depending on test scores)--it doesn't seem like the improvement is such a big deal.
I was reminded of a quotation from the Roman Cato the other day. It brought memories of various halls of fame, teachers-of-the-year awards, etc. The quotation is, ""After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." Quite fitting.
I see Gov Snyder is upset with the state senate for going on vacation instead of voting on his Medicare bill. I think it would have been defeated, but at least we'd have had a record of how our representatives voted. I still think Snyder is a big hypocrite and that his support of this bill strongly reflects that. It reminds me of the stupid position in the schools. There'd be money left over in the budget at the end of a year. The rush was then on to spend it on anything, even something not at all needed. Why? Because if there was a surplus, that is not spending all of the money in one year's budget, the next one might be cut. So, go ahead--spend it all, whether it's useful or not. Snyder's view seems to be, "We contibuted to Medicare, we should spend it."
Walter Williams points out this piece of ridiculousness. Exxon was fined in 2009 a total of $600,000 for the deaths of birds which had contacted some of Exxon's pollutants. Yet, this nation's "wind farms" kill about 573,000 bird every year. Why doesn't the Justice Dept go after the wind farms? In fact, why has the wind farm industry been legally shielded from prosecution in this? And, why have the media been so silent on the wind farm "murders," when it was headlining the Exxon "murders?"
I came upon this quotation the other day, from the Roman Cato: "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." I immediately thought of all of the trivial halls or walls of fame, the teachers-of-the-year awards, etc. I don't know why, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw Cato's words.
How about if the kids and I have a dish of ice cream??????
Great column in the newspaper the other day about the lack of quality candidates, from both parties, in the Congressional elections next year. The best part involved columnist Dale McFeatters insisting that "no skills to speak of" are required for "a job program of sorts" created by Congress. The jobs, of course, are US Senator and US Congressman/woman. It's "a career," he goes on, "but one that's not too demanding." It includes $174,000 for "33 weeks of work, a 'week...' generally being only four days."
Getting the job might require one "to grovel, beg, and pander, but these are easily learnable skills." A key is "getting over the hump" of realizing "having no apparent qualifications for this or any other job." Once in the seat, "as long as you begin your speech with 'My fellow Americans' and end it with "God bless you and God bless the united States of America," you can get away with any amount of nonsense." And, "If you're ever at a loss for words, look a donor in the eye and give him a heartfelt 'God Bless America. It works!"
Can there be much more of a slam on Congress?
Is it true the Calgary, Canada public schools are going to eliminate grades until high school? Ostensibly, the move is to prevent students from seeing themselves as failures. I think there's another way for students to avoid seeing themselves as "failures."
And, I heard, in it's infinite wisdom, the state of Michigan Dept of Ed is going to begin testing first and second grade students on their computer skills, along with whatever else they are tested on. But, I guess students don't start getting real computer teaching until 3rd grade. Huh?
Michigan high school student scores on the ACT and the other state test went up this year. I suppose that's cause for applause. But, maybe not. There are still far too many "not prepared for college," almost 80% of high school graduates. More significantly, to an anti-test person like me, this "improvement" assumes the tests are worthwhile. I refuse to make that concession. And, with all of the emphasis on the tests--the tests themselves, test-taking, teaching to the tests (and we all know it is going on, esp with so much of teacher and school evaluation depending on test scores)--it doesn't seem like the improvement is such a big deal.
I was reminded of a quotation from the Roman Cato the other day. It brought memories of various halls of fame, teachers-of-the-year awards, etc. The quotation is, ""After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." Quite fitting.
I see Gov Snyder is upset with the state senate for going on vacation instead of voting on his Medicare bill. I think it would have been defeated, but at least we'd have had a record of how our representatives voted. I still think Snyder is a big hypocrite and that his support of this bill strongly reflects that. It reminds me of the stupid position in the schools. There'd be money left over in the budget at the end of a year. The rush was then on to spend it on anything, even something not at all needed. Why? Because if there was a surplus, that is not spending all of the money in one year's budget, the next one might be cut. So, go ahead--spend it all, whether it's useful or not. Snyder's view seems to be, "We contibuted to Medicare, we should spend it."
Walter Williams points out this piece of ridiculousness. Exxon was fined in 2009 a total of $600,000 for the deaths of birds which had contacted some of Exxon's pollutants. Yet, this nation's "wind farms" kill about 573,000 bird every year. Why doesn't the Justice Dept go after the wind farms? In fact, why has the wind farm industry been legally shielded from prosecution in this? And, why have the media been so silent on the wind farm "murders," when it was headlining the Exxon "murders?"
I came upon this quotation the other day, from the Roman Cato: "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." I immediately thought of all of the trivial halls or walls of fame, the teachers-of-the-year awards, etc. I don't know why, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw Cato's words.
How about if the kids and I have a dish of ice cream??????
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Principles
Ah, principles.... How often do they get in the way? The Detroit News has, forever I'd guess, railed against judicial activism, that is, "judge-made law." Judges are to interpret, not make, the law. Yet, last week a Wayne County judged ruled that Mike Duggan did not meet the residency requirements of the Detroit City Charter to run for mayor of Detroit. Duggan filed early, before his one-year residence in the city had transpired. The charter is clear and Duggan didn't meet the requirements. But the News, claiming among other things that the charter is a mess (regardless that it was approved by the voters of Detroit), thinks an appeals court should overturn the initial ruling, making Duggan eligible again. In other words, an appellate decision should, in this case, rule on what the law should say, not what it does say. Ordinarily, the News would be opposed, on principle, to its own views, but not this time. I guess it's whose ox is being gored. Partisanship should take precedence over principles. Darn principles, getting in the way again....
Why don't we abolish the IRS? Seriously. Why should there be an agency of the federal government, one that works for the people, be one that invokes fear, dread, and whatnot in citizens? Talk to someone who's faced an IRS audit. There's no reason for that. Besides, why not simplify the tax laws and code (Several thousand pages is a bit much, aren't they?)? Eliminate credits, deductions, and exemptions. Get rid of the "loopholes" and lower the tax rates. How about a flat rate? There'd be even less need for an IRS that strikes such fear and dread. How about a national sales tax?
I noted that All-Hall of Famer Lem Barney admitted in the newspaper that he tried to talk his son and grandson out of playing football. It's too dangerous, he said. It is too violent and the head injuries, not to mention others, are not worth the risk. He suggested that if something isn't done to minimize such injuries, football may be a thing of the past within 20 years. Hmmm......
Why has the Obama Administration sent aid to the rebels in Syria? No matter who wins over there--the ones we armed or the ones we didn't--the US will be hated and treated with scorn. Don't those supposedly intelligent people pay attention? How have Iraq, Afghanistan (And we're still there! What happens the instant we leave?), Egypt, Libya, and who knows where else worked out for us? Perhaps Clinton was right, "What difference does it make?"
Speaking of the Obama Administration, who can possibly trust it or defend it, except perhaps for the most devoted sycophants/bobbleheads? Justice Dept scandals, IRS targeting, State Dept blatant lies and incompetence--wiretaps, e-mail snooping, who knows what else? Where are the LameStream Media? They were all over Nixon, rightfully so. Where are our 21st Century Woodwards and Bernsteins? Oh, everyone is on break or vacation? OK. And I forgot, "But Bush lied......"
I think that church sign of a few weeks ago lied. "It will all make sense some day." I don't think so.
Why don't we abolish the IRS? Seriously. Why should there be an agency of the federal government, one that works for the people, be one that invokes fear, dread, and whatnot in citizens? Talk to someone who's faced an IRS audit. There's no reason for that. Besides, why not simplify the tax laws and code (Several thousand pages is a bit much, aren't they?)? Eliminate credits, deductions, and exemptions. Get rid of the "loopholes" and lower the tax rates. How about a flat rate? There'd be even less need for an IRS that strikes such fear and dread. How about a national sales tax?
I noted that All-Hall of Famer Lem Barney admitted in the newspaper that he tried to talk his son and grandson out of playing football. It's too dangerous, he said. It is too violent and the head injuries, not to mention others, are not worth the risk. He suggested that if something isn't done to minimize such injuries, football may be a thing of the past within 20 years. Hmmm......
Why has the Obama Administration sent aid to the rebels in Syria? No matter who wins over there--the ones we armed or the ones we didn't--the US will be hated and treated with scorn. Don't those supposedly intelligent people pay attention? How have Iraq, Afghanistan (And we're still there! What happens the instant we leave?), Egypt, Libya, and who knows where else worked out for us? Perhaps Clinton was right, "What difference does it make?"
Speaking of the Obama Administration, who can possibly trust it or defend it, except perhaps for the most devoted sycophants/bobbleheads? Justice Dept scandals, IRS targeting, State Dept blatant lies and incompetence--wiretaps, e-mail snooping, who knows what else? Where are the LameStream Media? They were all over Nixon, rightfully so. Where are our 21st Century Woodwards and Bernsteins? Oh, everyone is on break or vacation? OK. And I forgot, "But Bush lied......"
I think that church sign of a few weeks ago lied. "It will all make sense some day." I don't think so.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Jobs
No, not "Steve," but work.....
Still smarting over "just a secretary," I have thought of which of many jobs--full- and part-time--I've had that I've enjoyed the most--and least.
I think my favorite was my road construction job. It was physical and it was outside. I liked the work and the guys with whom I worked. Granted, the most I ever worked there was six or so months at a time since it was a summer job. But it, I think, was my favorite. I still can drive past places down in Detroit and say, "I helped to pave that road for the first time" or "We widened that one" or "That's where I was when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon."
My dad made me quit that job. Back then, guys listened to their fathers. After graduation, I was offered a full-time position with the construction crew. I jumped at it and when I told my parents, my father said, "No! I didn't send you to college to work construction" or something of that nature. So, there went my construction job. Would I have like it for 30 or 35 years, esp as I got older? I don't know, but I still have enjoyed physical labor, such as working in the yard.
I also enjoyed my college job--working in the dining hall. Of course, the work wasn't very demanding, physically or otherwise, except for Sun brunches after a tough Sat night! I was with many of my buddies, who also worked, and those who didn't usually came in to eat. My favorite part was working the large, industrial-size dishwasher. There was a "front-end" job and a "back-end" job. Sometimes, esp for that Sun brunch when some scheduled workers didn't show up, I'd work both. And, later during my senior year when I was the "headwaiter," sort of the boss, I'd work it, too, if needed. What a great day! Go to classes, then head to the dining hall for work (beginning at 85 cents an hour!). After, it was mosey down for rugby or baseball practice. Then, it was dinner, goofing around with the guys for an hour or two. Library time was next. If I was lucky, the cute girls were in the newspaper/magazine room and I could go in and shyly flirt. My day was made if they said "Hello" and talked a bit. Then, after about four hours of library time, it was back to the room. If hungry, it was pizza or a grinder from Mr. Bell's, while we listened to the campus radio sports show. We listened because M-Th there was a sports quiz and there were quite a few campus "teams" competing to see who'd win after whatever time it was.
I worked in the foundry at Ford's, but didn't like it at all. Oh, I made good money, great money in fact. Straight-time, with no OT, was more than 50% more than my first teaching job. That is, I took a sizable pay cut to teach. I foundry work was hard, but that wasn't the problem. I didn't mind the work. It was the conditions. It was dirty! Soot everywhere. I coudn't wear my contact lenses, even after work or on Sundays--we worked ten hours on Sat, too. I remember always seeming to have grit in my mouth; even mouthwash didn't get rid of it. Fortunately, I worked there only about three months. I remember because I just qualified for the health, eye, dental insurance plans and had full union dues taken from my paycheck. But I was offered my first teaching job and took it--let's just say with the strong recommendation that I do so from my father. He didn't have to push that one very hard, though.
I also enjoyed officiating basketball--most of the time. It was great to have two good teams, a lot of fun for me as well as the players. I most often worked with a good buddy of mine and we developed a system where we had a good idea of where each of us would be, what we'd call, etc. It was sort of ESPN between us. It didn't matter if it was two good teams in the state tournament or during the regular season or if it was two good jr high teams. Those games were fun. Now, lousy teams with lousy coaches weren't a lot of fun. The coaches were lousy, but didn't know it, and if they were losing (and being lousy coaches, what do you think their teams were doing?), they'd always blame us. "Call it tighter!" "You're calling too much." Well, "tighter" meant call it "tighter" on the other team, not his, and so on.
Coaching? As much as I enjoyed playing sports, from just goofing around as a kid to the pretty competitive levels later on, I never really liked coaching. I liked the guys I coached with. But the actual coaching? Let's just say I didn't live and die high school football and baseball. Friday nights in football, though, with the stands full, was a trip. I never got tired of that. But I didn't care much for practices. Baseball was different. I didn't care for the games, esp doubleheaders, but enjoyed most of the practices, where I could actually do something, I guess.
Writing? I have enjoyed it most of the time. Sometimes I take on too many assignments and don't care much for rushing to meet deadlines/due dates. But it's fun to put things on paper--in print or online. Funny, invariably, the columns and articles I've written that I think are the best, at least they are my favorites, get little response. The ones that I think are pretty mediocre, at best, often are the ones which gather more compliments. That happens a lot.
My ideal job?????? I'm not sure. Maybe a research librarian? Maybe a lawyer who maps strategies, but doesn't actually argue cases. The guy who names flavors of salad dressings, yogurts, etc.? Now, that might be a good one.
Still smarting over "just a secretary," I have thought of which of many jobs--full- and part-time--I've had that I've enjoyed the most--and least.
I think my favorite was my road construction job. It was physical and it was outside. I liked the work and the guys with whom I worked. Granted, the most I ever worked there was six or so months at a time since it was a summer job. But it, I think, was my favorite. I still can drive past places down in Detroit and say, "I helped to pave that road for the first time" or "We widened that one" or "That's where I was when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon."
My dad made me quit that job. Back then, guys listened to their fathers. After graduation, I was offered a full-time position with the construction crew. I jumped at it and when I told my parents, my father said, "No! I didn't send you to college to work construction" or something of that nature. So, there went my construction job. Would I have like it for 30 or 35 years, esp as I got older? I don't know, but I still have enjoyed physical labor, such as working in the yard.
I also enjoyed my college job--working in the dining hall. Of course, the work wasn't very demanding, physically or otherwise, except for Sun brunches after a tough Sat night! I was with many of my buddies, who also worked, and those who didn't usually came in to eat. My favorite part was working the large, industrial-size dishwasher. There was a "front-end" job and a "back-end" job. Sometimes, esp for that Sun brunch when some scheduled workers didn't show up, I'd work both. And, later during my senior year when I was the "headwaiter," sort of the boss, I'd work it, too, if needed. What a great day! Go to classes, then head to the dining hall for work (beginning at 85 cents an hour!). After, it was mosey down for rugby or baseball practice. Then, it was dinner, goofing around with the guys for an hour or two. Library time was next. If I was lucky, the cute girls were in the newspaper/magazine room and I could go in and shyly flirt. My day was made if they said "Hello" and talked a bit. Then, after about four hours of library time, it was back to the room. If hungry, it was pizza or a grinder from Mr. Bell's, while we listened to the campus radio sports show. We listened because M-Th there was a sports quiz and there were quite a few campus "teams" competing to see who'd win after whatever time it was.
I worked in the foundry at Ford's, but didn't like it at all. Oh, I made good money, great money in fact. Straight-time, with no OT, was more than 50% more than my first teaching job. That is, I took a sizable pay cut to teach. I foundry work was hard, but that wasn't the problem. I didn't mind the work. It was the conditions. It was dirty! Soot everywhere. I coudn't wear my contact lenses, even after work or on Sundays--we worked ten hours on Sat, too. I remember always seeming to have grit in my mouth; even mouthwash didn't get rid of it. Fortunately, I worked there only about three months. I remember because I just qualified for the health, eye, dental insurance plans and had full union dues taken from my paycheck. But I was offered my first teaching job and took it--let's just say with the strong recommendation that I do so from my father. He didn't have to push that one very hard, though.
I also enjoyed officiating basketball--most of the time. It was great to have two good teams, a lot of fun for me as well as the players. I most often worked with a good buddy of mine and we developed a system where we had a good idea of where each of us would be, what we'd call, etc. It was sort of ESPN between us. It didn't matter if it was two good teams in the state tournament or during the regular season or if it was two good jr high teams. Those games were fun. Now, lousy teams with lousy coaches weren't a lot of fun. The coaches were lousy, but didn't know it, and if they were losing (and being lousy coaches, what do you think their teams were doing?), they'd always blame us. "Call it tighter!" "You're calling too much." Well, "tighter" meant call it "tighter" on the other team, not his, and so on.
Coaching? As much as I enjoyed playing sports, from just goofing around as a kid to the pretty competitive levels later on, I never really liked coaching. I liked the guys I coached with. But the actual coaching? Let's just say I didn't live and die high school football and baseball. Friday nights in football, though, with the stands full, was a trip. I never got tired of that. But I didn't care much for practices. Baseball was different. I didn't care for the games, esp doubleheaders, but enjoyed most of the practices, where I could actually do something, I guess.
Writing? I have enjoyed it most of the time. Sometimes I take on too many assignments and don't care much for rushing to meet deadlines/due dates. But it's fun to put things on paper--in print or online. Funny, invariably, the columns and articles I've written that I think are the best, at least they are my favorites, get little response. The ones that I think are pretty mediocre, at best, often are the ones which gather more compliments. That happens a lot.
My ideal job?????? I'm not sure. Maybe a research librarian? Maybe a lawyer who maps strategies, but doesn't actually argue cases. The guy who names flavors of salad dressings, yogurts, etc.? Now, that might be a good one.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Pizza Rolls and Fish Sticks
Why do kids like pizza rolls, those frozen ones? Beats me. But fish sticks I understand; I like them, too. I'm very fond of peanut butter and jelly, maybe more than the kids are.
I still like Campbell's chicken noodle soup and the boxed kinds, too. I've sort of lost my liking for Chief [sic] Boy R Dee stuff.
In college, I started having spaghetti sprinkled with grated Parmesan cheese, just that. No butter, no anything else. It likely began because it was cheap and easy to make. But I really like it. Bopp does, too, and we just have our own "code" for it--"Angel hair." One of my friends likes spaghetti with garlic and olive oil, which my dad ate often, too. I'm not big on that--not the olive oil and not the garlic.
K would say it's hard to find a food I don't care for, but I know a few. I'm not fond of chili and any kind of peppers (green, red, etc.) I can do without. Vegies are mostly because they are good for me, not because I like them. In restaurants, when a choice of "Soup or Salad," almost everyone with whom we eat opts for the salad; I prefer soup. Salads are, to me, vastly overrated, esp if there are tomatoes in them.
I did have a local pizza last night that I though was very good--an oddity finding a good local pizza. It had real pepperoni, not the salami-style. And the sauce tasted like something more than ketchup. Unfortunately, Bopper and a friend who was spending the night liked it, too, as did K. So, I ended up with a single slice, which is probably OK. I'll get it again, though.
I am looking forward to next month's visit to Matt in Vegas. Of course, I want to see him--and Linda and Roscoe. But we always find good places to eat, some old favorites on the Strip and off, and often new places recommended by Matt and/or Linda (or her relatives). And, Bopper will be with me on this, the buffets are great!
Food--simple or otherwise, one of the great joys of life.
I still like Campbell's chicken noodle soup and the boxed kinds, too. I've sort of lost my liking for Chief [sic] Boy R Dee stuff.
In college, I started having spaghetti sprinkled with grated Parmesan cheese, just that. No butter, no anything else. It likely began because it was cheap and easy to make. But I really like it. Bopp does, too, and we just have our own "code" for it--"Angel hair." One of my friends likes spaghetti with garlic and olive oil, which my dad ate often, too. I'm not big on that--not the olive oil and not the garlic.
K would say it's hard to find a food I don't care for, but I know a few. I'm not fond of chili and any kind of peppers (green, red, etc.) I can do without. Vegies are mostly because they are good for me, not because I like them. In restaurants, when a choice of "Soup or Salad," almost everyone with whom we eat opts for the salad; I prefer soup. Salads are, to me, vastly overrated, esp if there are tomatoes in them.
I did have a local pizza last night that I though was very good--an oddity finding a good local pizza. It had real pepperoni, not the salami-style. And the sauce tasted like something more than ketchup. Unfortunately, Bopper and a friend who was spending the night liked it, too, as did K. So, I ended up with a single slice, which is probably OK. I'll get it again, though.
I am looking forward to next month's visit to Matt in Vegas. Of course, I want to see him--and Linda and Roscoe. But we always find good places to eat, some old favorites on the Strip and off, and often new places recommended by Matt and/or Linda (or her relatives). And, Bopper will be with me on this, the buffets are great!
Food--simple or otherwise, one of the great joys of life.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Sat Thoughts
I see Tom Watkins is at it again. "The Chinese are coming, The Chinese are coming" echoes many of his previous and incessant views that the Chinese are our "friends." Well, at least he talks about his "friends" the Chinese. I will admit I didn't finish the article--I couldn't. But I wonder why in the world would Americans trade, have any commercial relations with the Chinese?
Think of the glee US companies (think US carmakers) exhibit when they announce new factories in China. Think of the accolades our state governors have received for opening trade with the Chinese and Michigan. Money means more than anything. (I'm still glad it doesn't to me.)
OK, call me naive (I've been called worse, much worse, and likely deservedly so in some instances). I know it's about money. People make money by investing. People pay less for goods made in China, although the quality reflects the lower price in most cases. And, I'm sure I also buy, knowingly or not, Chinese goods.
Still, it rankles me to see Watkins shilling for his "friends." Don't the Chinese cheat? Don't they steal our ideas, industrial espionage or whatever it's called? Don't they hack into our computers, our commercial ones, our government/defense ones? Don't the Chinese have one of the worst records toward human rights? (As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Don't those nefarious actions mean anything? I know, I know...money.
Whatever happened to "the city on the hill?" What about "the last best hope of mankind?" OK, I guess I am naive for still thinking that ideas and principles still should mean something. How can anyone call "friends" those who treat their people the way China treats its people? Maybe there's a reason Watkins is a former state superintendent of schools, disregarding my disdain for anyone who has risen to such a position.
So, the President is defending, even justifying the telephone and e-mail surveillance the federal government has been conducting on us, US citizens. Where is the "outrage?" Oh, I forgot. When we claim to be "outraged," we are just kidding or, at most, "outraged" for only a few days. The government which has made nice with nations that sponsor and support Islamic terrorism is more worried about me and about my fellow Americans. Haven't Americans read Brave New World, 1984, It Can't Happen Here? No, those aren't video games.
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Think of the glee US companies (think US carmakers) exhibit when they announce new factories in China. Think of the accolades our state governors have received for opening trade with the Chinese and Michigan. Money means more than anything. (I'm still glad it doesn't to me.)
OK, call me naive (I've been called worse, much worse, and likely deservedly so in some instances). I know it's about money. People make money by investing. People pay less for goods made in China, although the quality reflects the lower price in most cases. And, I'm sure I also buy, knowingly or not, Chinese goods.
Still, it rankles me to see Watkins shilling for his "friends." Don't the Chinese cheat? Don't they steal our ideas, industrial espionage or whatever it's called? Don't they hack into our computers, our commercial ones, our government/defense ones? Don't the Chinese have one of the worst records toward human rights? (As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Don't those nefarious actions mean anything? I know, I know...money.
Whatever happened to "the city on the hill?" What about "the last best hope of mankind?" OK, I guess I am naive for still thinking that ideas and principles still should mean something. How can anyone call "friends" those who treat their people the way China treats its people? Maybe there's a reason Watkins is a former state superintendent of schools, disregarding my disdain for anyone who has risen to such a position.
So, the President is defending, even justifying the telephone and e-mail surveillance the federal government has been conducting on us, US citizens. Where is the "outrage?" Oh, I forgot. When we claim to be "outraged," we are just kidding or, at most, "outraged" for only a few days. The government which has made nice with nations that sponsor and support Islamic terrorism is more worried about me and about my fellow Americans. Haven't Americans read Brave New World, 1984, It Can't Happen Here? No, those aren't video games.
I know, I know..."But Bush lied."
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs
I passed a sign outside a church the other day. It read, "Someday, it will all make sense." I hope so and I hope it "makes sense" quickly.
John Dingell is "celebrating," along with many others I guess, his 57 years in the US House of Representatives. That's the longest tenure in Congressional history, surpassing Robert Byrd of WVa, I think. Dingell already held the record for longevity in the House. 57 years...... I wonder, is that worth "celebrating?" After all, as one of my college professors told me when he retired after 49 years of teaching (in response to my query, "Why not go another year to make it 5o years?"), "It's only a number." And, it represents a guy who's lived at the public trough for almost six decades. Yet, when a candidate for the House last year was identified, it was always as "a reindeer farmer" or "one who plays Santa Claus at Christmas," as if one who earns his money is less noble than one who is so good at spending other people's money. Such a lengthy stay seems to fly in the face of one the Democratic Party's (of which Dingell is a member) icons, Andrew Jackson. He believed in the Spoils System. Of course, he wanted to reward supporters and loyal party members with government jobs, but he also thought it would allow more citizens to become active in their government. (There I go again, forgetting that history isn't important.) Why, in certain cases, do we disparage one who is "a career politician," yet, in this case in particular, "celebrate" him? Note, I have raised any questions as to the harm Dingell might have done in those 57 years. Remember, he's the one who so proudly claimed to be an author of ObamaCare, but never ever saw anything wrong with later admitting he didn't know what was in it. Remember, he's the one whose campaign successful disparaged as filthy rich, not worthy of being a representative of the people, one of his election opponents who happened to be "rich" because he was a very successful cardiologist. Gee, a cardiologist? Isn't that a guy who saves people's lives? So, it was a bad thing that this guy earned a lot of money by saving almost a thousand lives? And I wonder how many times in those almost 60 years Dingell has voted for a pay raise for himself. It all reminds me of "celebrating," say, a coach who's won a lot of games, but in a lot of years.
I heard on the radio the other day that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 42%. Huh? How can it possibly be that high? I know, I know, "But Bush lied...."
Can anyone believe that none of these scandals breaking in DC, surrounding the Obama administration, didn't reach the White House? Apparently a lot of people do believe that. Of course, Obama can't be touched for a variety of reasons. But there's always the throwback, "They all did it." "They," of course, refers to Presidents (or politicians in general) and "it" refers to illegal or immoral activities. That works, too, esp for certain favored politicians. It did for Bill Clinton--and, of course, as usual, "They all did it" is a lie. But what's a little dishonesty among friends? And, to cite Alcie Hastings, in a different context, "Hey, we're tryin' to do something here!"
Why is there no "outrage" (a completely overused word, one that has become trite, almost void of its meaning) over gasoline prices? As I noted to one last night, one in the industry who cited the problems at a refinery in Indiana, "Isn't it the government that won't allow new refineries to be built?" Yeah, there's your John Dingell and his ilk for you. Let's "celebrate" that, restrictions on refineries, drilling, pipelines, etc. so that gas is "outrageously" expensive. (And let's not forgot all the US dollars going to the Arab nations, Venezuela, and our other oil-producing friends.)
So the Emergency Manager in Detroit is entertaining the idea of selling off artwork at the DIA to pay Detroit's creditors? And there is talk of privatizing Belle Isle to build condos, hotels, etc. for the same reason. Now, I'm all in favor of Detroit paying its debts, all in favor of people getting money that's owed to them. But to use the DIA and Belle Isle, and what else?, to do so seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, in other words, not just sacreligious, but stupid. Can the EM be serious or is he just posturing, perhaps intending to intimidate or threaten? Of course, to a numbers guy like Governor Snyder, it's likely, "Hey, what's the big deal?"
I think politics, like teaching, involves both art and science. A good teacher must know his/her subject. (And, as I've pointed out many times, there are far too many teachers out there who don't know their subjects.) But, good teaching also involves communication, standards, etc. (And my views on the current state of teaching, as I've also noted, are similar to above.) Todays' politicians lack art and science or both.
So, it is firmly established that the most important factor in quality education is a good teachers. Both left and right agree on that one. Then why the big deal over the Core Curriculum and the standards it involves? The Core does nothing about acquiring good teachers. I found it interesting, but also disheartening to hear a radio host have on a guest who said the key to improving education is to attract "really smart people." I agree with that and, at least at the time, the host did, too. Yet, subsequently, in the past couple of months, he's been all abou the Core, forgetting (perhaps willfully?) about "really smart people."
What's with this baseball thing, "pitch count?" How many games have been lost because MLB managers blindly adhere to "pitch count?" OK, with the million dollar contracts, care must be taken with pitchers. But don't these guys train year-round now? Don't they have personal trainers as well as team trainers, strength coaches, etc.? Aren't they bigger and strong, better athletes than in the past? Aren't they in better shape? Then why can't they throw more pitches? I suppose it would be one thing if a team has a Mariano Rivera (sp?) to bring in at the end of a one- or two-run game. But if some guy has just retired 17 in a row, if Justin Verlander is throwing, etc., why take out that guy for someone just as likely to blow the lead as hold it? I'm pretty sure, for instance, a batter would be sighing a great deal of relief, thanking the Tiger manager for removing Scherzer or Verlander or one of the other starters who has slammed the door the whole game and bringing in a bullpen guy. If the starter is visibly tired, has lost his stuff, is getting hit, that's another thing entirely. But "pitch count?" How did the overweight, out-of-shape Mickey Lolich (among others) throw 150 and even 200 pitches a game--for 20 seasons?
Yep, there's far too much out there that doesn't make sense to me.
John Dingell is "celebrating," along with many others I guess, his 57 years in the US House of Representatives. That's the longest tenure in Congressional history, surpassing Robert Byrd of WVa, I think. Dingell already held the record for longevity in the House. 57 years...... I wonder, is that worth "celebrating?" After all, as one of my college professors told me when he retired after 49 years of teaching (in response to my query, "Why not go another year to make it 5o years?"), "It's only a number." And, it represents a guy who's lived at the public trough for almost six decades. Yet, when a candidate for the House last year was identified, it was always as "a reindeer farmer" or "one who plays Santa Claus at Christmas," as if one who earns his money is less noble than one who is so good at spending other people's money. Such a lengthy stay seems to fly in the face of one the Democratic Party's (of which Dingell is a member) icons, Andrew Jackson. He believed in the Spoils System. Of course, he wanted to reward supporters and loyal party members with government jobs, but he also thought it would allow more citizens to become active in their government. (There I go again, forgetting that history isn't important.) Why, in certain cases, do we disparage one who is "a career politician," yet, in this case in particular, "celebrate" him? Note, I have raised any questions as to the harm Dingell might have done in those 57 years. Remember, he's the one who so proudly claimed to be an author of ObamaCare, but never ever saw anything wrong with later admitting he didn't know what was in it. Remember, he's the one whose campaign successful disparaged as filthy rich, not worthy of being a representative of the people, one of his election opponents who happened to be "rich" because he was a very successful cardiologist. Gee, a cardiologist? Isn't that a guy who saves people's lives? So, it was a bad thing that this guy earned a lot of money by saving almost a thousand lives? And I wonder how many times in those almost 60 years Dingell has voted for a pay raise for himself. It all reminds me of "celebrating," say, a coach who's won a lot of games, but in a lot of years.
I heard on the radio the other day that Obama's approval rating has dropped to 42%. Huh? How can it possibly be that high? I know, I know, "But Bush lied...."
Can anyone believe that none of these scandals breaking in DC, surrounding the Obama administration, didn't reach the White House? Apparently a lot of people do believe that. Of course, Obama can't be touched for a variety of reasons. But there's always the throwback, "They all did it." "They," of course, refers to Presidents (or politicians in general) and "it" refers to illegal or immoral activities. That works, too, esp for certain favored politicians. It did for Bill Clinton--and, of course, as usual, "They all did it" is a lie. But what's a little dishonesty among friends? And, to cite Alcie Hastings, in a different context, "Hey, we're tryin' to do something here!"
Why is there no "outrage" (a completely overused word, one that has become trite, almost void of its meaning) over gasoline prices? As I noted to one last night, one in the industry who cited the problems at a refinery in Indiana, "Isn't it the government that won't allow new refineries to be built?" Yeah, there's your John Dingell and his ilk for you. Let's "celebrate" that, restrictions on refineries, drilling, pipelines, etc. so that gas is "outrageously" expensive. (And let's not forgot all the US dollars going to the Arab nations, Venezuela, and our other oil-producing friends.)
So the Emergency Manager in Detroit is entertaining the idea of selling off artwork at the DIA to pay Detroit's creditors? And there is talk of privatizing Belle Isle to build condos, hotels, etc. for the same reason. Now, I'm all in favor of Detroit paying its debts, all in favor of people getting money that's owed to them. But to use the DIA and Belle Isle, and what else?, to do so seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, in other words, not just sacreligious, but stupid. Can the EM be serious or is he just posturing, perhaps intending to intimidate or threaten? Of course, to a numbers guy like Governor Snyder, it's likely, "Hey, what's the big deal?"
I think politics, like teaching, involves both art and science. A good teacher must know his/her subject. (And, as I've pointed out many times, there are far too many teachers out there who don't know their subjects.) But, good teaching also involves communication, standards, etc. (And my views on the current state of teaching, as I've also noted, are similar to above.) Todays' politicians lack art and science or both.
So, it is firmly established that the most important factor in quality education is a good teachers. Both left and right agree on that one. Then why the big deal over the Core Curriculum and the standards it involves? The Core does nothing about acquiring good teachers. I found it interesting, but also disheartening to hear a radio host have on a guest who said the key to improving education is to attract "really smart people." I agree with that and, at least at the time, the host did, too. Yet, subsequently, in the past couple of months, he's been all abou the Core, forgetting (perhaps willfully?) about "really smart people."
What's with this baseball thing, "pitch count?" How many games have been lost because MLB managers blindly adhere to "pitch count?" OK, with the million dollar contracts, care must be taken with pitchers. But don't these guys train year-round now? Don't they have personal trainers as well as team trainers, strength coaches, etc.? Aren't they bigger and strong, better athletes than in the past? Aren't they in better shape? Then why can't they throw more pitches? I suppose it would be one thing if a team has a Mariano Rivera (sp?) to bring in at the end of a one- or two-run game. But if some guy has just retired 17 in a row, if Justin Verlander is throwing, etc., why take out that guy for someone just as likely to blow the lead as hold it? I'm pretty sure, for instance, a batter would be sighing a great deal of relief, thanking the Tiger manager for removing Scherzer or Verlander or one of the other starters who has slammed the door the whole game and bringing in a bullpen guy. If the starter is visibly tired, has lost his stuff, is getting hit, that's another thing entirely. But "pitch count?" How did the overweight, out-of-shape Mickey Lolich (among others) throw 150 and even 200 pitches a game--for 20 seasons?
Yep, there's far too much out there that doesn't make sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
