Detroit Bailout?

Apparently, it's not coming, at least not from the feds.  I suppose we could debate whether Detroit should get some federal help in bailing itself out--if it can.  I'm not sure where I stand on it, either.

One, I'm generally opposed to bailouts--public or private.  I don't like that the government can pick and choose who to help and who to let drown.  There's far too much room for politics.  Two, Detroit, in many ways, made its own bed.  It played by the feds' rules, taking the "free money" and running with it.  Voters continued to elect corrupt or incompetent leaders, even when it was known they were incompetent or corrupt.  Lots of bad decisions, often dishonest ones, were made by lots of people.

Yet, at the same time, Detroit did play by the feds' rules.  Now, when those "rules" have helped lead to bankruptcy (among other things), the DC pols are abandoning the city.  Of course, it's not an election year, certainly not an election year with a close election looming.  Can you imagine the outcry if, say, W. Bush refused to offer aid to Detroit?

I know foreign aid comprises only a small percentage of the federal budget.  But doesn't anyone find it irksome that we can send billions--and recently--to Egypt, Syria, and the PLA (can you say "Hamas?), but can't find any money for Detroit?  Again, I'm not sure I'm advocating giving Detroit more federal dollars, but I don't like giving these other countries--more likely than not to stab us in the back at the nearest opportunity. And how many of these so-called "needy" Third World countries got that way because of corruption?!?!?! Does Joe Lunchbucket in Detroit deserve any less than anti-American Islamists in the Middle East?

In my history class, I teach about Detroit and environs as "The Arsenal of Democracy," which the likes of Stalin said won the Second World War.  I think a good case can be made for that.  So, if Detroit can help save the US, the US can't help save Detroit?

Still, they make it hard to be sympathetic.  Is it true that about 50% of a new stadium complex is going to be financed by public monies?  I keep getting conflicting stories.  In such a case, the millionaire/billionaire owners can foot the bill, can't they?

My heart aches for the wonderful city I once knew and enjoyed......

Teacher Evaluations

I see the newspapers are all agog over the proposed new teacher evaluations being considered by the state. I don't know the specifics, but I'm not sure I like what I do know.

First, half of the evaluations are based on administrator observations.  I guess someone has to "observe," but from my experiences, most administrators are not capable of effective evaluations/observations.  I've explained why often enough; there's not need to repeat myself.

Second, the evaluations are based on student performances.  This is silly for a variety of reasons.  So, a teacher who gets a class that is unable to read, write, and think and will be poorly evaluated if the students don't do well?  What's to prevent students from tanking on state tests to get even with teachers they don't like, that is, teachers who demand hard work and give low grades if it's not don't?  (And let's not pretend this won't happen.)  Even more, as usual, if performance is based on results on some test(s), teaching will become merely preparing for the test(s).  Of course it will.  If teachers' evaluations are largely determined by test results....yeah.  And most teachers don't have the courage to, en masse, stand up to such silliness.  And this leads to, not free thinking, but indoctrination.  Who will determine what's on the test?  Right...politicians and educators who want to curry favor from the politicians.

Quality education is not "Test!," "Test!," "Test!"  I've said all this before.  I understand why the public is dissatisfied with the schools and teachers.  Believe me, I know.  I worked with many teachers and administrators who deserve all the criticism leveled at education in general.  There have been so many silly and even stupid programs introduced to the schools--from "Self-concept" and "Values Clarification" to "Everyday Math" and "Diversity " ("All cultures and all people are deserving of respect and acceptance.") and everything in-between.  Standards and rigor all but disappeared and more recent teachers have been the products of those lack of standards and rigor, so......  In many ways, teachers and education get what they deserve.  (I find it puzzling why so many people take aim at teachers, often rightfully so, but why most administrators seem immune from criticism.  They are equally incompetent--or often more so.  Beats me.)

I laugh when I hear businessmen and people working in the private sector claim that if they "were ineffective in my job, I'd be fired in a moment."  Bah, that's a crock.  For a long time I have been convinced that many businesses, esp small businesses, succeed only because of inertia.  Have you noticed the "outstanding" employees at your local fast food place, your grocery store, etc.?  OK, maybe that's different and I'm not trying to run anyone down, but how many of them are "effective?"  Don't you always count your change?  Don't you always double check your order?  Gee, how effective were the banks and other lenders?  How effective were the auto executives?  How effective is Wall Street?  Without their buddies the politicians covering for them, well, maybe we could see how effective they really are/were.

There's a lot wrong with education, but current knee-jerk reactions won't do anything to improve it.  I don't think the solution is all that difficult, at least the framework for improvement.  It's the implementation of the solution, which is likely to encounter all sorts of resistance from all sorts of people.  I think it's pretty easy to identify quality teachers, if the evaluator is knowledgeable and forthright.  Most people know who their best teachers were--not necessarily their favorites, but their best ones.  Maybe I'm naive in that.  (I just read a review of one of my Amherst professor's books.  I didn't like him, for several reasons, but admit he was a pretty good teacher, if only because of the incisive comments and questions he posed in class and on returned papers.  Again, he was never one of my favorites, but he was good and I was lucky to have had him.)

Again, maybe I'm coming from another universe, but our top colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Princeton, and, yes, Williams and Amherst are never criticized.  In fact, they are touted as the best in the world.  Let's toss in public universities such as U Virgina, U North Carolina, and our own U of Michigan, among others.  Top foreign students leave their countries to study at our best schools.  We know why they are "the best."  Why can't we apply what we do there to how we teach at lower levels?  If, as I'm sure people will think, we "can't do that because these are different situations," maybe we need to ask, "Why are they different?"  Then we can address the "differences."

Rainy Day Musings

A fan in Milwaukee was asked to leave the stadium when she appeared wearing a tee shirt that she had changed from "Braun" to "Fraud."  Way to go MLB, put your head in the sand again.  When the druggies were using PEDs to put up great numbers and put more fans in the seats, MLB (the league and the owners) looked the other way.

Interesting that this year is the first year since 1965 (I think) when no living former player is going to be inducted into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.  Several with Hall statistics were rejected by baseball writers because of their association with PEDs.  Good for the writers.  Shame on MLB for its inaction for so many years.

Yet, I shook my head at the story's claim that baseball fans are livid over Braun's lying and deception.  Are they really?  I don't know, but I do know very few people were upset over Bill Clinton's lying and deception. Oh, he was impeached, but I think the vast majority of Americans were of the opinion, "He didn't do anything wrong."  Of course, to most Americans, I am convinced, "character" no longer matters.

I see Miggy was just thrown out of the game for, well, it's hard to determine why.  He obviously wasn't too happy with the two strikes called on him.  And, to my view, neither was a strike.  Aren't these umpires supposed to be the best?  How did the guy miss not one, but two pitches?  Miggy didn't show up the umpire.  He wasn't demonstrative.  He just muttered.  And then he was run by the umpire--who, if he hadn't made such rotten calls, would not have created such a situation.  And, Cabrera didn't rant and rave.  In fact, I'll bet 99% or more of the fans didn't even know he said anything.

Now, Matt and Linda went down to the game.  I know if I had gone, I'd not be happy.  I think I'd ask for my money back.  Cabrera hitting is all I'd go to see.  No slam on the others, but I don't go to see them.  I go to see Miggy hit.  I don't know any of the Phillies' players, none of them.  So, because of his own lousy calls, an umpire throws out the player I specifically came to see?  Yeah, I'd want my money back.  It would be one thing if the calls were correct, but they weren't.  It would be one thing if Cabrera ranted and raved, but he didn't.

I've written about this before, but MLB has to do something about stuff like this.  I'm not saying umpires should protect superstars like the NBA protects its superstars--not at all.  I am saying something like what happened today shouldn't happen.  It's too bad there's no ratings/marketing machine on my boob tube.  It would be noted that I have turned off the Tigers' game.

I also see that John Mayberry, Jr. plays for the Phillies.  I don't know about him and didn't even know he was in the Bigs before yesterday.  But the name rang a bell, a clear one, so I did some research.  He's the son of John Mayberry (no kidding Ron?).  I played against John Sr way back when on the Detroit sandlots. Oh, he was a good player, a great player.  Many times we outfielders were chasing down his drives.  He was huge back then, 6'3" or taller and about 220 or more pounds.  I remember he was a giant.  And, one time he pitched against us!  Talk about taking a couple of gulps before getting in the batter's box when seeing him on the hill.  And why I remember this I don't know, but I did get three hits against him one game.  It might be I remembered because John was a lefthander and I batted lefthanded.  Maybe that's why, I don't know.  John later had a nice, long career in the Majors.

Late Start

I laughed when I read an article this AM that showed high school students perform much better when they start school later in the AM.  Almost half of US high schools start before 8 AM, some much earlier than that. Only 15% start at 8:30 or later, despite mounting evidence (and anecdotally known for years!) that students are more alert (biorhythms?), have better attendance and fewer tardies, are better prepared, show less depression, and perform better.  Hmmm......  What's not to like?

Many school districts cite earlier starts because of logistics.  It's easier to arrange bus/transportation schedules, esp for multi-tiered districts.  After school activities are easier to schedule.  And, of course, jobs--what about student jobs?

So, let's dispense with "We're here for the students" and "Education is the most important thing."  Neither of these statements is true and never has been true.  It's what's been easier and "better" for administrators and teachers.

And, yet, we still have the same people (or same types of people) running our schools, making claims about improving education.  Bah!

BTW, I noticed that, for US taxpayers to get all of their money back from just the GM bailout, GM stock would have to triple its current price.  And, GM stock has already increased 25% from back when.  What are the odds of that happening?  Was the bailout a good thing?  There are lots of demerits.  More later......

Watergate, redux?

Granted, I surely don't have all the answers--nor does anyone--yet.  The investigation is ongoing and, likely, just beginning.  I'm talking of the IRS scandal, which seems to be growing by the day.

Like Benghazi, the IRS is being covered up with lies, blatant lies.  (Benghazi, remember, was due to some unknown video on You Tube--well, that's what the Obama administration, including the President and Secretary of State, affirmed.  Other stooges were also sent out to peddle the lie, which is what it was.)  The IRS scandal was originally dismissed by the Obama-ites and their friends in the media as some rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati.  That, too, is a blatant lie as the mounting evidence is demonstrating.  Some of the Tea Party and conservative groups that were targeted received letters sent, not from Cincinnati, but other places such as Baltimore, not exactly a suburb of Cincinnati.  Testimony in Congress indicates that orders came from above.  In fact, it appears that, at least, the chief White House counsel was involved.  But, we'll see.

Ultimately, to me, the question harkens back to Watergate: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"  (That always seemed like two questions to me, but I suppose I quibble.)  Nixon was never proven to be initially involved in l'Affaire Watergate.  But, by the end, he was chin deep in it.

Nixon received everything he deserved, at least in my view.  I was one who was disappointed in President Ford's pardon.  But I admit now that I think Ford was wiser then than many/most of us were.  And, he paid the price for doing what was right, in large part costing him the election to Jimmy Carter.  How does one lose to Jimmy Carter?  We owe Gerald Ford and I hope history is kinder to him than voters were in '76.

But I think there's a substantive difference between Watergate and the IRS scandal.  Watergate involved a break-in (and subsequent dirty tricks) by Republican Party operatives against Democrats.  I'm not excusing any of this; it was reprehensible and, as I noted above, Nixon deserved what he got.  The IRS mess is much more troubling.

The IRS isn't an arm of a political party, but a part of the federal government.  It wasn't targeting another/an opposing political party, but American citizens.  I think there's a fundamental difference, using a political party for dirty tricks (Nixon involved in the cover-up) vs an already feared arm of the federal government to silence US citizen groups with views in opposition to the party in power.  The federal government was targeting Americans for their political views.

And, there's some preliminary word that the FBI had/has started its own investigation of the IRS.  I wonder if Congress can be trusted in its investigation.  Surely the media can't be trusted.

"First they came after the socialists, but I wasn't a socialist, so I said nothing......"

Stay tuned......

Shunning?

I see Stevie Wonder has said he won't perform in any state that has a "stand your ground" law.  That's fine and it's good to see him get involved.  I don't know anything about his other involvement, if any, or his financial activities--I know nothing of his personal life.

But I wonder (no pun intended) if will also refuse to perform in states or cities that have other undesirable (depending on one's views) laws or conditions.  For instance, will he refuse to perform in states which continue to encourage fatherless families by providing financial assistance to families abandoned by fathers instead of hunting down the deadbeats?  Will he refuse to perform in cities where schools do disservice to students?  Will he refuse to perform in cities with corrupt politicians whose actions and greed lead to poorer lives for citizens?

Yep, there's a lot more that can be done.  Why stop at "stand your ground?"

Technology

We've had some computer problems this past week.  What is it that is said about technology?  "Can't live with it; can't live without it."  Or, something like that.

I still dislike much of what technology leads people to do.  For instance, I think technology will diminish learning and teaching.  Online and virtual courses can't and won't measure up to face-to-face encounters with teachers.  And, if education is so much more important and vital than it used to be, why are we watering it down thus?  I can't stand seeing everyone, well almost everyone, on cell phones, yakking away at any and every place--grocery stores, restaurants, art fairs, even on lonely trails out in the woods.  And, if seems, if they aren't yakking, they are texting.  In my car, on my bike, out running, I am frequently endangered by people driving while they are talking on their cell phones or texting.  I received an e-mail last week with something I hadn't seen for a while. It was Einstein's lament, "I fear the day when technology overlaps with our humanity.  The world will only have a generation of idiots."  I'm not convinced he ever said or wrote that (but it's on the Internet!).  And I don't completely subscribe to it, but......

Still, technology has it's place and provides comfort and what have become necessities.  I know technology has saved lives, with medical advances, more and better information, phone calls, etc.  Certainly that's a good thing.  Being able to find one's way when lost is a plus.  It's said technology has made businesses more efficient, although I wonder how many man-hours are lost while people "play" on their computers instead of working.

It's the loss of "our humanity" that concerns me.  Was it Marshall McLuhan who said, "The medium is the message?"

This certainly isn't true in all cases, but consider what happened when doctors became specialists instead of the family doctors/general practitioners of the past.  Many of them, the new doctors, lost their abilities to communicate, to empathize with their patients.  They may be more skilled and maybe more knowledgeable, but they aren't better with people.

In education, I can't imagine any technology--films, videos, virtual whatevers--coming close to replicating most of the professors I had at Amherst.  Also consider the claims made by colleges and universities, made possible by technology, to "earn a four-year degree in a year and a half" or other such claims.  That can't be good, can it?  Who wants to be treated by a nurse who received four years of training in six months??????

That said, this past week I was lost for a few days without my computer and access to the Internet.  Fortunately, the kids had me going, there was the Ann Arbor Art Fair (Whew! It was hot, 95 degrees, with humididity to match!), some appointments, and a lot of yardwork that had gone untended (I finally got my mower running again).

To Consider

There's a reason I don't read the Detroit Free Press, unless necessary.  For instance, on Sundays, it's the only game in town (other than The Oakland Press, whose editorial section is quite weak).  I often disagreed with former editorial page editor Ron Dzwonkowski.  But he was thoughtful and reasoned.  One could disagree with him, yet still understand and respect his views.

(And here's a slam at the Detroit News.  (I guess I'm an equal opportunity critic?)  Always, it is opposing unions.  It was one of the biggest supporters of right-to-work.  That's fine; the News is entitled to its opinion.  But, gee, such collaboration/organization wasn't such a bad thing a couple decades ago with the Joint Operating Agreement--a successful attempt to bypass anti-monopoly laws.  That's why the FP is the only game in town on Sunday.)

Something's changed, though.  Again, harkening (another great word!) back to the recent FP editorial supporting President Obama's opinion article on climate change, both pieces lack any credibility whatsoever.  Anyone who buys into either is, as they say, "drinking the Kool-Aid."

First, "the scientific community speaks with one voice" is a blatant dishonesty.  No, it doesn't.  In fact, some who at one time supported "global warming" fears have since rescinded their views.  There's a reason "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change."  And that's because the scientific evidence doesn't support the "warming" fears or, at least, the man-made warming.

For another thing, the FP states, "Obama's willingness to circumnavigate Congress is a regrettable necessity."  Oh, really?  So, what other parts of the Constitution can be "willingly circumnavigated" as "regrettable necessities?"  How about the First Amendment, specifically the clause dealing with freedom of the press?  When newspapers print as "facts" things that aren't true (see above), perhaps they should lose their freedom?  No, I don't believe that, but apparently the FP does when it applies to others.

"Not gonna happen?"  Hmmm......  Tell that to the groups targeted by the IRS, NSA, Justice and Homeland Security departments.  Align that with Valerie Jarrett's infamous, "We won the election and we're coming after our opponents" comments.

It's a political, more than an environmental, issue.  The administration's environmental policies are tied with the, so far, failed renewable energy sources.  Note the billions of our tax dollars that have been wasted on solar and wind energy programs.  Yet, the arrogant elitists in DC know more than we do.  Besides, it's not their money.  Their money goes for parties, trips, golfing, big mansions, etc.  BTW, I can't believe that the departing Homeland Security Secretary, as inept as she proved to be there, is getting a job that pays her about three times as much.  And what is particularly grating is that her job is in education and I've written much about how too many people in education who make decisions shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.  The beat goes on......

And how naive can Obama be?!?!?!  The US has drastically cut its carbon emissions over the past dozen or more years.  Yet, where are the most emissions/pollution now originating?  China, India, and other burgeoning industrial nations.  Gee, do you think they'll switch over to wind and sun power because Obama thinks they should?  After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.  (OK, I'm being facetious.)  Yeah, right...I'm pretty sure they mock him, laugh at him.

The folks at the FP must also be naive.  They still, after all the erroneous information and outright lies coming out of the Obama administration, take everything he says as the Gospel truth.

As I've written before, it's a very dangerous precedent to accept "the ends justify the means."  Once it has been set, where's the limit?

Bean Balls

I'm not a fan of the NBA, for a variety of reasons.  One, from years back, was the favored treatment given the superstars.  Such favoritism--no fouls called on them, touch fouls called against them, no traveling or other violations, etc.--was blatant.  I don't watch now, but assume its the same now.  I understand, in a sense.  Fans come to see the stars--they need to be able to do their things, avoid fouling out, etc.  But I guess I say, if these guys are genuine superstars, then they should be able to play without fouling out, with other players guarding them properly, without taking extra steps, etc.  But I see what the NBA is trying to do.

I don't know for certain, but from what I've read and what some folks have told me, other teams seem to be throwing at Tiger batters, at least brushing them back.  Apparently a big brouhaha broke out the other day and, if the Det News Tiger beat writer was right, the umpires were wrong in that brush-back incident.  But I guess there's another angle, one that smacks of what I don't like about the NBA.  Perhaps MLB needs to "protect" its superstars, not by giving them extra breaks, but coming down hard with penalties for throwing at batters.  I think it's sometimes a touchy thing, determining if a pitcher is deliberately throwing at a hitter.  But......

I have tickets for several games coming up, planning on taking Matt and Bopper to some games.  I will enjoy the time with them.  But, if, say, Miguel Cabrera is hit with a pitch and is injured, forced to miss one of the games I attend, I won't be happy, not at all.  (Bopper is watching the Tigers now and two of them hit back-to-back HRs, but Cabrera's lineout to CF was hit harder than either HR!)  I go to the games, other than to be with my son and grandson, to see Cabrera hit.  If he's not in the line-up, I am very disappointed.  Pitches close to Miggy' head need to be addressed.

Neopolitan

Janet Napolitano is leaving Homeland Security.  She's taking a job as head of the University of California system, a pay increase of triple.  Several thoughts......

Is this another instance of the rats jumping the sinking ship?  Several US Senators and Congressmen have already decided not to run for re-election.  Hillary Clinton bailed out, after her incredibly stupid comment, "What difference does it make?" in reference to the Benghazi deaths.  Who's next?

Napolitano headed an incredibly inept Homeland Security Dept.  She showed why people questioned her qualifications for the job.  In fact, she demonstrated why she should never have been appointed in the first place--or any place.

Let's see, the scandals are mounting.  How many lie at her feet?  Get out while the gettin's good?

Great......  Another instance where "anybody can do education."  What experience does Napolitano have in the schools, in education--any at all?  Well, she presumably went to school, so she must know all there is to know about education, right?  Isn't that the prevailing attitude among the public at large, not to mention our politicians and businessmen:  anyone can teach?

How typical of our system!  Do a lousy job, demonstrate dishonesty or incompetence, and then get rewarded with a job that pays even more, a job coming from taxpayers' monies at that!  Ah, what a country!

I know, I know..."But Bush lied."

Now what?

Gasoline prices are up again--more than 30 cents in the past week in our area.  What's the deal this time?  The most recent increase a few weeks ago was some refinery problems in Ohio or Indiana or somewhere.  Now the story is instability in the Middle East.  Huh?  When in the past half century has there been stability in the Middle East?  Didn't the Temptations sing about that more than 40 years ago?  So, now, the excuse is instability in the Mideast??????  Yeah, right......

I would prefer the oil companies just admit that they want to make more money.  I wouldn't begrudge them that, well, at least not as much.  I can't stand the lying--like my former employer/school district always lying about finances at bargaining time.  Does that make Big Oil greedy?  Maybe.  But what does that make the little league concession stand that buys 24 bottles of GatorAde or Powerade for $5 (about 20 cents a bottle) and then sell it for $1.50?  What does it make the tree trimming company that gave us an $800 estimate that another company did (and did just fine) for $150?  What does that make Wendy's when it increased the price of one of its 99-cent burgs to $1.69?  What does it make the guy who has three cars (all high-end) with only two drivers in the house, a pool with a deck that has more square footage than my house, takes more than half a dozen vacations each year, drinks $20 bottles of wine without a second thought, etc.?  "Greed."  It's all relative.

I don't know if that Zimmerman guy (I don't recall his first name) is guilty or not, if he deserves punishment, etc.  That Trayvon guy (I don't know his first name either) didn't deserve to die.  It shouldn't have happened.  But what is the federal government doing messing around in that case?  News is out that the Justice Dept spent money to organize and promote anti-Zimmerman rallies.  Wait!  Don't we believe in due process in this country?  Don't we believe in fairness?  What kind of fair trial is this guy going to get?

Words

I love words!  No, I don't read dictionaries for fun, although I might try it.  Some words just sound great, almost rolling off the tongue.  They are musical.  Others have meanings so precise that they can't be replaced.

I subscribe to "Word of the Day," from www.dictionary.com.  Daily, then, I receive a new word.  Some are not particularly interesting.  Others seem made-up, not real words.  But most are really cool.  I even try to use them in my writing and speaking, everyday conversations, too.  I share many words with Karen and Carrie, a first-grade teacher.  Some she shares with her students, as I intend, although many of the words are beyond them.  When I use the words in everyday conversations with them, usually they just shake their heads.  But some, such as "sycophant," have become buzzwords for us, always bringing smiles to our faces.

Now, some words have become so trite, so overused or used in the wrong sense, that, at least to me, have become meaningless.  At least, I no longer use them.  "Absolutely" is one of them.  "Bizarre" is another.  Can any word have acquired less meaning that "totally?"  And I'm not fond of "boring," either.  Most people just toss it out, not really meaning "boring," but something else, such as "not liking," "time-consuming," etc.  For the most part, I don't say these words and I certainly don't write with them.

But there are lots of cool words out there.  People don't use them and, I suppose, using them might seem a bit affectatious.  Now there's a cool word, "affectatious."  So are "sycophant, " "debacle," "sisyphean," and "solypcism."  Add in "abstemious," which has the added feature of all the vowels in proper order.

Words......

Thur Eve Thoughts

Ah, my grandson has a sense of humor.  Sometimes it is grating, sometimes pretty funny.  This afternoon, he asked if a friend could spend the night.  Grandma said, "I don't know, honey. Grandpa and I are going out."  Without missing a beat, Bopper said, "It's always about you and Grandpa, isn't it?"  Just as Grandma was getting ready to....Bopp smiled and said, "Just joking."  He and his buddy are in the basement, watching the Three Stooges I hope, and will soon be up here asking for a pizza.  Of course, Grandpa will get it for them.

So, some of the Islamist detainees at Gitmo are staging hunger strikes.  That's mindful of the IRA hunger strikes in Brit prisons during the '70s.  I guess my answer to such strikes is this:  bring food to the cells and let the prisoners decide if they want to eat or starve.  It's their choice.  The doo-gooders (and I mean "doo") will complain about that, but the doo-gooders (and I mean "doo") will complain no matter what happens--force feed, give in to demands, withhold food....

Let's see, Washington politicians get all worked up when some states announce they aren't going to enforce laws passed in Washington that those states don't like--that is, the states won't enforce laws with which they disagree.  This is the theory of nullification, still quite controversial in US History.  Ultimately, nullification leads to secession--that is, the Civil War!  Anyway, these same DC politicians don't seem to have any problem not enforcing laws that they don't like.

President Obama is one of these, epitomized.  I know historians, in general, don't rate President Eisenhower very high, sort of middle of the pack.  I rate him much better, in the top ten.  (Of course, maybe I'm not a historian!)  One, among many, reason is that although Eisenhower didn't at all like the Supremes' decision in Brown v Board of  Ed, he used federal troops in Little Rock in '57 to enforce it.  He noted that he took an oath to enforce the law, which is what Brown did--tell us what the law was.  It was his responsibility, one he took seriously.  On the other hand, President Jackson is usually rated among the top Presidents, in the top 7 or 8 at least.  Yet, in 1830, when the Marshall Court ruled unfavorably (in Jackson's eyes) in a case involving Indians, Jackson purportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision.  Now let's see him enforce it."  Jackson ignored, willfully, his Constitutional responsibilities.  Did I say anything about Jackson's treatment of Indians or that he owned slaves?????  OK, candor forces me to say there are some anomalies in both of these Jackson demerits.

Senator Debbie Stabenow wants to score political points with those getting college loans with a bill to restore the previous interest rate on student loans--to 3.4% I think.  Is it the cynic in me that sees this as one more attempt to create a group dependent on the federal government?  After all, she never once has mention the role of the federal government in driving up college tuition in the first place.

I was talking with some people tonight and asked them, rhetorically, why colleges can't require their professors to actually teach, that is, teach four or five classes instead of one or two.  It's utter ridiculous.  Let's see--four or five classes is 12 or 15, maybe 20 at most, hours a week of classroom time.  Assume two hours a week for each class to grade papers and toss in a few hours of office time.  That's about 30 hours of work--give or take--each week.  That leaves 10 hours for research--for classes, which often ends up in journal articles, guest lectures, or even books.  Oh, that's just 40 hours.  There's nothing that says professors can't work more hours beyond 40, esp if they are going to get paid for journal articles, guest lectures, or even books.  I'll bet many of these same professors speak often of the greed of Big Oil, bankers, etc.  Oh, for once I am speaking from experience.

So, instead of one professor making, say, $100,000 for teaching four or five classes, the situation now often calls for three professors, teaching one or two classes, for $100,000 each.  How many professors on each campus??????

I hope the umpires and coaches from our little league were watching the Tigers the other night.  One of the opponents, Nick Swisher Michael tells me, tapped a foul squib shots, just inching down the third base line in foul territory.  Swisher gave up on the ball and didn't run.  The Tiger catcher, though, followed the ball and it began to roll back into fair territory.  As soon as it did roll back as a fair ball, the Tigers' catcher picked it up and tagged the batter--OUT!  So, a ball in foul territory isn't necessarily a foul ball, not if it rolls fair without touching anyone or anything.  Hmmm......  I wonder if any of the league coaches and umpires saw that and said, "Hey, he was right."  Sometimes I actually do show I know some things about baseball.  But most don't listen.

OK, out to read about Willie Mays.....  I know he replaced Bobby Thompson in CF when he first came up to the Giants.  I didn't know Thompson was perceived by most people as the best CF in the National League!  And the Giants didn't hesitate to put Mays in CF and move Thompson (who wasn't happy about it) to LF.  Oh, and Willie learned early on the advantages of playing a shallow CF.  Gee, I preach that all the time--to our players and to our coaches.  There's a logic behind it, playing the odds.  But again, most don't listen to me.

Danger?

The Detroit Free Press ran an editorial while we weren in Las Vegas that is very frightening as well as ignorant.  It holds that, although President Obama's recent executive order regarding "global warming" is constitutionally dubious (it's actually more than dubious), the danger of global warming justifies even unconstitutional usurpation of authority.

First, the Free Press clings to its "flat earth" thinking.  Here, read Charles Krauthammer's column on that:  http://gazettextra.com/news/2013/jul/04/obamas-global-warming-folly/  And there are many others that can be found casting serious and intelligent doubt on the fears perpetrated in the name of "global warming."

More significant is the Free Press's stance on executive usurpation of power.  So, according to the FP, the ends justify the means?  That is pretty ignorant.  I've written this before, but it bears repeating.  Mussolini made the trains run on time (he actually didn't, but....) in Italy.  Hitler virually eliminated unemployment in Germany.  Stalin (forcibly) brought the USSR into the 20th Century. 

Perhaps a future President will deem that newspapers, through irresponsible reporting, biased and slanted accounts, etc., contribute to the moral decay of this country.  Therefore, using the FP's logic, the President can use his powers, unconstitutionally use his powers, to muzzle or even shut down newspapers. 

I wonder if the editors at the Free Press have ever read the story of Pandora's Box??????

Mon Thoughts

No doubt, the weather here today and yesterday have been more uncomfortable for me (and Karen) than last week in Las Vegas.  Running, mowing the lawn, biking, cleaning the garage, weeding, anything just finds the sweat rolling off me--and it doesn't stop even if I do.  Yes, 117 degrees is hot, but....

Why does MLB allow fans to choose the All-Star starters?  I know the rationale is that the game is for the fans, but fans pick their favorite players, not necessarily the best.  (That's like students identifying as their "best" teacher the one who was their "favorite."  That could be worlds of difference.)  Two points to make about this.  First, how can this possibly be Miggy Cabrera's first start in an All-Star game?  Well, that's because fans pick their favorites, not the best players.  Perhaps the name of the game should be changed?  Second, why don't fans also, then, pick the pitchers and back-up players?  After all....

So, apparently the pilot of the plane that crashed at SFO was landing that particular plane for the first time?  Hmmm......  I'm certainly no expert on flying--in fact, I don't like it!  But, if I remember correctly, SFO's landing come in over the water, with the landing strip suddenly appearing.  It's like flying into Logan in Boston, flying over the ocean, with a crash seeming imminent and then the runway sprouting up out of nowhere.  Maybe an easier landing would have been better for an inaugural landing?  Of course, as Karen noted, there's so much computer assistance, maybe my thought is off-base.

OK, lots to do, even with the thunderstorm still raging--almost an hour now.  Out......

Lying?

When is lying not lying?

When Roger Clemens lied to a committee of Congress about his steroid use, he was prosecuted in a criminal court.  He was acquitted.  And this was over an issue of major national importance--baseball!

The Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence lied to a committee of Congress, too.  I think it was late last winter.  I haven't seen anything about prosecuting him.  And I don't expect to see him in court, not at all.  The guy even admitted lying, later saying he told "the least untruthful" thing.  Huh?  "Least untruthful?"

So, something as trivial as drug use in baseball--let MLB take care of its own problems--is of major importance to the federal government.  But lying about spying on American citizens (and, of course, the President also blatantly lied about, although not before a Congressional committee) is OK, I guess. 

Is this a great country or what?  I know, I know..."But Bush lied."

Oh, while I'm at it....

A recent article on the decline of the wolf population on Isle Royale was blamed on "man-made global warming."  Apparently, Lake Superior doesn't freeze between the island and Minnesota and Canada.  So, wolves can't make the trek to Isle Royale to repopulate.  Now, there may be global warming (but, remember, the late '70s was characterized as the start of a "New Ice Age"), but it's not at all clear its cause is "man-made."  Cyclical variations, activity of the sun, etc. are just as likely causes.  But, the media wants us to believe we are causing all these problems with our man-made global warming.  Was that at all necessary?  Couldn't the reporter have just noted that Lake Superior now freezes over less frequently, even due to "global warming?"  But, no--"man-made" had to be used.  Couldn't a sharp editor have erased "man-made?"  I guess not......

BTW, I see the Chinese (you know, our "friends") have made it so that Christians must hold their services underground in fear.  Being an "unregistered Christian" is against Chinese law.  Huh?   Yep, and more than a thousand Chinese have been arrested for breaking the law.  Hey!  Let's do more business with the Chinese, you know, the ones who steal our technology, hack into our defense systems, manipulate prices, and persecute Christians.  Yet, we still have many pundits/columnists who laud their "friends" (I guess I don't want to use the term "our" any longer), big corporations and state governments eager to do business with the Chinese ("global economy," "world market," etc.), and even local radio personalities who flock to China to cover the Chinese auto show!  What was it Lenin called them, "useful idiots?"  I know, I know......  It's a global economy.  There's a vast market for us to exploit.  And so on....  Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time (He really didn't, but people thought he did.).  And Hitler virtually eliminated unemployment.  And Stalin brought the USSR into the modern age.  Hasn't anyone remember the Sullivan Rules?  Oh, I forgot...history isn't important.

Sainthood?

I see Pope Francis I (What took so long for a pope to take the name "Francis?"  Haven't any of them heard of Francis of Assisi or Francis de Sales, among others?) has given the green light for Pope John Paul (George and Ringo) to attain sainthood.  He's confirmed two "miracles." 

First, what constitutes a "miracle?"  Second, does the proposed saint perform the "miracle" or is it done in his/her name by God?

Are the saints chosen exclusively from Catholics?  Of course, Mother Teresa seemed a logical and deserving candidate for sainthood.  After all, if she wasn't a "saint," what justification can there be for them?  She even donated her Nobel Peace Prize money to the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Now, if that isn't a miracle....

I wondered about this earlier.  What is a miracle?  Who can be a saint?  Do the rules, then, preclude, say, Abraham Lincoln and/or Martin Luther King from sainthood?  Granted, I'm not a Catholic, so it's not my business, but that seems unfortunate (I can't think of the right word).  Who has positively affected people's lives in such wonderful ways as these two?  Can sainthood, then, only be conferred by actions performed after a saint has died?

And, of course, some "saints" have been demoted.  Didn't St. Christopher (with the medals and statues for safe travel) become "Mr. Christopher?"  Has he been re-elevated?  I don't know. 

In some instances, with all of those former popes now saints, it seems like sainthood is like what the schools do in "teacher-of-the-year" awards.  The rewards go to those who play the game best.  Maybe not, but......

Double Standards

I'm not certain I'm clear on the Paula Deene (sp?) controversy.  I don't know much about her and, in fact, am not sure how to spell her last name.  I know she has a television food show--or did have one.  Apparently, she was dismissed from her show and lost a number of endorsement jobs because of insensitive racial slurs uttered decades ago.  That doesn't excuse them, but were they really decades ago?  She may or may not have deserved dismissal.  Again, I don't know the specifics.

But how do those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep rolling along?  Haven't they also been the focal points of racial controvesies, in bad ways?  How do some political commentators such as Bill Maher (again, I never watch him and am not sure of the spelling) get away with what they call people, esp women? Where are the women's groups when this happens?  How about the Gangsta-Rappers?

If it's not right to say something, it's not right for anyone to say it.

Las Vegas

I continue to be amazed at the place!  Karen and I have been there more than a dozen times and I can't get over the ostentation.  I say that in a positive way.

We don't gamble, but walk through the casinos often.  I think there were as many gamblers as I've seen in a few years.  It was hard to tell on the Strip, though, because likely many were inside, out of the intense heat, or by the pools.

The heat was intense--two days hit 117 degrees, tying all-time temperature records.  The other days were 115, 112, and 111.  How unsettling to find the temperature 109 degrees at 11 PM!  I ran one AM at 100 degrees and two at 98.  It cooled off one day, all the way down to 93.  These AM runs came around 6:00.  And, I was not the only one out there running.  I didn't count closely, but one AM I saw another couple dozen runners on the Strip.  I only ran the Strip two days, heading out past the airport the other days.  But those AMs were not as tough as running, say, this AM here in Michigan--at 70-some degrees and heavy humididity.

I did find myself wearing down.  It was likely the heat which had a sapping effect.  But it was also, likely, from chasing with the kids.  It was a go-go-go trip.

I remember, years ago, people telling me how cheap food and drinks were in Las Vegas.  Karen and I had never been there until Matt moved out to take a job.  I was anxious to see steak and prime rib dinners for $3 and $5.  Yeah, right!  Sometime between my friends' visits and ours, the Las Vegas folks figured out they didn't have to give low-cost meals.  The buffet this time, for six of us, with tip, was more than $250.  Oh, the food was good, very good, and there was a lot of it, both in volume and variety.  Other restaurants have followed suit.  I stopped at a drug store to pick up a 12-pack of soda and was stunned to find the price--$7.49!  That's not a 24-can case, but a 12-can pack.  I opted for water. But, we always eat well in Las Vegas.  Since we don't gamble......

Matt and Linda watched the kids while Grandma and Grandpa went to see Human Nature:  The Motown Sound at the Venetian.  Wow!  What a show!  I think it's my favorite of all the shows we've seen out there.  The group--Human Nature--is promoted by none other than Smokey Robinson.  Each of the four group members sings very well.  They don't try to copy the original song or dance routines, but give their own renditions.  Well, they pretty much dance like white guys from Australia.  But they were very entertaining, interacting with the audience quite well.  In shows I like, I often find myself singing right along with the performers.  Karen often elbows me to stop.  Not this night, since Human Nature frequently urged us to sinc along with them.  I think, although I thought Human Nature was good and the band was terrific, the key to the show was the Motown Sound--all the songs. They have a grandeur, a greatness of their own.  I plan to take in the show again on a future trip.

People are, for the most part, rude and inconsiderate.  At first I singled out certain groups, but came to the conclusion it's most people.  They don't walk on the right. They don't move over.  They don't squeeze in on elevators.  For that matter, they don't let those on the elevators get off befor they try to get on.  Obversely, the workers are pretty good at working with people.  Of all the folks we dealt with, only one or two seemed as if they thought they were put out dealing with us.  Of course, I sort of figured out one of out waiter's tips/pay.  While we had breakfast, about 45 minutes in the restaurant, I calculated that the guy would pick up at least $34 in tips; that doesn't include his base pay and I figured on minimal tips (Karen tips very well and likely, in Vegas, more folks tipped well).  And I couldn't see all of the tables in his section and, remember, we were in-and-out in about 45 minutes.

I had a nice lunch with an Amherst buddy, who has a law office--a branch--in Las Vegas.  We meet when I get out there and, as usual, I enjoyed it.

I think K is planning our next trip for Nov or Dec......  Maybe it will cool off a bit by then.