When is 44,395 not 44, 395? When it's 23,970 or 48,716 or something else! No, that's not a trick question either.
Those are the total number of votes Mike Duggan received in the Detroit mayoral primary. Of course, Benny Napoleon received 28,352 or 28, 391. It's all in the details or, rather, who is counting the votes. Tallies came from the city of Detroit, another from the county of Wayne, and the third from the state of Michigan. Sure seems like someone needs to take arithmetic classes again.
Of course, the question of valid or invalid write-in votes is the difficulty. Still, with all of the other problems in Detroit, here we go again. Why such a discrepancy between jurisdictions counting? One might logically guess there are politics involved?????? So, what's new?
Other numbers are more encouraging--the numbers of apples the state is growing this year. In 2012, only three million bushels of apples were harvested. I don't know who counts them, but the estimate for this year is about thirty million. That's the biggest yield in decades, about 50 years. Good news! Some might also hail as "good news" that the prices for cider are declining, too. Some mills last year charged $10.50 to $12.50 a gallon for that good stuff. The price this year is in the mid-$8 range. Hmmm...... The increase in the apple harvest is ten-fold, but the price decrease is about one-third?????? That's more than the price of gasoline. Has anyone tossed out the term "greedy" yet? Oh, that's just for Big Oil, Wall Street, bankers and CEOs, but not athletes, hippy-rock stars, Hollywood-types, etc. I'm sure I'll take the kids apple-picking this year after last year's drought, but I likely will skip the cider.
OK, I think all those millionaires and, esp, billionaires are "greedy." Why in the world does one need or even want tens of millions of dollars to live? What could they possibly want that they don't already have? I think it is a problem that many of those of the upper crust have difficulty relating to us making 1-2% of what they earn, but...... But that's the point--they've earned their money. I don't necessarily like it that the CEO of, say Burger King makes about $7,000,000 a year and the Whopper-flipper gets $8.50. But it's not as if the CEO is stealing the money. He doesn't just give it to himself. Others decide he deserves it, that he can't be replaced while the flipper can easily be so. Consider this analogy. I went to a Tiger game the other night. My main reason was to see Miggy Cabrera. My guess is that if he wasn't on the team, I wouldn't have gone. Therefore, all those other players, making millions were not as important to me as, say, the candied almonds vendor from whom I purchased almonds for Bopper--he loves them and what is a Grandpa to do? Would anyone argue that the players are like the CEO and the vendor like the flipper--pay-wise? I can't imagine that. I don't like people making so much money, but I'm not going to demonize them for it. As one of my buddies and I always ask, rhetorically, "How much money is enough?" We then joke with a reply from John D. Rockefeller, likely the wealthiest man in the history of the world, "Just a little more; just a little more." I guess......
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Fri Musings
Syria?????? OK, what's the US going to do? Or, rather, what is Obama unilaterally going to do? He's going to send missiles somewhere, against something, sometime--for what purpose? To depose Assad? No, that's already been stated as not the purpose. Hmmm...... To save face? Maybe, since Obama has made himself a laughingstock in the international diplomatic community. Britain has already said, "No way, Ray" to a missile attack on Syria. Oh, by the way, there is still no definitive proof Assad was behind the gas attacks. What's the title of the NY Times best seller, something like Amateur in the White House?
A good column by Frank Beckmann today. I blogged about the decline of culture as demonstrated by our increasing inability to use language correctly. He cites "twerking" and, specifically, the Miley Cyrus gyrations on MTV. (I didn't see this, not even on You Tube--I have no desire to do so.) We have dumbed down decency. Can there be any doubt about it? When did it start? I don't know, but excusing Bill Clinton in l'Affaire Lewinsky didn't help in the least.
A great column, too, by Dan Thomasson. Except, it wasn't "great" in the manner he likely intended. He was taking aim at those, namely a Michigan Congressman, who suggest Obama should be impeached. He claimed it is a ridiculous idea, "without any grounds for doing so." Ah, but Mr. Thomasson falls into the same group as the anti-Tea Party crowd. As one of them once told me, among other things, "They have no ideas." How wrong is that?!?!?! Of course the Tea Partiers have ideas, lots of them. That some don't like those ideas doesn't mean there aren't any; not at all. In fact, it points to the intellectual vapidness of the critics like those. One doesn't have to be a Tea Partier or even agree with Tea Party ideas to fully appreciate their concerns and worries! Thomasson must be part ostrich, with his head buried in the sand. There are lots of reasons to impeach Obama--I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there. Just because we don't agree with ideas doesn't me they don't exist. Thomasson gives a classic example of "sloppy thinking."
And there's a section of letters-to-the-editor titled, "Grading Gov. Rick Snyder." I was thinking of this the other day. I think I'd grade him rather poorly, not just because of his policies. I don't like his use of the Emergency Managers. The EM law, however "necessary" some might deem it, is undemocratic. His deceitful use of the legislature in passing the right-to-work law was not appreciated by me--I don't care for sneakiness. And, it seems, he is quite willing to sell his principles as long as money comes with the sale. To wit, his push for the Medic-Aid bill that is now set to be passed. How "un-Republican" to have anything to do with ObamaCare--read "big government!" Oh, but Michigan will lose out on all that federal money. Principles be damned! And all the credit for the semi-rebound of the state (it hasn't hit many yet?) I think shouldn't go to Snyder as much as the auto-makers. And I don't think it was any great genius or improved management that sparked the autos resurgence--read low-interest rates and rebates! Gee, if one sells out his principles, what does he have left? And, by the way, those Republican state legislators who also sold out should be ashamed. Of course, they won't be because shame died quite a while ago.
I go to McDonald's or Wendy's (fast-food places) a couple times a week, esp when classes start. They are quick, convenient, and cheap. Besides, I like the food--it's pretty good! I almost always order from the cheap menu, whatever it's called. I never order a happy meal (except for the kids), a Big Mac, or any of the Wendy specialty sandwiches (although the Baconator is tempting!) Imagine what might happen to prices if the striking fast-food workers succeed in getting their hourly rates increased to $15 an hour! Will the cheap menu disappear? It likely would. And, so would my business. I suspect I would hardly be alone. With less business, fewer jobs, esp at $15 an hour!, would be needed. So, the remaining workers would make such a wage, but there would be far fewer of those workers. Yep, those strikers are going to show them.
A good column by Frank Beckmann today. I blogged about the decline of culture as demonstrated by our increasing inability to use language correctly. He cites "twerking" and, specifically, the Miley Cyrus gyrations on MTV. (I didn't see this, not even on You Tube--I have no desire to do so.) We have dumbed down decency. Can there be any doubt about it? When did it start? I don't know, but excusing Bill Clinton in l'Affaire Lewinsky didn't help in the least.
A great column, too, by Dan Thomasson. Except, it wasn't "great" in the manner he likely intended. He was taking aim at those, namely a Michigan Congressman, who suggest Obama should be impeached. He claimed it is a ridiculous idea, "without any grounds for doing so." Ah, but Mr. Thomasson falls into the same group as the anti-Tea Party crowd. As one of them once told me, among other things, "They have no ideas." How wrong is that?!?!?! Of course the Tea Partiers have ideas, lots of them. That some don't like those ideas doesn't mean there aren't any; not at all. In fact, it points to the intellectual vapidness of the critics like those. One doesn't have to be a Tea Partier or even agree with Tea Party ideas to fully appreciate their concerns and worries! Thomasson must be part ostrich, with his head buried in the sand. There are lots of reasons to impeach Obama--I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are there. Just because we don't agree with ideas doesn't me they don't exist. Thomasson gives a classic example of "sloppy thinking."
And there's a section of letters-to-the-editor titled, "Grading Gov. Rick Snyder." I was thinking of this the other day. I think I'd grade him rather poorly, not just because of his policies. I don't like his use of the Emergency Managers. The EM law, however "necessary" some might deem it, is undemocratic. His deceitful use of the legislature in passing the right-to-work law was not appreciated by me--I don't care for sneakiness. And, it seems, he is quite willing to sell his principles as long as money comes with the sale. To wit, his push for the Medic-Aid bill that is now set to be passed. How "un-Republican" to have anything to do with ObamaCare--read "big government!" Oh, but Michigan will lose out on all that federal money. Principles be damned! And all the credit for the semi-rebound of the state (it hasn't hit many yet?) I think shouldn't go to Snyder as much as the auto-makers. And I don't think it was any great genius or improved management that sparked the autos resurgence--read low-interest rates and rebates! Gee, if one sells out his principles, what does he have left? And, by the way, those Republican state legislators who also sold out should be ashamed. Of course, they won't be because shame died quite a while ago.
I go to McDonald's or Wendy's (fast-food places) a couple times a week, esp when classes start. They are quick, convenient, and cheap. Besides, I like the food--it's pretty good! I almost always order from the cheap menu, whatever it's called. I never order a happy meal (except for the kids), a Big Mac, or any of the Wendy specialty sandwiches (although the Baconator is tempting!) Imagine what might happen to prices if the striking fast-food workers succeed in getting their hourly rates increased to $15 an hour! Will the cheap menu disappear? It likely would. And, so would my business. I suspect I would hardly be alone. With less business, fewer jobs, esp at $15 an hour!, would be needed. So, the remaining workers would make such a wage, but there would be far fewer of those workers. Yep, those strikers are going to show them.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Nobel Peace Prize?
Can a Nobel Peace Prize be rescinded? Hmmm...... I know Pulitzers have been, but Nobels? What if, say, a Nobel-winning scientist is shown to have used false data, cheated, etc. in the achievement for which the prize was awarded? After all, didn't Piltdown Man fool the archaeology community for almost four decades?
Would such an instance merit taking back the Nobel? Of course it would merit revocation. But would the Nobel committee have the integrity and courage to do so? Rescinding would acknowledge an enormous error on the part of the committee. Hmmm......
Now, what if someone won, say, a Nobel Peace Prize and didn't at all deserve it in the first place? Remember the key word here, "peace." And, in the course of five or so years, the recipient, using or not using his authority, engaged his country in most definite war-like activities. (Note I refrained from saying "war," only partly tongue-in-cheek.) Think Afghanistan, Iraq, drones, etc.
Apparently, the Obama administration, as exemplified by the talk of the President himself and his Secretary of State, is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. (Yeah, Yeah--I remember, "But Bush lied.") Well they should. But now there seems to be evidence that the US is going to launch missile attacks against the Syrian regime of Assad. Perhaps Obama (and his lackeys at the Nobel Committee?) don't consider the launching of missiles to be an act of war, but some convoluted expression of peace.
To get this out of the way, why in the world would anyone trust anything coming out of the mouth of John Kerry? Check his record, all the way back.
It seems likely that the gas warfare was perpetrated by Assad (or his brother, likely the only two who have authorization to use gas). If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say so. But, as in an American court of law, I'm not absolutely certain, so I can't convict. So, if Obama does order the attacks, are we to, in effect, start a war with Syria (only three days, at least that's how many days missiles will be launched--according to "sources close to the administration") when we are not absolutely certain? (Again, I harken back to "But Bush lied," if only to expose yet another episode of extreme hypocrisy. And, Bush didn't "lie," not if gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction." SH did use gas on his own people, the Kurds. Or perhaps I mistakenly think the Kurds are every bit as human as the Syrians?)
But what if the gas was actually used by the insurgents, back by Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and other extremists? Then what? I know the likelihood of that is slim, but...... Again, we don't know for certain--think US court of law, criminal case.
And what if the US (namely Obama and Kerry, like H Clinton before him) are being played for suckers by, say, the Iranians or even the Russians? It's not at all unlikely, since the entire world has been playing Obama for a sucker for five years now, the entire world, that is, except the American LameStream Media and other Obama sycophants. There are lots of reasons for doing so.
BTW, read closely Kerry's comments about the effects of using this gas, a weapon of mass destruction. Read them very closely. Then reimagine them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, calm down, I'm not an apologist for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without them, it's quite likely there would have never been a me. My father was a US Marine in WW2, taking part in invasions/landings at Palau, Pelilieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. That means, of course, that he would have been in the assault waves of the home islands of Japan, had Japan not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With US casualty rates of 40% and higher in the invasions of those aforementioned islands, it was quite a miracle he survived anyway--do the math. What was the likelihood of yet another reprieve?
Yet, again, maybe Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do. He's either very, very naive--as Putin and others seem to believe and, if only tacitly, say--or his goal is to further destabilize the Middle East to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, his group of choice in Egypt, Libya, and now it appears Syria. (Check out the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with its roots in Wahabism.)
These "sources" have indicated US missiles might fly as soon as Thursday. I, for one, am not looking forward to Thursday to see if we have engaged in yet another military folly. "Folly," of course, unless there's a master plan. (I know, I know--conspiracy theorist! One thing American politicians have excelled in is the marginalization of critics. Those who even dare to question US leaders, be they Presidents or members of Congress are quickly labelled, "conspiracy theorists," "Tea Partiers," etc. Critics of government are no longer what Henry Steele Commager once called them, "the most important members of society." They are now isolated as the fringe, not to be taken seriously. After all, who can doubt the goodness, the benevolence of big government? Note, for instance, Obama's commencement address at Ohio State University.)
Let's hope these "sources" are wrong or, if they are not, wiser heads prevail before the missiles are used.
Would such an instance merit taking back the Nobel? Of course it would merit revocation. But would the Nobel committee have the integrity and courage to do so? Rescinding would acknowledge an enormous error on the part of the committee. Hmmm......
Now, what if someone won, say, a Nobel Peace Prize and didn't at all deserve it in the first place? Remember the key word here, "peace." And, in the course of five or so years, the recipient, using or not using his authority, engaged his country in most definite war-like activities. (Note I refrained from saying "war," only partly tongue-in-cheek.) Think Afghanistan, Iraq, drones, etc.
Apparently, the Obama administration, as exemplified by the talk of the President himself and his Secretary of State, is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria. (Yeah, Yeah--I remember, "But Bush lied.") Well they should. But now there seems to be evidence that the US is going to launch missile attacks against the Syrian regime of Assad. Perhaps Obama (and his lackeys at the Nobel Committee?) don't consider the launching of missiles to be an act of war, but some convoluted expression of peace.
To get this out of the way, why in the world would anyone trust anything coming out of the mouth of John Kerry? Check his record, all the way back.
It seems likely that the gas warfare was perpetrated by Assad (or his brother, likely the only two who have authorization to use gas). If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say so. But, as in an American court of law, I'm not absolutely certain, so I can't convict. So, if Obama does order the attacks, are we to, in effect, start a war with Syria (only three days, at least that's how many days missiles will be launched--according to "sources close to the administration") when we are not absolutely certain? (Again, I harken back to "But Bush lied," if only to expose yet another episode of extreme hypocrisy. And, Bush didn't "lie," not if gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction." SH did use gas on his own people, the Kurds. Or perhaps I mistakenly think the Kurds are every bit as human as the Syrians?)
But what if the gas was actually used by the insurgents, back by Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and other extremists? Then what? I know the likelihood of that is slim, but...... Again, we don't know for certain--think US court of law, criminal case.
And what if the US (namely Obama and Kerry, like H Clinton before him) are being played for suckers by, say, the Iranians or even the Russians? It's not at all unlikely, since the entire world has been playing Obama for a sucker for five years now, the entire world, that is, except the American LameStream Media and other Obama sycophants. There are lots of reasons for doing so.
BTW, read closely Kerry's comments about the effects of using this gas, a weapon of mass destruction. Read them very closely. Then reimagine them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, calm down, I'm not an apologist for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without them, it's quite likely there would have never been a me. My father was a US Marine in WW2, taking part in invasions/landings at Palau, Pelilieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. That means, of course, that he would have been in the assault waves of the home islands of Japan, had Japan not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With US casualty rates of 40% and higher in the invasions of those aforementioned islands, it was quite a miracle he survived anyway--do the math. What was the likelihood of yet another reprieve?
Yet, again, maybe Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do. He's either very, very naive--as Putin and others seem to believe and, if only tacitly, say--or his goal is to further destabilize the Middle East to the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, his group of choice in Egypt, Libya, and now it appears Syria. (Check out the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with its roots in Wahabism.)
These "sources" have indicated US missiles might fly as soon as Thursday. I, for one, am not looking forward to Thursday to see if we have engaged in yet another military folly. "Folly," of course, unless there's a master plan. (I know, I know--conspiracy theorist! One thing American politicians have excelled in is the marginalization of critics. Those who even dare to question US leaders, be they Presidents or members of Congress are quickly labelled, "conspiracy theorists," "Tea Partiers," etc. Critics of government are no longer what Henry Steele Commager once called them, "the most important members of society." They are now isolated as the fringe, not to be taken seriously. After all, who can doubt the goodness, the benevolence of big government? Note, for instance, Obama's commencement address at Ohio State University.)
Let's hope these "sources" are wrong or, if they are not, wiser heads prevail before the missiles are used.
Sequester?
The "sequester" has been blamed for some of the more recent inefficiencies in gov't. "See what happens when you don't let us spend money like drunken sailors?" What hogwash!
First, the "sequester" cut about two and a half percent from the federal budget, the excessively bloated federal budget of $3.5 trillion--that's with eleven zeroes! C'mon! A couple years ago, for instance, my wife took a 6% pay cut, saw insurance premiums from her own pocket rise about 25% not to mention the higher co-pays and deductibles. I figure she took a hit of about 15% or more. This year, my taxes went up about $2500, which will translate to a 3% or more cut. But the feds can't manage to cut 2.5%?????? How easy it is to spend other people's money, esp when the arrogant elitists who spend it are convinced they and their ways and ideas are superior to anyone else and other ways and ideas. Maybe they could use a little help in finding things to cut! Here are a few.
How about eliminating the ObamaPhone scam? To date, the program (which may have had the best of intentions when begun under Reagan I believe, but double check) has cost about $2.3 billion. And a government audit (you know, conducted by the government itself) reveals that more than 40% of the phones are now given to people who don't qualify. Recipients don't even have to lie to scam the system.
How about the Air Force study that revealed men appear more masculine (manly?) when their carry firearms? That one cost only about $700,000.
Another half million was spent by the National Science Foundation (from a gov't grant) to make a video that simulated a high school prom. (Whose high school prom?)
There's about $354 million being tossed about by the Pentagon and Congress for the purchase of Russian, that's right Russian, helicopters to give to Afghanistan. Apparently, a few years ago the Russian manufacturer sold the helicopters to private companies for about $4.4 million apiece. Now, the price tag for the American taxpayer is about $19 million. Ah...other people's money!
So, the federal gov't can't cope with the sequester cuts? How about the increased costs the feds are foisting upon the majority of Americans, not taxes per se, but higher prices because of their actions? Most Americans who don't buy health insurance (and, remember, purchase is required by law, you know, the law the members of Congress passed first and read second, if they did at all) from the gov't (and the estimated costs of that seem to be going up, up, up practically weekly) will have to pay increased premiums, some as has as about 40% more!, or will see no raises, cut pay, or reduced other benefits as employer-provided health insurance costs will go up. The Senate is proposing a farm bill that advocates an increase in the price of milk, maybe 30 cents a gallon. Granted, that increase will amount to only about $15-20 a year for me. But what will that increase do to school budgets and those of other large providers such as gov't assistance programs? Of course there are more.
No doubt the retaliation is "Oh, those are just drops in the bucket." So, if these are just "drops in the bucket," why the gov't cuts in services and efficiencies? And, to cite the late Sen Everett Dirksen, in challenging yet another spending spree by Congress in the '60s, "A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yeah, but it's other people's money, not ours......
First, the "sequester" cut about two and a half percent from the federal budget, the excessively bloated federal budget of $3.5 trillion--that's with eleven zeroes! C'mon! A couple years ago, for instance, my wife took a 6% pay cut, saw insurance premiums from her own pocket rise about 25% not to mention the higher co-pays and deductibles. I figure she took a hit of about 15% or more. This year, my taxes went up about $2500, which will translate to a 3% or more cut. But the feds can't manage to cut 2.5%?????? How easy it is to spend other people's money, esp when the arrogant elitists who spend it are convinced they and their ways and ideas are superior to anyone else and other ways and ideas. Maybe they could use a little help in finding things to cut! Here are a few.
How about eliminating the ObamaPhone scam? To date, the program (which may have had the best of intentions when begun under Reagan I believe, but double check) has cost about $2.3 billion. And a government audit (you know, conducted by the government itself) reveals that more than 40% of the phones are now given to people who don't qualify. Recipients don't even have to lie to scam the system.
How about the Air Force study that revealed men appear more masculine (manly?) when their carry firearms? That one cost only about $700,000.
Another half million was spent by the National Science Foundation (from a gov't grant) to make a video that simulated a high school prom. (Whose high school prom?)
There's about $354 million being tossed about by the Pentagon and Congress for the purchase of Russian, that's right Russian, helicopters to give to Afghanistan. Apparently, a few years ago the Russian manufacturer sold the helicopters to private companies for about $4.4 million apiece. Now, the price tag for the American taxpayer is about $19 million. Ah...other people's money!
So, the federal gov't can't cope with the sequester cuts? How about the increased costs the feds are foisting upon the majority of Americans, not taxes per se, but higher prices because of their actions? Most Americans who don't buy health insurance (and, remember, purchase is required by law, you know, the law the members of Congress passed first and read second, if they did at all) from the gov't (and the estimated costs of that seem to be going up, up, up practically weekly) will have to pay increased premiums, some as has as about 40% more!, or will see no raises, cut pay, or reduced other benefits as employer-provided health insurance costs will go up. The Senate is proposing a farm bill that advocates an increase in the price of milk, maybe 30 cents a gallon. Granted, that increase will amount to only about $15-20 a year for me. But what will that increase do to school budgets and those of other large providers such as gov't assistance programs? Of course there are more.
No doubt the retaliation is "Oh, those are just drops in the bucket." So, if these are just "drops in the bucket," why the gov't cuts in services and efficiencies? And, to cite the late Sen Everett Dirksen, in challenging yet another spending spree by Congress in the '60s, "A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you're talking real money." Yeah, but it's other people's money, not ours......
Thursday, August 22, 2013
"Onlookers?"
From Rabbi Joachim Prinz: "Bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problems. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most tragic problem is silence." Rabbi Prinz was a Berlin rabbi in Hitler's Germany. He went on, "A great people [speaking of the Germans], which had created a great civilization, had become a nation of onlookers. They remained silent in the face of hate, in the face of brutality, in the face of mass murder. American must not become a nation of silent onlookers...."
Now, he was speaking in Washington, DC, on the occasion of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. But his words ring true today, if in a somewhat different context.
Coincidentally, I received an e-mail from an old friend today. I haven't yet had time to open the link, but she sent something about the Romans and Americans. Hmmm...... I wonder, with our own versions of "Bread and Circuses," have we become too comfortable in our lives?
I know we all have lots to do. Our lives are filled. But perhaps all it takes is a little time to think about, say, who we elect to office and how we communicate with them.
I don't know if this is related or not, but...... It didn't get any newspaper time here--or at least I didn't see it. But President Obama invited the '72 Miami Dolphins, undefeated NFL Super Bowl Champions, to the White House. Whew, that was more than 40 years ago. (As an aside, one of my Amherst College mates was a member of that team, Doug Swift outside linebacker.) One might think or at least I might that President Obama has better things, more important things to do than this. I'm not aiming my criticism at Obama; I have never thought this was a good use of Presidents' time and efforts. I don't know who started this, but whoever he was, he shouldn't have. But, my point is this: three Dolphins refused to show up, citing their deep dissatisfaction with this President and his policies and programs. Good for them! I would hope, had I ever been in a similar situation with Obama, Clinton, W Bush--whoever--I would have had the moxie and integrity to "Just say no!" These three, with their protest, refuse to participate as "a nation of silent onlookers." But, I'd imagine, few took notice and fewer still gave their boycott any thought. Besides beingAll-Pro football players and maybe even Hall of Famers, Manny Fernandez, Jim Langer, and Bob Kuechenberg have gained a little more of my respect.
Now, he was speaking in Washington, DC, on the occasion of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. But his words ring true today, if in a somewhat different context.
Coincidentally, I received an e-mail from an old friend today. I haven't yet had time to open the link, but she sent something about the Romans and Americans. Hmmm...... I wonder, with our own versions of "Bread and Circuses," have we become too comfortable in our lives?
I know we all have lots to do. Our lives are filled. But perhaps all it takes is a little time to think about, say, who we elect to office and how we communicate with them.
I don't know if this is related or not, but...... It didn't get any newspaper time here--or at least I didn't see it. But President Obama invited the '72 Miami Dolphins, undefeated NFL Super Bowl Champions, to the White House. Whew, that was more than 40 years ago. (As an aside, one of my Amherst College mates was a member of that team, Doug Swift outside linebacker.) One might think or at least I might that President Obama has better things, more important things to do than this. I'm not aiming my criticism at Obama; I have never thought this was a good use of Presidents' time and efforts. I don't know who started this, but whoever he was, he shouldn't have. But, my point is this: three Dolphins refused to show up, citing their deep dissatisfaction with this President and his policies and programs. Good for them! I would hope, had I ever been in a similar situation with Obama, Clinton, W Bush--whoever--I would have had the moxie and integrity to "Just say no!" These three, with their protest, refuse to participate as "a nation of silent onlookers." But, I'd imagine, few took notice and fewer still gave their boycott any thought. Besides beingAll-Pro football players and maybe even Hall of Famers, Manny Fernandez, Jim Langer, and Bob Kuechenberg have gained a little more of my respect.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The Power to Tax
Constitutional authority "to lay and levy taxes" rests with Congress. There is no gray area there. The power is explicit or, as the government teachers point out, "expressed." As Casey Stengel used to say (How does baseball find its way into everything? Tom Boswell of the Wash Post wrote a great book years ago, How Life Imitates the World Series.), "You could look it up." Check Article I, Section 2.
So, what's the latest? Well, here's another good reason I don't have a cell phone--a tax increase on them? No, I'm joking a bit, but only a bit. The proposed tax is minimal, $5 a year I guess. Nobody can quibble on the amount. The purpose of the tax--to bring the Internet into public schools, as if it's not there already-- is a bit more debatable, but my guess is most people wouldn't have objections, although I do. Neither is the point, not at all. The tax is not being considered by Congress, but by the Executive Dept, where President Obama has instructed the FCC to look into this tax. For one who supposedly taught Constitutional Law at the college level (I'm convinced he didn't really earn his degrees at Columbia and Harvard, but that's just me), President Obama might be expected to know he can't Constitutionally do that--impose a tax. In fact, all of Congress can't do that. Taxes must originate in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate--the Constitution so states. How can the President and the FCC do this? Well, I guess only one way--if the American people let him. My guess is most people will look at this and say, "C'mon, what's five bucks?" Yep, a trifling amount it is. Of course, most people don't know, "First they came after the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came after the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist, so I said nothing. Then they came after...." Ah, but that's that history stuff. Too bad there isn't a baseball analogy!
Again I resort to this: What if a Republican President tried this? Yeah, both you and I know what would happen. The LameStreams would be getting the plank ready for walking. Likely, too, Congress would be all over this, on the Sun AM shows, in the newspapers, etc. Yep, imagine someone like W imposing a tax!
I'll play fair and take some well-deserved shots at the Republicans, too. I won't bother with the ones in DC; most of them are beyond saving. They are really pretty stupid not to realize what has been going on in their willingness and compliance to "get along," be "bipartisan," etc. Maybe they are just cowardly, not wanting to be called names. But back to the point. It's the Republicans who've pushed all the Emergency Manager appointments in Michigan. Regardless if they've actually worked, they are affronts to democracy. They smack of the arrogant elitism of politicians, in this case, the Republicans.
OK, out to read to the kids.
So, what's the latest? Well, here's another good reason I don't have a cell phone--a tax increase on them? No, I'm joking a bit, but only a bit. The proposed tax is minimal, $5 a year I guess. Nobody can quibble on the amount. The purpose of the tax--to bring the Internet into public schools, as if it's not there already-- is a bit more debatable, but my guess is most people wouldn't have objections, although I do. Neither is the point, not at all. The tax is not being considered by Congress, but by the Executive Dept, where President Obama has instructed the FCC to look into this tax. For one who supposedly taught Constitutional Law at the college level (I'm convinced he didn't really earn his degrees at Columbia and Harvard, but that's just me), President Obama might be expected to know he can't Constitutionally do that--impose a tax. In fact, all of Congress can't do that. Taxes must originate in the House of Representatives and then go to the Senate--the Constitution so states. How can the President and the FCC do this? Well, I guess only one way--if the American people let him. My guess is most people will look at this and say, "C'mon, what's five bucks?" Yep, a trifling amount it is. Of course, most people don't know, "First they came after the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came after the trade unionists, but I wasn't a trade unionist, so I said nothing. Then they came after...." Ah, but that's that history stuff. Too bad there isn't a baseball analogy!
Again I resort to this: What if a Republican President tried this? Yeah, both you and I know what would happen. The LameStreams would be getting the plank ready for walking. Likely, too, Congress would be all over this, on the Sun AM shows, in the newspapers, etc. Yep, imagine someone like W imposing a tax!
I'll play fair and take some well-deserved shots at the Republicans, too. I won't bother with the ones in DC; most of them are beyond saving. They are really pretty stupid not to realize what has been going on in their willingness and compliance to "get along," be "bipartisan," etc. Maybe they are just cowardly, not wanting to be called names. But back to the point. It's the Republicans who've pushed all the Emergency Manager appointments in Michigan. Regardless if they've actually worked, they are affronts to democracy. They smack of the arrogant elitism of politicians, in this case, the Republicans.
OK, out to read to the kids.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
??????
I wanted to ask, but didn't. Perhaps I should have. But it was at the end of a long day and I was tired, so I didn't.
All day some guy kept prefacing his editorial comments with, "I heard on NPR...." I just wanted to ask, "Wait! Why should you believe NPR any more than I shouldn't believe what I might listen to or read?" Is NPR the gold standard of neutrality? I don't think so. But, the "99%ers" are OK and the "Tea Partiers" are not. And "Bush lied," but Obama never does/did (Yeah, right....).
Interesting letter-to-the-editor today from Congresspersons (?) Candice Miller and Dave Camp. It's title says it all, "Why does the IRS care who you vote for?" Hmmm...... Good question. Ah, but I forget.... The IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and other episodes are just "phony scandals." How silly of me! I also forget that Watergate was just "a third-rate burglary." When will I learn??????
I know "Bush lied," but when are people going to question Obama's ham-handed, unconstitutional actions? His latest is to impose, or at least try, a tax on cell phone use. Granted, the amount ($5/year) is trifling. But I disagree with the editorial that holds "nor is his plan for the tax objectionable," the plan to pay for Internet access in schools. (Here we go again, bowing to the new educational god "Technology.") The President, the Executive Department, the FCC is not empowered to tax anyone! Now I know the President claimed the power to do so because this is not a "normal atmosphere." C'mon, people buy that? And when he made the announcement before the press, the Fourth Estate merely sat there on its collective thumb and spun. Let's try to remember this: authority to tax constitutionally lies with the Legislative branch, Congress. Can I toss in recess appointments, the czars, EPA, and more? I keep getting confused. When is it, again, when the Constitution is sacred and when it isn't? I must have skipped Professor Latham's class that day, I guess.
All day some guy kept prefacing his editorial comments with, "I heard on NPR...." I just wanted to ask, "Wait! Why should you believe NPR any more than I shouldn't believe what I might listen to or read?" Is NPR the gold standard of neutrality? I don't think so. But, the "99%ers" are OK and the "Tea Partiers" are not. And "Bush lied," but Obama never does/did (Yeah, right....).
Interesting letter-to-the-editor today from Congresspersons (?) Candice Miller and Dave Camp. It's title says it all, "Why does the IRS care who you vote for?" Hmmm...... Good question. Ah, but I forget.... The IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and other episodes are just "phony scandals." How silly of me! I also forget that Watergate was just "a third-rate burglary." When will I learn??????
I know "Bush lied," but when are people going to question Obama's ham-handed, unconstitutional actions? His latest is to impose, or at least try, a tax on cell phone use. Granted, the amount ($5/year) is trifling. But I disagree with the editorial that holds "nor is his plan for the tax objectionable," the plan to pay for Internet access in schools. (Here we go again, bowing to the new educational god "Technology.") The President, the Executive Department, the FCC is not empowered to tax anyone! Now I know the President claimed the power to do so because this is not a "normal atmosphere." C'mon, people buy that? And when he made the announcement before the press, the Fourth Estate merely sat there on its collective thumb and spun. Let's try to remember this: authority to tax constitutionally lies with the Legislative branch, Congress. Can I toss in recess appointments, the czars, EPA, and more? I keep getting confused. When is it, again, when the Constitution is sacred and when it isn't? I must have skipped Professor Latham's class that day, I guess.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Music
There's an e-mail joke going around about how parents can get rid of their adult kids still living at home. All the parents have to do, the joke goes, is to play the music they listened to when they were kids--Dylan, Henricks, Joplin, etc. Although I liked some of this stuff, a steady diet of it could certainly start me packing my bags.
But I was reminded of some of the music of the '60s the other day, listening to a CD. Normally when I drive, I don't have on the radio or play CDs. This day, for some reason, I put on a dual-album Smokey Robinson CD, the two "A-Go-Go" ones. OK, it's no secret Smokey is still one of my very favorites; he's certainly in the top handful. (I remember the Las Vegas show, Human Nature, which was a Motown revue of sorts by the Australian group. Karen and I, finally, last July went to see it after years of trying to fit it in on our trips there. When the group did the three or four Smokey songs, either the ones he performed or the ones he wrote or both, the whole place was singing--at the request of Human Nature! Young and old; black and white; male and female. It didn't matter. How cool! After years of not getting to the show, I'm betting we take it in at least once every year, at least.) I, of course, am taken with his voice. Sometimes listening to others singing and I wonder, is this really singing? Isn't singing supposed to be melodic/mellifluous? (There aren't many opportunities to use that word; I might as well take advantage of it when I can.) Some voices are smokey (not as in Robinson), husky, or hoarse, but still sound, well, mellifluous. But a lot of the voices are just terrible--or worse. I won't mention any names, but I'm not picking on current "singers." There were a lot from decades past, too. I wonder what the attraction of these performers was/is. Maybe it's the accompanying music.
Which is something I also noted. The Human Nature show had a great live band, patterned after the old Motown Funk Brothers. They were studio musicians, of the highest quality. Also in the studio, but going out on the road for concerts, were the bands of Earl Van Dyke and Choker Campbell. They were great! In fact, along with the Funk Brothers, their music could/can stand alone, without any lyrics. What terrific musicians!
And, maybe I don't quite have this one right, but it seems in a large sense I do. Smokey and the other, esp Motown, writers must have had good educations--that is, their grammar teachers must have done a great job of teaching language. OK, there are "ain'ts" ("Ain't That Peculiar," Marvin Gaye) and other grammatical flaws such as double negatives ("and there ain't nothin' I can do about it," the Supremes), no doubt. Likely there are more than I remember, too. But listen to the words. They all match. They are creative, with their rhyming patterns and more. (Go ahead, try to rhyme "camouflage" in a song; Smokey did.) At the Human Nature show, the group stopped singing at one point in Smokey's "Tracks of My Tears," letting the crowd sing the lyrics, "My smile is my make-up I wear since my break-up with you...." And, boy, it was loud!
Of course, succeeding generations target those before and after--it seems to be the nature of life, doesn't it? But I'm glad I had and still have the Motown memories. I had a recent e-mail from a special high school friend, who recalled we went to the Motortown (that's what it was originally called, later changed to Motown) Revue at old (before renovations) Fox Theater downtown. (She even remembered where we ate afterward.) Each was a great show and is a great memory!
A final note: I know I've been obsessing with the hitting of Miguel Cabrera. But I find it fascinating, just fun to watch. He hits more ropes and lasers than anyone. In some games, he smacks three or four or even five clothes lines. And he's hurt now and was last year for a month with not one, but two sprained ankles. One player said umpires often take balls out of the game after Miggy hits them--they are lopsided because he hit them so hard. He's had balls come off of his bat in excess of 105 mph! I've said for more than a year now that he's the best hitter I've seen live, ever, outside of Ted Williams. People have likely rolled their eyes at that (or at least wanted to), but in the past few weeks there have been more and more superlatives. I've even read some national articles suggesting that, not only is he the best hitter right now, but before all is said and done will be considered the best ever. I don't know about that, but I am even now thinking more about the Williams' comparison--granted, that I didn't see Williams as much as Miggy. I really didn't plan to say all this, but merely that I find myself reading the sports pages, specifically, the stories and articles about the Tigers now. I can't remember the last time I did that, maybe in '84. I certainly didn't follow them all that closely in '06. But I skim the articles/columns looking for references to Cabrera's hitting. Like my Motown music, I think I'll appreciate having this guy around.
But I was reminded of some of the music of the '60s the other day, listening to a CD. Normally when I drive, I don't have on the radio or play CDs. This day, for some reason, I put on a dual-album Smokey Robinson CD, the two "A-Go-Go" ones. OK, it's no secret Smokey is still one of my very favorites; he's certainly in the top handful. (I remember the Las Vegas show, Human Nature, which was a Motown revue of sorts by the Australian group. Karen and I, finally, last July went to see it after years of trying to fit it in on our trips there. When the group did the three or four Smokey songs, either the ones he performed or the ones he wrote or both, the whole place was singing--at the request of Human Nature! Young and old; black and white; male and female. It didn't matter. How cool! After years of not getting to the show, I'm betting we take it in at least once every year, at least.) I, of course, am taken with his voice. Sometimes listening to others singing and I wonder, is this really singing? Isn't singing supposed to be melodic/mellifluous? (There aren't many opportunities to use that word; I might as well take advantage of it when I can.) Some voices are smokey (not as in Robinson), husky, or hoarse, but still sound, well, mellifluous. But a lot of the voices are just terrible--or worse. I won't mention any names, but I'm not picking on current "singers." There were a lot from decades past, too. I wonder what the attraction of these performers was/is. Maybe it's the accompanying music.
Which is something I also noted. The Human Nature show had a great live band, patterned after the old Motown Funk Brothers. They were studio musicians, of the highest quality. Also in the studio, but going out on the road for concerts, were the bands of Earl Van Dyke and Choker Campbell. They were great! In fact, along with the Funk Brothers, their music could/can stand alone, without any lyrics. What terrific musicians!
And, maybe I don't quite have this one right, but it seems in a large sense I do. Smokey and the other, esp Motown, writers must have had good educations--that is, their grammar teachers must have done a great job of teaching language. OK, there are "ain'ts" ("Ain't That Peculiar," Marvin Gaye) and other grammatical flaws such as double negatives ("and there ain't nothin' I can do about it," the Supremes), no doubt. Likely there are more than I remember, too. But listen to the words. They all match. They are creative, with their rhyming patterns and more. (Go ahead, try to rhyme "camouflage" in a song; Smokey did.) At the Human Nature show, the group stopped singing at one point in Smokey's "Tracks of My Tears," letting the crowd sing the lyrics, "My smile is my make-up I wear since my break-up with you...." And, boy, it was loud!
Of course, succeeding generations target those before and after--it seems to be the nature of life, doesn't it? But I'm glad I had and still have the Motown memories. I had a recent e-mail from a special high school friend, who recalled we went to the Motortown (that's what it was originally called, later changed to Motown) Revue at old (before renovations) Fox Theater downtown. (She even remembered where we ate afterward.) Each was a great show and is a great memory!
A final note: I know I've been obsessing with the hitting of Miguel Cabrera. But I find it fascinating, just fun to watch. He hits more ropes and lasers than anyone. In some games, he smacks three or four or even five clothes lines. And he's hurt now and was last year for a month with not one, but two sprained ankles. One player said umpires often take balls out of the game after Miggy hits them--they are lopsided because he hit them so hard. He's had balls come off of his bat in excess of 105 mph! I've said for more than a year now that he's the best hitter I've seen live, ever, outside of Ted Williams. People have likely rolled their eyes at that (or at least wanted to), but in the past few weeks there have been more and more superlatives. I've even read some national articles suggesting that, not only is he the best hitter right now, but before all is said and done will be considered the best ever. I don't know about that, but I am even now thinking more about the Williams' comparison--granted, that I didn't see Williams as much as Miggy. I really didn't plan to say all this, but merely that I find myself reading the sports pages, specifically, the stories and articles about the Tigers now. I can't remember the last time I did that, maybe in '84. I certainly didn't follow them all that closely in '06. But I skim the articles/columns looking for references to Cabrera's hitting. Like my Motown music, I think I'll appreciate having this guy around.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Nostalgia
I often tell of the amounts of work--reading, writing, thinking--required of us at Amherst. (Fully understand I was hardly the top student or anywhere close to it.) I am convinced, as I've written many times, that when I tell of our course requirements, most people politely nod, but think, "Yeah, right.... He doesn't really expect us to believe that, does he?"
Well this quarter's Amherst Alumni Magazine had a good article that drew my close attention. It was written by another of us who had to go through English 11 and most other "11" courses, that is, Introductory Courses, not to mention many additional ones. (In full disclosure, I often joked that I majored in Introductory Courses, taking those in English, History, Political Science, Religion, French, Math/Calculus, Astronomy, Physics, Economics, Sociology, and the three Problems courses in Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Humanities. In truth, it was a great thing to do to expand my interests and knowledge, however superficial. And, I'm not so sure, as you will see, it was all that smart a thing to do, work-wise.)
He noted "...Saturday classes and...[a] course requiring 30 short papers a semester." Granted not all of these courses had so many papers, but many did. If I recall, I'm pretty sure "short" to our professors meant three-to-five pages, which I thought, in high school, was a term paper! With 15 week terms, not including study (for finals) week and finals week, that means two papers a course each week. Again, esp with the upper level courses, we didn't have as many. Still.....!
For these professors, this writer wrote, "Class time was devoted to dissecting the student responses [that is, our papers], often pitilessly." One of the retiring professors, for whom this paean of an article was written, once wrote on a paper of mine, "If that's the best you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school." And, I've noted many times, "No sloppy thinking" seemed to be a regular for my papers; maybe they had a rubber stamp? "Instructors," the author wrote, "sounded a frequent note of sarcasm, even belittlement." Yep.
Of course, I wasn't at all appreciative of that then; certainly not. In fact, I didn't even know that Amherst was sort of unique in this, that other colleges/universities didn't require all this reading, writing, thinking. But, I was a kid and what kid wants to do all that work? Still, we were "trained to pay attention to words on a page, a helpful habit." One professor wrote, "Compositions out there in the world have designs on us." Exactly right and we have to be able to read them critically, asking the right questions, not being taken in just because they are written. Words are important. They have meanings and can be used to persuade or convince us. It's necessary to be able to read them critically.
Another point the author made perhaps can be used as a slam at the heavy trends toward technology in education, namely online classes, virtual schools, etc. "Will future generations of American students, watching their professors remotely via MOOCs and other forms of distance education, marvel at what we experienced, seeing in it another form of craftsmanship that has gone out of the world?" Wow! Well said. That's my disagreement with all these online classes, virtual schools, etc., the lack of interaction with professors like I had.
In this ode to several retiring English professors, three of whom I had in seminar and three others who I knew of through lectures, etc., the writer notes, "In the end it's not only the years put in that impress, but the hours within those years."
Have I ever indicated how lucky I was in my college education?
Well this quarter's Amherst Alumni Magazine had a good article that drew my close attention. It was written by another of us who had to go through English 11 and most other "11" courses, that is, Introductory Courses, not to mention many additional ones. (In full disclosure, I often joked that I majored in Introductory Courses, taking those in English, History, Political Science, Religion, French, Math/Calculus, Astronomy, Physics, Economics, Sociology, and the three Problems courses in Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Humanities. In truth, it was a great thing to do to expand my interests and knowledge, however superficial. And, I'm not so sure, as you will see, it was all that smart a thing to do, work-wise.)
He noted "...Saturday classes and...[a] course requiring 30 short papers a semester." Granted not all of these courses had so many papers, but many did. If I recall, I'm pretty sure "short" to our professors meant three-to-five pages, which I thought, in high school, was a term paper! With 15 week terms, not including study (for finals) week and finals week, that means two papers a course each week. Again, esp with the upper level courses, we didn't have as many. Still.....!
For these professors, this writer wrote, "Class time was devoted to dissecting the student responses [that is, our papers], often pitilessly." One of the retiring professors, for whom this paean of an article was written, once wrote on a paper of mine, "If that's the best you can do, I suggest you transfer to another school." And, I've noted many times, "No sloppy thinking" seemed to be a regular for my papers; maybe they had a rubber stamp? "Instructors," the author wrote, "sounded a frequent note of sarcasm, even belittlement." Yep.
Of course, I wasn't at all appreciative of that then; certainly not. In fact, I didn't even know that Amherst was sort of unique in this, that other colleges/universities didn't require all this reading, writing, thinking. But, I was a kid and what kid wants to do all that work? Still, we were "trained to pay attention to words on a page, a helpful habit." One professor wrote, "Compositions out there in the world have designs on us." Exactly right and we have to be able to read them critically, asking the right questions, not being taken in just because they are written. Words are important. They have meanings and can be used to persuade or convince us. It's necessary to be able to read them critically.
Another point the author made perhaps can be used as a slam at the heavy trends toward technology in education, namely online classes, virtual schools, etc. "Will future generations of American students, watching their professors remotely via MOOCs and other forms of distance education, marvel at what we experienced, seeing in it another form of craftsmanship that has gone out of the world?" Wow! Well said. That's my disagreement with all these online classes, virtual schools, etc., the lack of interaction with professors like I had.
In this ode to several retiring English professors, three of whom I had in seminar and three others who I knew of through lectures, etc., the writer notes, "In the end it's not only the years put in that impress, but the hours within those years."
Have I ever indicated how lucky I was in my college education?
Tue Moanin'
Full credit to the late Free Press columnist Bob Talbert.
That all reminds me of days of yore, reading the Free Press when it was still a real newspaper. Mon was Talbert's column, "Out of My Mind on a Monday Moanin'." Tue I looked forward to Sidney Harris' "Things I Learned Looking Up Other Things," a nifty trivia column each week. Wed had coupons, but no longer. Thur was Judd Arnett's best, either "Under My Government" or "The Old Curmudgeon," or something like those. Fri was, well, it was the end of the week. Now I esp look forward to Sat newspapers and their crosswords. They are more challenging than the Sun NY Times crossword and that makes them more fun.
Is it true, as both Detroit newspaper and the WSJ suggested last week, that US Senators and Congressmen and -women and much of their staffs are exempt from ObamaCare? According to the articles, the President authorized the Office of Personnel Management to allow members of Congress an exemption. If this is true, I guess my question is "Why?" Why would members of Congress want an exemption? After all, ObamaCare was passed by them, against the wishes of a majority of Americans. And, as they so often point out to us, they are smarter than we are, knowing what's best for us better than we do. So, if ObamaCare is so good for us, why isn't it good for them? What is it that they now know, what they discovered since passing the bill without reading it or knowing what was in it? If it's as Senator Reid says, a potential cause of "brain drain" in the legislative branch (apparently the lousy ObamaCare coverage will drive the best and brightest away from DC?), then why doesn't such logic apply to other areas/fields, such as teaching/education? Once again, ObamaCare and its implementation don't pass the smell test.
A good article about how to improve the 2013-14 school year appeared in, of all places, Parade Magazine. There were, I think, seven "tips." I liked several of them. First, "More Recess" sounds good. In fact, I think we should extend that to include more physical education. Instead, schools are getting away from physical activities. They make it harder to play sports, with pay-to-play extracurriculars, reduced phys ed classes and times, year-round emphasis on a single sport, etc. As much as I value my college education, I also am very grateful for my athletic opportunities--varsity sports and otherwise. Of course, today schools and administrators know physical education and recess aren't "on the tests." And, as we know, tests have become the gods of education, much to its detriment. That was a second "tip" of the article--less testing and more learning and thinking. Several experts (I know I'm treading dangerously here!), including Diane Ravitch, were cited as acknowledging the bad effects of so much testing and so much emphasis on it. It's interesting because Ravitch has evolved on this issue. There was also a "tip" about more art, music, drama, etc. That's good, too. But, of course, they aren't "on the tests." And we've let people who don't value learning for learning's sake--the foundation of education--call the shots. I disagree with the idea presented of lengthening the school day and/or school year. I believe we should let kids be kids as long as possible. Let them play instead of adding hours to a school day. Let them enjoy their summers instead of being in classrooms. If we need more time, I think it's a better idea to add another school year, say a Grade 13--that is, if it's needed. And I question the use of technology to bring "the best lecturers" into the classroom. Why let, the article asked, poor lecturers give lectures when technology can improve them? I guess I'd ask why those teachers are "poor lecturers" or seminar leaders or...and, then, why they are still teachers. And I recall the television lectures we received back in the '50s and early '60s from so-called "experts" in math and foreign languages from Detroit-area colleges. I don't remember them as being so hot. And, what constitutes the "best" in this regard? I frequently watch the C-Span channels on weekends for the history they have. Often there are lectures from college classrooms. Some of them are very, very good--others are quite mediocre, at best. And if these mediocre lecturers are being chosen for television......
Another interesting article outlined how Detroit could have avoided bankruptcy. The suggestions were very sensible. (Is "sensical" a word? "Nonsensical" is.) I was particularly drawn by the statement that pensions are not a major problem and really have little to do with the financial problems. In fact, the author outlines a way to provide pensions without adding to the mess. Yet, the EM has targeted pensions seemingly from day one. The story continues......
Wow! If he keeps this up, I may have to reconsider my assessment. I have held that Ted Williams was the best hitter I ever saw play. That includes Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, and others. But I have thought Miguel Cabrera was right after Williams. With the way he's hitting this year (and reviewing the past couple of years), maybe Miggy will move up...maybe. BTW, Matt met someone who knows one of my favorite hitters to watch, Paul Molitar. Boy, he used to hit those long, low line drives that were pure hitting artistry. They were great to see.
A Detroit writer made a good argument for former Tigers Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, and Jack Morris to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I agree, at least with Trammell and Morris, and probably Whitaker. That's especially so if we start comparing their statistics with others who've been inducted. But, a very good point and the brunt of the article, a good start to consideration of these three for inclusion into Cooperstown would be for the Tigers to retire their numbers. After all, there's a statue of Ernie Harwell in the outfield and he wasn't a player (and, for my money, wasn't the best announcer the Tigers have had). The Tigers should retire their numbers and retire them soon--they each deserve it.
And, while I'm at it, Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall of Fame. Again I point to statistics of his that are very favorable or even superior to others' who are in the Hall. I don't know why he isn't in there. Besides, I can tell many stories of Ted's exploits on the sandlots, some quite extraordinary and even unbelievable. I have played with or against upwards of 30 players who made the Majors (even if only for a cup of coffee) and too many to count who played professionally, but Ted would be the only one in Cooperstown. He should be there.
That all reminds me of days of yore, reading the Free Press when it was still a real newspaper. Mon was Talbert's column, "Out of My Mind on a Monday Moanin'." Tue I looked forward to Sidney Harris' "Things I Learned Looking Up Other Things," a nifty trivia column each week. Wed had coupons, but no longer. Thur was Judd Arnett's best, either "Under My Government" or "The Old Curmudgeon," or something like those. Fri was, well, it was the end of the week. Now I esp look forward to Sat newspapers and their crosswords. They are more challenging than the Sun NY Times crossword and that makes them more fun.
Is it true, as both Detroit newspaper and the WSJ suggested last week, that US Senators and Congressmen and -women and much of their staffs are exempt from ObamaCare? According to the articles, the President authorized the Office of Personnel Management to allow members of Congress an exemption. If this is true, I guess my question is "Why?" Why would members of Congress want an exemption? After all, ObamaCare was passed by them, against the wishes of a majority of Americans. And, as they so often point out to us, they are smarter than we are, knowing what's best for us better than we do. So, if ObamaCare is so good for us, why isn't it good for them? What is it that they now know, what they discovered since passing the bill without reading it or knowing what was in it? If it's as Senator Reid says, a potential cause of "brain drain" in the legislative branch (apparently the lousy ObamaCare coverage will drive the best and brightest away from DC?), then why doesn't such logic apply to other areas/fields, such as teaching/education? Once again, ObamaCare and its implementation don't pass the smell test.
A good article about how to improve the 2013-14 school year appeared in, of all places, Parade Magazine. There were, I think, seven "tips." I liked several of them. First, "More Recess" sounds good. In fact, I think we should extend that to include more physical education. Instead, schools are getting away from physical activities. They make it harder to play sports, with pay-to-play extracurriculars, reduced phys ed classes and times, year-round emphasis on a single sport, etc. As much as I value my college education, I also am very grateful for my athletic opportunities--varsity sports and otherwise. Of course, today schools and administrators know physical education and recess aren't "on the tests." And, as we know, tests have become the gods of education, much to its detriment. That was a second "tip" of the article--less testing and more learning and thinking. Several experts (I know I'm treading dangerously here!), including Diane Ravitch, were cited as acknowledging the bad effects of so much testing and so much emphasis on it. It's interesting because Ravitch has evolved on this issue. There was also a "tip" about more art, music, drama, etc. That's good, too. But, of course, they aren't "on the tests." And we've let people who don't value learning for learning's sake--the foundation of education--call the shots. I disagree with the idea presented of lengthening the school day and/or school year. I believe we should let kids be kids as long as possible. Let them play instead of adding hours to a school day. Let them enjoy their summers instead of being in classrooms. If we need more time, I think it's a better idea to add another school year, say a Grade 13--that is, if it's needed. And I question the use of technology to bring "the best lecturers" into the classroom. Why let, the article asked, poor lecturers give lectures when technology can improve them? I guess I'd ask why those teachers are "poor lecturers" or seminar leaders or...and, then, why they are still teachers. And I recall the television lectures we received back in the '50s and early '60s from so-called "experts" in math and foreign languages from Detroit-area colleges. I don't remember them as being so hot. And, what constitutes the "best" in this regard? I frequently watch the C-Span channels on weekends for the history they have. Often there are lectures from college classrooms. Some of them are very, very good--others are quite mediocre, at best. And if these mediocre lecturers are being chosen for television......
Another interesting article outlined how Detroit could have avoided bankruptcy. The suggestions were very sensible. (Is "sensical" a word? "Nonsensical" is.) I was particularly drawn by the statement that pensions are not a major problem and really have little to do with the financial problems. In fact, the author outlines a way to provide pensions without adding to the mess. Yet, the EM has targeted pensions seemingly from day one. The story continues......
Wow! If he keeps this up, I may have to reconsider my assessment. I have held that Ted Williams was the best hitter I ever saw play. That includes Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Clemente, Robinson, and others. But I have thought Miguel Cabrera was right after Williams. With the way he's hitting this year (and reviewing the past couple of years), maybe Miggy will move up...maybe. BTW, Matt met someone who knows one of my favorite hitters to watch, Paul Molitar. Boy, he used to hit those long, low line drives that were pure hitting artistry. They were great to see.
A Detroit writer made a good argument for former Tigers Alan Trammell, Lou Whitaker, and Jack Morris to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I agree, at least with Trammell and Morris, and probably Whitaker. That's especially so if we start comparing their statistics with others who've been inducted. But, a very good point and the brunt of the article, a good start to consideration of these three for inclusion into Cooperstown would be for the Tigers to retire their numbers. After all, there's a statue of Ernie Harwell in the outfield and he wasn't a player (and, for my money, wasn't the best announcer the Tigers have had). The Tigers should retire their numbers and retire them soon--they each deserve it.
And, while I'm at it, Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall of Fame. Again I point to statistics of his that are very favorable or even superior to others' who are in the Hall. I don't know why he isn't in there. Besides, I can tell many stories of Ted's exploits on the sandlots, some quite extraordinary and even unbelievable. I have played with or against upwards of 30 players who made the Majors (even if only for a cup of coffee) and too many to count who played professionally, but Ted would be the only one in Cooperstown. He should be there.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Fri Comments
The City of Dearborn has become the latest to demonstrate the pitfalls of ObamaCare, an unintended consequence of, I suppose, well-meaning elected officials (I'm being overly generous here) whose actions are causing havoc. Dearborn, along with other local and state governments, have joined private companies in downsizing. That is, to avoid the costs of ObamaCare, they are limited a number of employees to fewer than 30 hours a week of work. Now, we might argue that these cities and private concerns are merely being greedy for themselves. But, esp in the case of local governments, that seems a stretch. Yet, onward we march, despite attempts by members of Congress to get exemptions for themselves and their staffs. (Perhaps a good move would be to force members of Congress to pay ObamaCare costs from their own allocated budgets!)
And some students in Ann Arbor are suing the school district there because they are being charged $100 a semester for taking an extra course/class, "a seventh hour." There are several things wrong with such a charge; in fact, it's odious for a number of reasons. I understand that school districts have budgets and many have budget problems. And I suppose that some might say, "Hey, wait! Sports are now pay-to-play; extra classes should be, too." But I'm not one of them. First, esp in Ann Arbor of all places, students wanting to learn more are going to be penalized with the fees? Who's running that district? It would seem that it's not those who value education for its own sake. Second, the $100 is waived for students "who qualify for free and reduced lunches." Wait a minute! That's not right. Students are students. I have some problems with the free and reduced meal system--its waste and the double-dipping--and it should not be applied to this silly policy.
Way back when, one of my principals came to ask me why I wasn't taking my history classes down to see the assembly, a local judge who was bringing court to the school for a day. The administrator certainly wanted my class there, if only to not have the embarrassment of an empty auditorium. I explained that I thought it wasn't a real court, that in effect it was contrived. The cases were hand-picked, the judge(s) overacted, and the sentences were not the normal sentences that would have been handed out had the trials taken place where they should have. Of course, the administrator didn't want to hear that my view of this was it was Judge Wapner in person. So, I read an article in the newspaper this week about a state judge who did this sort of "bring-a-trial-to-school" thing. Although he didn't come right out and say this was like television trials/court, his explanation of what went on confirmed that it pretty much was.
I also saw in the newspaper that a guy I worked construction with, oh 45 or more years ago, died. I was a summer worker, temporary help home for the summer. I worked five summers at this and, my last year, I was asked if I wanted to stay as a full-timer. I did, but my dad squashed that idea, saying something like, "I didn't pay for four years of college to have you work construction." Back then, when dads talked, kids listened. But I liked that job, a lot. In fact, along with my college job of working in the dining halls with my buddies, it was my favorite job--ever! Ironically, over the past few months I've thought of that construction job and the guys with whom I worked. And now, I read that one of them has died. He was a full-time worker, driving our crew truck, and was a good 15 years or more older than I. But he was smart and we had a number of nice conversations. He urged me to stay in school, to graduate--as if that was an option for me! But he was insincere. I remember him fondly and the past few days have left a pall over me. RIP.
And some students in Ann Arbor are suing the school district there because they are being charged $100 a semester for taking an extra course/class, "a seventh hour." There are several things wrong with such a charge; in fact, it's odious for a number of reasons. I understand that school districts have budgets and many have budget problems. And I suppose that some might say, "Hey, wait! Sports are now pay-to-play; extra classes should be, too." But I'm not one of them. First, esp in Ann Arbor of all places, students wanting to learn more are going to be penalized with the fees? Who's running that district? It would seem that it's not those who value education for its own sake. Second, the $100 is waived for students "who qualify for free and reduced lunches." Wait a minute! That's not right. Students are students. I have some problems with the free and reduced meal system--its waste and the double-dipping--and it should not be applied to this silly policy.
Way back when, one of my principals came to ask me why I wasn't taking my history classes down to see the assembly, a local judge who was bringing court to the school for a day. The administrator certainly wanted my class there, if only to not have the embarrassment of an empty auditorium. I explained that I thought it wasn't a real court, that in effect it was contrived. The cases were hand-picked, the judge(s) overacted, and the sentences were not the normal sentences that would have been handed out had the trials taken place where they should have. Of course, the administrator didn't want to hear that my view of this was it was Judge Wapner in person. So, I read an article in the newspaper this week about a state judge who did this sort of "bring-a-trial-to-school" thing. Although he didn't come right out and say this was like television trials/court, his explanation of what went on confirmed that it pretty much was.
I also saw in the newspaper that a guy I worked construction with, oh 45 or more years ago, died. I was a summer worker, temporary help home for the summer. I worked five summers at this and, my last year, I was asked if I wanted to stay as a full-timer. I did, but my dad squashed that idea, saying something like, "I didn't pay for four years of college to have you work construction." Back then, when dads talked, kids listened. But I liked that job, a lot. In fact, along with my college job of working in the dining halls with my buddies, it was my favorite job--ever! Ironically, over the past few months I've thought of that construction job and the guys with whom I worked. And now, I read that one of them has died. He was a full-time worker, driving our crew truck, and was a good 15 years or more older than I. But he was smart and we had a number of nice conversations. He urged me to stay in school, to graduate--as if that was an option for me! But he was insincere. I remember him fondly and the past few days have left a pall over me. RIP.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Watershed?
I know a little history and realize that the federal government has, more than once, attempted to subvert US citizens' rights. What's going on now with the Obama administration is nothing new. What is new is that Americans don't seem to care that their government is spying on them, is using its power against political opponents, is blatantly lying, etc. There is no outrage from Americans. And, I think, the Obama folks know it. So, we get "phony scandals."
They are hardly "phony scandals." If they are and it's all right for the government to act so, then perhaps Watergate was a "phony scandal." After all, CREEP was merely aimed at the Democrat National Party, not all US citizens. I know, I know.... But I'm not absolving Nixon. He deserved even more than what he got. I guess we must realize in the early '70s we didn't have American Idol, the ramped-up NCAA, NBA, and NFL, etc. as the really important things in American life.
There was a great "phony" caption below a photo of Obama and H. Clinton at lunch. She says, "Why didn't we think of 'phony scandal?'"
I once heard a pretty sharp cookie say, "If you accept it, you condone it." So, Americans are now accepting and condoning such behavior from our federal government. Count me among those who have protested to my elected officials. Of course, with only a handful of us protesting, we are easily ignored.
There was a good column in the newspaper this AM about the sneakiness of Gov. Snyder. Yep, he's like the rest. He has to resort to deception and dishonesty to get his programs enacted. And think of how the Republicans hooted and howled at the Democrats for doing the same thing with ObamaCare, etc. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, the Republicans find nothing wrong with doing what they want with deception and dishonesty. And, I thought principles and honesty never took vacations. Silly me......
They are hardly "phony scandals." If they are and it's all right for the government to act so, then perhaps Watergate was a "phony scandal." After all, CREEP was merely aimed at the Democrat National Party, not all US citizens. I know, I know.... But I'm not absolving Nixon. He deserved even more than what he got. I guess we must realize in the early '70s we didn't have American Idol, the ramped-up NCAA, NBA, and NFL, etc. as the really important things in American life.
There was a great "phony" caption below a photo of Obama and H. Clinton at lunch. She says, "Why didn't we think of 'phony scandal?'"
I once heard a pretty sharp cookie say, "If you accept it, you condone it." So, Americans are now accepting and condoning such behavior from our federal government. Count me among those who have protested to my elected officials. Of course, with only a handful of us protesting, we are easily ignored.
There was a good column in the newspaper this AM about the sneakiness of Gov. Snyder. Yep, he's like the rest. He has to resort to deception and dishonesty to get his programs enacted. And think of how the Republicans hooted and howled at the Democrats for doing the same thing with ObamaCare, etc. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, the Republicans find nothing wrong with doing what they want with deception and dishonesty. And, I thought principles and honesty never took vacations. Silly me......
Friday, August 2, 2013
Standards/Rigor
I certainly must have written about this before, but I was reminded of it three times in the past week with discussions/e-mails.
OK, to set the record straight, I was most surely not a Dean's List student in college, far from it. I wasn't the most diligent student at Amherst. But, I did graduate, in four years (as was the norm back then, I think), with about a B- grade point average.
But, again, I did graduate. I tell people about the prodigious amounts of work--reading and writing, writing and reading-and thinking that were required. No, I didn't do all of it, much to my regret now, but I have tried to catch up thanks to the inspiration of many of my professors. How many times were comments on my papers something like, "No sloppy thinking allowed?" Well more than once, I know.
In fact, that was one thing, among many, I appreciated from my professors--their comments on my papers. They were, of course, intended to be critical. After all, that's the job of a professor, isn't it, to critically evaluate students' work/ideas? And I compare that to my experiences with my several graduate degrees--my graduate experiences pale in all respects, except perhaps, my efforts. And I think those efforts were hatched at Amherst.
I often think when I explain what was required of students at Amherst people think I am embellishing or maybe even lying. I don't know why anyone would think I'd do that, but from the looks I get...... I am not at all kidding when I say my first history course had twelve books required for it. And there were also a number of reprinted pages, sometimes chapters of 30 and 40 pages, that had to be read. Yes, many classes had a 3-5 page paper due each Monday. In high school, wasn't 3-5 pages a term paper? Every Monday?
I remember, more than once, coming home from an away ball game on Sat, early evening, getting off the bus and then trudging to Chapin Hall (it looked just like a Howard Johnson's!) to study for a couple of hours in the always-open classrooms before heading back to the fraternity. (Saturday night, fraternity??????) I didn't do this every week, but enough so that I remember it.
I remember having to write two almost thesis-long papers for my history comprehensive exam. (Don't pass the comprehensive, don't graduate--even if all the courses have been passed!) I spend a couple of hard-working months on those. Of course, then I had to defend the papers along with a list of books in my major field and my minor field in front of three professors. I was grilled for more than 2 1/2 hours (making me very late for a very important date!). Oh, these papers and the defense were extra-curricular; that is, they were done outside of classes, in addition to classwork at that time. I recall the one masters dissertation I did, all worked up was I over its defense. I remembered the harrowing experience at Amherst (although Professors Ratte and Czap were cordial and seemed satisfied I knew my stuff) and dreaded the graduate defense. Was it a joke? Did the three professors sit down, smile, and then say, "It's obvious you know more about this topic than we do. What do you want to talk about?" Huh? I initially and briefly thought this was a joke, but it wasn't. My adviser asked if I wanted to go with them for a drink to celebrate my coming degree. (It wasn't such a big deal to me--my third one.) My second son had just been born a month or so before and I hadn't seen him a whole lot. So, I asked if I could just go home and be with him. That was my "defense."
All of that is true. Most folks who know me and know of Amherst realize its academic/scholarly reputation. But I don't think most really grasp the rigor that was required. I do know that I was taken aback at how easy graduate school was, almost like returning to high school. I had one professor at Eastern Michigan who obviously didn't think I had written a paper I had written. He called me into his office to discuss it and possible plagiarism. Within minutes he asked about where I had done my undergraduate work and I told him. He was from NYU and well-versed with Amherst. He sat up straight, I remember, and said, "Oh" and the was the end of any talk of my paper. That same professor, later, in a class I couldn't attend regularly because I was coaching high school football telling me, "You don't have to come every week. Just come when you can." I'd call him every week and tell him I couldn't make class. He had no problem with that. I had another professor, in the spring when I was coaching baseball, who told me a similar thing. I explained my attendance predicament and how I really hadn't done any of the reading. She was puzzled, asking, "You're doing fine in class. How are you keeping up?" I told her I essentially had this class before. She thought I had taken it and then dropped it. No, I told her, I had this stuff in my introductory history course as an undergrad. Dubiously she asked, "Where was that?" I told her Amherst and she essentially told me, "Oh, you don't have to come anymore."
I always got a chuckle out of people who laughed at George W. Bush for having a little bit better than a C average at Yale. I don't know exactly how Yale's grading system was, but if it was anything like what I suspect it was, then nobody should be laughing at Bush's C average. As I noted above, I had a B- average. There are Cs and then there are Cs.
Again, I may not have appreciated all of the work and requirements at the time, but every day I now thank my lucky stars for my college experiences. (Which is a good reason not to rely on student evaluations of courses, professors, even colleges.)
OK, to set the record straight, I was most surely not a Dean's List student in college, far from it. I wasn't the most diligent student at Amherst. But, I did graduate, in four years (as was the norm back then, I think), with about a B- grade point average.
But, again, I did graduate. I tell people about the prodigious amounts of work--reading and writing, writing and reading-and thinking that were required. No, I didn't do all of it, much to my regret now, but I have tried to catch up thanks to the inspiration of many of my professors. How many times were comments on my papers something like, "No sloppy thinking allowed?" Well more than once, I know.
In fact, that was one thing, among many, I appreciated from my professors--their comments on my papers. They were, of course, intended to be critical. After all, that's the job of a professor, isn't it, to critically evaluate students' work/ideas? And I compare that to my experiences with my several graduate degrees--my graduate experiences pale in all respects, except perhaps, my efforts. And I think those efforts were hatched at Amherst.
I often think when I explain what was required of students at Amherst people think I am embellishing or maybe even lying. I don't know why anyone would think I'd do that, but from the looks I get...... I am not at all kidding when I say my first history course had twelve books required for it. And there were also a number of reprinted pages, sometimes chapters of 30 and 40 pages, that had to be read. Yes, many classes had a 3-5 page paper due each Monday. In high school, wasn't 3-5 pages a term paper? Every Monday?
I remember, more than once, coming home from an away ball game on Sat, early evening, getting off the bus and then trudging to Chapin Hall (it looked just like a Howard Johnson's!) to study for a couple of hours in the always-open classrooms before heading back to the fraternity. (Saturday night, fraternity??????) I didn't do this every week, but enough so that I remember it.
I remember having to write two almost thesis-long papers for my history comprehensive exam. (Don't pass the comprehensive, don't graduate--even if all the courses have been passed!) I spend a couple of hard-working months on those. Of course, then I had to defend the papers along with a list of books in my major field and my minor field in front of three professors. I was grilled for more than 2 1/2 hours (making me very late for a very important date!). Oh, these papers and the defense were extra-curricular; that is, they were done outside of classes, in addition to classwork at that time. I recall the one masters dissertation I did, all worked up was I over its defense. I remembered the harrowing experience at Amherst (although Professors Ratte and Czap were cordial and seemed satisfied I knew my stuff) and dreaded the graduate defense. Was it a joke? Did the three professors sit down, smile, and then say, "It's obvious you know more about this topic than we do. What do you want to talk about?" Huh? I initially and briefly thought this was a joke, but it wasn't. My adviser asked if I wanted to go with them for a drink to celebrate my coming degree. (It wasn't such a big deal to me--my third one.) My second son had just been born a month or so before and I hadn't seen him a whole lot. So, I asked if I could just go home and be with him. That was my "defense."
All of that is true. Most folks who know me and know of Amherst realize its academic/scholarly reputation. But I don't think most really grasp the rigor that was required. I do know that I was taken aback at how easy graduate school was, almost like returning to high school. I had one professor at Eastern Michigan who obviously didn't think I had written a paper I had written. He called me into his office to discuss it and possible plagiarism. Within minutes he asked about where I had done my undergraduate work and I told him. He was from NYU and well-versed with Amherst. He sat up straight, I remember, and said, "Oh" and the was the end of any talk of my paper. That same professor, later, in a class I couldn't attend regularly because I was coaching high school football telling me, "You don't have to come every week. Just come when you can." I'd call him every week and tell him I couldn't make class. He had no problem with that. I had another professor, in the spring when I was coaching baseball, who told me a similar thing. I explained my attendance predicament and how I really hadn't done any of the reading. She was puzzled, asking, "You're doing fine in class. How are you keeping up?" I told her I essentially had this class before. She thought I had taken it and then dropped it. No, I told her, I had this stuff in my introductory history course as an undergrad. Dubiously she asked, "Where was that?" I told her Amherst and she essentially told me, "Oh, you don't have to come anymore."
I always got a chuckle out of people who laughed at George W. Bush for having a little bit better than a C average at Yale. I don't know exactly how Yale's grading system was, but if it was anything like what I suspect it was, then nobody should be laughing at Bush's C average. As I noted above, I had a B- average. There are Cs and then there are Cs.
Again, I may not have appreciated all of the work and requirements at the time, but every day I now thank my lucky stars for my college experiences. (Which is a good reason not to rely on student evaluations of courses, professors, even colleges.)
Hmmm......
Here's one for you:
In a book, a sports doctor asked a more than 100 world class runners if they would take a hypothetical pill if it would guarantee an Olympic gold medal, but would also kill them in a year. He also asked, unrelated to giving/taking the first pill, if they would take "a magic drug" that would let them win every competition they entered for the next five years, but likewise would have them dead five years after taking it.
I don't know if I was surprised or not by the responses. More than half of the runners said they'd take the pill or drug. Huh?
Now, granted, these are athletes who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of Olympic gold, but still??????
I, for one, think anyone who would do this is a fool, but as usual that's just me--or is it? It got me thinking about it, though.
I wonder if this question had been asked, say, 50 or more years ago the answers would still be "Yes." Were times different then, with athletes having a different focus? I do know that Bob Gibson, the great St Louis Cardinal pitcher, recently said he'd have seriously considered taking performance-enhancing drugs. (Imagine trying to hit Gibson with PEDs! He could hardly be touched without them--and with a flatter pitcher's mound.) Are we a different society/culture, where celebrity trumps all? Note all the athletes, from the high schools through college to the pros, who take steroids. They must know of the destructive side effects of the drugs, right?
Is it like smoking? "Yeah, smoking causes cancer, but it's the other guy who will get it--not me." or "You gotta go from something......"
What if such a pill/drug was offered for winning American Idol or one of those other television contests? I wonder if those contestants would also opt for the drug.
And, what might be the lower limit--little league? college glory? Miss America?
Ah, for me it's just food for thought. But for others, it just proves what fools there are out there.
In a book, a sports doctor asked a more than 100 world class runners if they would take a hypothetical pill if it would guarantee an Olympic gold medal, but would also kill them in a year. He also asked, unrelated to giving/taking the first pill, if they would take "a magic drug" that would let them win every competition they entered for the next five years, but likewise would have them dead five years after taking it.
I don't know if I was surprised or not by the responses. More than half of the runners said they'd take the pill or drug. Huh?
Now, granted, these are athletes who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of Olympic gold, but still??????
I, for one, think anyone who would do this is a fool, but as usual that's just me--or is it? It got me thinking about it, though.
I wonder if this question had been asked, say, 50 or more years ago the answers would still be "Yes." Were times different then, with athletes having a different focus? I do know that Bob Gibson, the great St Louis Cardinal pitcher, recently said he'd have seriously considered taking performance-enhancing drugs. (Imagine trying to hit Gibson with PEDs! He could hardly be touched without them--and with a flatter pitcher's mound.) Are we a different society/culture, where celebrity trumps all? Note all the athletes, from the high schools through college to the pros, who take steroids. They must know of the destructive side effects of the drugs, right?
Is it like smoking? "Yeah, smoking causes cancer, but it's the other guy who will get it--not me." or "You gotta go from something......"
What if such a pill/drug was offered for winning American Idol or one of those other television contests? I wonder if those contestants would also opt for the drug.
And, what might be the lower limit--little league? college glory? Miss America?
Ah, for me it's just food for thought. But for others, it just proves what fools there are out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
