Monday Moanin'

OK, I stole that one from a late Detroit newspaper columnist.  But, I don't think he'll mind......

Money, Money, Money.  Is that what it's all about, still?  I have heard these radio ads enticing people to seek out businesses who work with the IRS to cut the amount of taxes paid.  Some claim they can reduce tax liability by well over half.  "The IRS is willing to deal," says one ad.  Wait a minute!  Why do I have to pay all of my taxes and some other scofflaw only has to pay a fraction?  Where are all the doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") on this?  After all, they are constantly crying, "Everyone has to pay his fair share!"  Yeah, right......

And, for all this standing up for the little guy junk, the Obama administration has done little, actually has done nothing, in going after the big bank fraud perpetrators.  Oh, I know there have been some fines, rather minuscule in light of the vast profits made off of illegal doings.  And isn't it great that some of the fines can be written off against federal taxes?  But what is really galling is that the vaunted Justice Dept of Eric Holder has yet to file charges against any individuals involved.  These perpetrators continue to haul down the big bucks.  And, read their names; they aren't hard to find.  In fact, many are found again in more recent shady doings under investigation.  I'm guessing, with the Obama Administration, at least the Justice Dept (Is that a misnomer in this instance?), in bed with big money, nobody is shaking in his boots. let alone hiring some hot-shot defense law firm.

Term limits, term limits.  We're at it again.  I've written enough about why I oppose term limits, but this one thing sticks with me.  Instead of owning up to our own responsibilities to seek out quality candidates, to not support Bozos running for election, we look to blame something else.  And both sides, those for and those against, use term limits as their bogeyman.  Bologna/Baloney!  Voters are the culprits!  "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves......"

The column I read looked intriguing, at least the headline did.  "Outrage" and how we were so "outraged" in 2014.  The piece wasn't very good and not what I expected.  But again I am amazed at how "outraged" Americans really are, for about 15 minutes.  Then things pass until it's time for the next 15-minute outrage.

At the hotel yesterday AM, as I was dressing for breakfast after my run, Karen had on the boob tube.  The show was a panel discussion of prominent (I know, that's subjective!) Detroit-area folks discussing the future of Detroit.  Oh, they talked schools, investment, tax bases, etc.  But one thing they never talked about, the one thing I think will spell success or doom in rebuilding Detroit.  My goodness, don't these people read their own newspapers or watch their own newscasts!?!?!?  Over the past few days, has anyone noticed the number of people who have been shot and killed--murdered--in the city?  Granted, such shootings have become so routine, we often must open to page 5 or 6 to read about them.  Still, with all the violent crime, how does Detroit stand a chance?  Violent crime must be stopped and stopped while there are still folks willing to invest in Detroit's recover.

I just finished reading a series on the Holocaust.  Wow!  Talk about depressing stuff......  The inhumanity and cruelty that people impose on other people in the name of whatever is saddening--no, worse than that.  But even more compelling to me is that so many people stood around and did nothing.  Oh, of course there was Rev Niemoeller, "First they came after..but I said nothing......," but not many others.  It was the "I don't want to get involved" or "Things can't be that bad" although all one had to do was not willfully ignore what was out in the open.  And I see that happening now.  Note how many family members defend the thugs and thug-wannabes as "good" people, well-behaved, etc.  See how many deny the thugs and thug-wannabes have guns, despite video evidence as well as witnesses demonstrating the contrary.  As long as people refuse to get involved, refuse to help stop the violence, it will continue.  Again, note the Holocaust.

I got a kick out of a headline the other day.  I don't remember which newspaper it was, but it cited Mike Ilitch's investment in the Woodward area.  Ha!  I think, at the very least, taxpayers should have had equal billing.

Dec 26th

I reading a series on the Holocaust for review--and it, the series, is very depressing.  In fact, I needed to take a break from reading one particularly hasty, inhumane passage, dealing with children who were dressed up in their best clothes (at least the best they had), marched to cattle cars, and taken off to extermination camps.

As if any thinking person needs to be reminded of the evil that can be perpetrated......  Well, it appears many so-called "thinking" people don't know or refuse to acknowledge evil.

I have done extensive reading on the Holocaust, although not much in recent years, even a couple of decades.  What the Nazis and common people who either aided and abetted or just looked the other way dud brings tears to the brink of my eyes.  This is esp true when reading of the children who were shipped to their deaths.

The Holocaust could not have happened, certainly not to the extent it did, without the help, active or otherwise, of those who weren't Nazis.  I just cannot fathom how this happened, how so many people could have turned a blind eye to what was, if not overtly know, obvious.  I nod when I read of Jews in Europe who thought, "Oh, this is an exaggeration.  Such cannot be happening."  I'm not a Holocaust denier, not by any means.  I just cannot understand how this happened.

But I am heartened by the many stories of the hundreds, even thousands of lives that were saved by the heroics of others.  We've heard some of the names, such as Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler, but many others have gone by nameless.  A lot of them not only defied the Nazis, openly and otherwise, but also their own governments, institutions (such as churches), etc.  They, too, if caught faced death.  Courage......

Besides the sadness and anger that this provokes, there are lessons for us here, if we'll only open our eyes to them.

Today's Detroit News includes an op-ed in which the newspaper makes its case opposing term limits.  I, too, oppose them, but for far different reason.  I, that is we voters, already possess the power of term limits.  We can always vote for the other guy, for a different candidate.  Term limits takes away my choices as a voting citizen.  But that's not the stance the News takes.

It cites the experience and power attained by the four Michigan members of Congress who are leaving at the end of this term.  Each of the four "gained expertise, influence" during their long tenures in office.  I suppose so; I certainly won't argue that.

But isn't this the same Detroit News that is a frequent, if not constant, critic of what is handed down from Washington, DC, the politicians, the appointees, and the bureaucrats?  And, if so much that is wrong has emanated from these DC folks, Democrats and Establishment Republicans alike (which includes each of these four who are exiting), why would we cite them as positive examples for not having term limits?

Maybe it's as I suspect.  The Detroit News--and other media outlets who purport to be conservative--talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.  That is, it really doesn't want to see the Establishment shaken because it is a part of the Establishment.  Look at the number of incumbents the News endorsed back in Aug (esp telling in the primary) and Nov--both Reps and Dems.  Why would it do that?  Why would it continue to back people who, already holding office, have done so much damage to the American people, esp Michigan residents?  And, just read the News op-ed pages and you'll see that the paper is very critical......

The Free Press, I think, had a column by a Democrat adviser that lampooned (harpooned?) Sen. Ted Cruz for his antics last week (or was it two weeks ago already?) over the Cromnibus.  Ha, Ha, she chuckled, Cruz actually helped the Dems get things through the Senate before adjournment for Chris and New Years.  (Does she really think Reid would have let anyone go home without voting on these things before the Reps take over after the first of the year?)  It, the column, led me to wonder about so many of these op-eds.  Are these so-called "experts" really ignorant of matters or do they deliberately manipulate and obfuscate the truth?  I'm really not sure.

And last, without any comment on the grand jury rulings of the past month or so, I wonder why no arrests have been made (or have they?) of looters and arsonists who took to the streets.  I haven't heard of any, but I guess that doesn't mean there haven't been any.  Still......  No doubt there is evidence to arrest and convict many of the felons--they have been captured on film.video!  They destroyed other people's property--their businesses and livelihoods, their homes and cars.  Why are they allowed to break the law, openly!, in the name of "protest" and have government do nothing but look the other way?  I wonder what might have happened to those of us who didn't like seeing W. Bush or Obama elected President and foresaw the bad things they each perpetrated on the US had we "protested" in such a manner.  I know, I know......

Road Taxes

Without question, I vote no on the state legislature's plan for increased taxes to pay for fixing Michigan's roads.  I'll explain in a bit.

But first, a Free Press editorial blazes this headline at us, "Our legislators are making fools of us."  I beg to differ, but only in degree.  I think we have already made "fools," big "fools" of ourselves by voting for most of those Bozos in Lansing (well, DC, too).  If one seriously thinks about this, what would one expect the legislators to do?  This is not new stuff.  Rotten things happen all the time up there (and in DC, too).  They have other people's money to spend.  They have to think, not about the people of Michigan (or the US), but their parties.  (C'mon, listen to their own words.)  They have their own agendas, not ours.  Yes, they lie to us and that we continue to elect the same people or the same types of people--from both parties!--delineates us as fools.

Now, about the road taxes.  No!  No! No!  There are no assurances that better materials will be used.  There are no assurances of any guarantees/warranties about work.  There are no assurances of lower weight limits on trucks.  No!  No!  No!  There is enough money; we've given the legislators plenty of it.  They just spend it where they were not supposed to spend it.  (It's not their money.  And we've shown how foolish we are by continuing to agree to give them more--either directly or by electing people who increase our taxes.  Look at the local school district.  The board members and administration come begging to voters last August for more money--after giving the already very well-compensated superintendent a $43,000 bonus.  I won't go into how poorly I think the school district is run, but I could.)

The governor and his Republican lackeys gave Michigan businesses a $1.8 billion tax cut, with no stipulations.  There were no conditions such as hiring more people, lowering prices, etc.  None.  Oh, people who support the governor point to lower unemployment figures in Michigan.  Yeah, right......  If jobs are really being created, where is the extra revenue the state should be getting?  Jobs that have been created are part-time and low/minimum wage jobs.  And I don't know where the governor and the Republican lackeys shop, but I haven't noticed any drop in prices, except at the gas pump.  In fact, food prices are skyrocketing.

Those who say the roads are beating up their cars--don't look to me to fix your car.  Look to those "fools" in Lansing.

BTW, as an addendum, let me note this--Sarah Palin was right, again.  While all the so-called "really smart" people (from both parties) were dumping on her, she was right on Russia and Ukraine and now she's right on gas/oil, "Drill, Baby, Drill!"  Well, if you don't like the lower gas prices, maybe you don't think she was right......

Fri Thoughts

Today's newspaper has some good op-eds.

Several of them deal with the state legislature's solution to fixing the roads--a May election for a tax increase.  The general consensus is that the legislators, esp in the Republican-controlled House, demonstrated a great deal of "cowardice," in "kicking the can down the road" and letting someone else (voters) make the decision.

Now, on the one hand, this is probably at the essence of democracy, letting people decide directly.  Yet, we all know that money has become a primary, if not the primary, influence on elections.  Boy, how deep do you think some interest groups' pockets are?  The Chamber of Commerce?  The MEA? (Yep, there are some crumbs tossed the MEA's way to garner the support of teachers, although what this has to do with fixing roads seems a stretch at best--pandering, I guess.)  Road construction firms?

Yep, all-in-all this seems like a bad deal.  There's plenty of money out there, in the state coffers.  Taxes don't need to be raised.  Funds from other boondoggles, wasted programs, etc. should be found to pay for the roads.

Apparently some U of M professor wrote an article in which she states, "I hate Republicans."  OK, I'll bet she does, seeing as she teaches at U of M.  Isn't that a condition of employment there, being a card-carrying liberal (or at least masquerading as one until tenure)?  Of of several minds about this, esp about the criticism being leveled at her.

First, I think what she writes shows not merely a lack of tolerance/toleration, but an ignorance a college instructor shouldn't have.  That she believes "psychological and historical research" support her claims is incredibly ignorant.  But I'm not surprised at her stance or opinions, not at all.

But I still believe that she should be accorded the right to express her opinions, ignorant or otherwise.  As I have said in the past, "People have a right to be stupid in this country."  No--absolutely none- actions should be taken by the U of M to censure/discipline her.  (Now, as if the thoroughly indoctrinated place would actually take any such actions......)  That is, as long as she is never shown to punish students who hold opposing views, that is, perhaps, such as thinking fetuses are "persons" not to be killed at the whim of a woman who doesn't want to be burdened with motherhood.  If she is shown to discriminate against those with, well, conservative views, then she should be terminated.   Otherwise, let her express her views openly.  Leave her alone unless it affects her classes and students.

It was pretty well known my professors were liberals, most of them anyway.  But they kept their politics out of the classroom.  I think it's clear in my classes I'm not a liberal, although I think I could dispute any conservative label that might be placed on me, too.  I make it pretty clear that I'm not a big fan of FDR--and I explain why and also that my view is in a distinct minority.  That is, I point out that students' textbooks, other teachers, and even the instructors in my dept likely don't agree with me.  And, I tell them, they can think what they want--if they back what they are saying.  For instance, if they write in a paper or on an exam that FDR and the New Deal were wonderful because they pulled the US out of the Depression, I question that.  There must be some evidence.  Exactly why do students say this?  How did FDR and the New Deal pull us out of the Depression?  (Remember, Hitler diminished unemployment in Germany far more effectively that FDR/the New Deal.  Of course, I'm not advocating any Hitler- or Nazi-tactics here or anywhere.  But......)

Just a little note, although it should have been highlighted, came from a review of Walter Williams' "dim view of Detroit."  He spoke in Detroit a few weeks ago and noted that, to succeed, to bounce back, Detroit must make some serious changes, including changes in culture.  He noted that there are more people in Detroit who use city services than pay for city services.  That is unsustainable, esp with the dwindled economic base.  He also pointed to poor education (not completely the fault of the schools and teachers, my comment) and high crime rates.  But the biggest obstacle to any renaissance for Detroit is, Williams said, the welfare system.  "The welfare state is an equal opportunity destroyer," said.  It is the cause of the breakdown of black families.  BTW, Williams came from a poor, disadvantaged background.  His columns can be googled.  Of course, the professional civil rights activists and doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") have written him off as a sell-out.

Wed AM Thoughts

It's past time to get rid of Boehner and McConnell as Congressional leaders.  Maybe the newly-elected (Nov) can team up with those like them already there to bring about the coup.  I certainly hope so.  It's not just the Democrats who think we are "stupid," but Establishment Republicans, too.

Note how the Establishment Republicans are taking after Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al.  One would think these two were far more dangerous to Americans than, say, the Taliban or ISIS/ISIL.  (For that matter, they, along with the liberals, think the Tea Partiers are bigger threats than the Islamofascists.)  It seems as if the Establishment Republicans are upset that Cruz is forcing them to take a principled stand.  "Gee, we can't have that happen."  Besides, he messed with their Chris vacations/breaks!

And here's some lamebrain Senator (Was I just being redundant?) claiming Cruz et all were responsible for the confirmation of a number of "controversial" Obama appointments.  Bull puckey!  Either she thinks we are "stupid" or she is stupid.  Does anyone really believe Harry Reid would not have put these confirmation votes on the calendar before breaking for Chris?  Does anyone really believe he'd have left the confirmation votes for the incoming (January) Republican Senate?

Imagine, passing a $1.1 trillion "Cromnibus" bill, with tons of pork, of more than 1,000 pages, in the blink of an eye.  Now, this comes from a Speaker who, not too long ago, purportedly backed a proposal that would have demanded at least a 3-day wait for votes on bills.  What was that about "taking a stand on principles?"  Heh Heh.

I was dismayed to hear even Bill Bennett defend the Establishment Republicans who voted for this continued spending frenzy.  (Check out the bill and all of the pork, what it funds, etc.)  He, like so many of the ER, said, in essence, "Wait until January."  Well, that's been one of the problems, hasn't it?  The Republicans always are content to kick the can down the road, eventually fixing things at some later date.  Well, "eventually" and "later date" never seem to come.

And listen to the defenders, from both parties.  How many times did they say "...in the best interests of the party?"  That, folks, is the problem.  Both parties are not concerned about the country or the American people (at least the majority of them--and the Democrats use the people as pawns), but in "the party."

I'll beat an old horse here.  No, I didn't waste my votes in November by voting for minor/third party candidates or writing in my own choices.  I say anyone who voted for a Democrat or Establishment Republican wasted his or her vote.

Remember, the Establishment Republicans are just like the Democrats in favoring Big Government, with the only difference, the only one, is that they want to be in charge.

Again I iterate,

Speaking of lamebrains, I caught the tail-end of some woman's interview on the radio the other day.  I didn't get her name, but she asked this question, rhetorical or not (and I don't remember exactly how she put it, but I'm not misrepresenting it/her), "Would the terrorist groups water board our soldiers if they were captured?"  Nope, she has a point.  I'm pretty sure water boarding would be out of the picture.  Beheading wouldn't be.  And remember Mogadishu (if I recall correctly).  All these doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) who demand, ha, "basic human rights" for these animals might well also demand that these animals behave like humans.

BTW, where is the Senate report on Obama's approval of the use of drones?  Or, is that off limits?

Thoughts

Someone somewhere at Google Accounts must be having a good laugh.  My access to this blog is often difficult to reach.  Formerly, I could just click on, one click, and get here.  Now, there are hoops I must jump through.  I have to change my password again and again.  After so many changes, how am I supposed to remember which one it is now--as senile as I'm getting?  (Aren't we told not to write down passwords?  Or is that another result of my senility, forgetting?)  I think they are messing with my mind, expediting my mental demise.

And why do the colleges, well one of them, require password changes so often?  If the previous was characterized as "Strong," why the need to switch?  And, previous passwords can't be re-used.  After all of these years, I'm running out of things I can remember for passwords.  And..."don't write them down."  Of course, I could (and hope I won't be arrested?) and put them in a safe place.  But there's no guarantee I won't forget where the "safe place" is.  Yep, I do that with other things already.

No doubt many will take this the wrong way and I suppose I can't change that.  I wonder why Brown and Garner have become martyrs--and that's what they've become.  Thugs or, at least, thug wanna-bes
have been turned into martyrs.  Again, and I've repeated this many times, where are the similar reactions or any reactions to the many children, even babies!, who are murdered in this country?  I know, I know......  "We should expect better from our police officers......"  (Of course, then shouldn't we also expect better from our elected officials and those they appoint?  How about if they start to tell the truth, not lie, for starters?)  Why don't those NBA and NFL athletes protest all the kids being murdered?  Again, I know, I know......  Maybe there are protests and they aren't publicized; but I sure haven't seen any.  Thugs and thug wanna-bes vs kids and babies?  We sure seem to have developed a strange set of values.

One of my former students sent me a link to an article explaining that Columbia Law School is allowing students to postpone final exams if they have been "traumatized" by the Brown/Garner events.  It was sent under the heading, "Why We Have Become a Nation of Wimps."  Reacting to the "trauma" in such a way will certainly ensure we make tough defense lawyers, prosecutors, and even judges.

And, watch what the Establishment Republicans are doing.  It's pretty much as I predicted a month or so back, even after the Republican sweep in November.  They have sold out on their principles, no doubt.  They'll wonder, too, what went wrong when voters abandon them in 2016.  They are Big Government proponents, just like the Democrats.  Their only difference is who is in charge.

I had a chuckle last week.  Someone said, "I can't quite figure out your politics."  Heh Heh......

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Of all the bluster and idiotic comments regarding Ferguson, MO, here is, finally, a reasoned response.  And, it comes from an NFL player.  Its conflicted thoughts and emotions reflect the complexity of, if not the immediate incident, at least the larger issue.  Here is a link to it, very important to read:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/nfl-player-benjamin-watson-reflects-ferguson-viral-facebook-post-n257291

I wonder what will happen to all of the innocent people in Ferguson and elsewhere whose homes, businesses, and other property have been destroyed or damaged.  Imagine how their lives have been diminished or even ruined.  Will these rioters/thugs be required to pay for the damage?  Surely a good number of them can be identified.  What gives them the right to inflict such misery on others?  The only think I can think of is a government that lacks courage, one that is afraid to enforce laws designed to protect the innocent.  I wonder, too, if those who have been hurt can sue, the rioters/thugs and the government officials who didn't live up to their oaths of office.  If they can't, they should be able to nail these cowards.

And, the NFL guy above excepted, all those other celebrities (at least in their own minds) with their idiotic tweets and twitters and whatever else they are called have left themselves open to criticism.  If they are so exercised about the decision of the grand jury (more about that in a minute), are they going to donate any of their millions of dollars to help those whose homes and businesses have been destroyed?  Of course they aren't.  Well, I'll be very surprised if they do.  They are, as usual, all talk.  And that goes for the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, and even the President.

The grand jury, after weeks of gathering evidence, interviewing dozens of witnesses, etc. deliberating and unanimously ruled there was not enough evidence to have an indictment.  And, remember, a grand jury's ruling does not require the same degree of certain of a trial jury ("beyond a reasonable doubt").  A grand jury has a lot of wiggle room; it doesn't have to prove guilt, just enough evidence to hold a trial.  And it didn't--unanimously!  All these people rioting, looting and burning other people's, innocent people's, property weren't interested in justice, not at all.  They, along with the LameStream media, were only concerned with seeing the completion of a narrative.  The system?  Justice?  They can be damned.  It's as if they say, and they do with their words and actions, "The system only works if the outcome is the one we want."

BTW, did you catch any of the questions some of the LameStreamers asked of the prosecutor at the rather unprecedented press conference?  Let's put it this way.  If I was a member of the press or radio or television corps, I'd be very embarrassed with my profession.  Let's just say, I hope all that critical thinking that is supposed to have been taught in the schools the past couple of decades has worked and that Americans recognized the idiotic media response.

And, we have all heard of the instances of kids' lemonade stands being shut down by local government.  Then there was the guy last winter, out east somewhere, who was being a good Samaritan during a snowstorm and cleared off the streets of his neighbors, but when then cited and fined by the city for doing so.  Yep, well let's toss this one in the "Big Government Must Go" bin.  A local school promised students a free doughnut if they raised $5 or $10 (I don't remember the amount, but it was minimal.) in a school fund raiser.  The principal, when the students met the challenge, sent home an e-mail to parents, congratulating their children and reminding them of the free doughnuts.  Whoa, hold a minute there, Bozo!  Someone somewhere noted that doughnuts are not on the federal healthy food list, whatever the heck that is.  If the school did provide the doughnuts, it would be jeopardizing federal funds for violated the healthy food regulations pushed by Michelle Obama.  The problem, obviously, lies with the principal.  He should have promised the students a stalk of broccoli or an artichoke heart instead of a doughnut.  I hope those students sent a heartfelt "Happy Thanksgiving note to Michelle Obama, urging her to mind her own business.  BTW, how long will it be before school fund raisers that sell candy/candy bars, cakes and pies, and cookie dough will be outlawed/banned, violation of which risks federal funding?  Government, get out of our lives and start doing what you are supposed to be doing--such as stopping the thugs who are rioting in Ferguson and other places.

An article in the newspaper this week lauded the Michigan governor's efforts in attracting trade with China, Commie China.  Oh, the financial benefits are many and the governor is to be commended.  Hmmm......  "Commie China," with its terrible record on human rights, from its own people to Tibet/Nepal.  Can we toss in the hacking of US government and US companies' secure computers?  But, no, if we gain financially, let's overlook the other stuff.  Hey, weren't US companies sued after WW2 for their complicity with Hitler in that they did business with them?  Don't, esp on college campuses, people seek to divestment with companies that have, in the past, done business with, say, South Africa?  Now, it's seeking to have colleges, pension funds, etc., divest from companies that aren't green enough.  Ah, but it's OK to continue to deal with the commies in China (Does anyone think any large business, maybe even small businesses, operate in China without the approval of the commies?) their horrible human rights record notwithstanding.  So, I guess, some "greed" is OK?

And I see the Establishment Republicans have done as expected, blustered but retired to go home for the holidays.  Maybe they'll actually do something, that is undo something, when both houses return on Jan 3.  But I don't hold out much hope.  Imagine what the Democrats would do if a Republican President unilaterally issued an executive order suspending the US corporate income tax.  Right......  My guess is they wouldn't just pack it up and go home for a break.

Good Fortune

I know I've written many times before how lucky I've been in that I attended and graduated (and I know that's a surprise to many!) from Amherst College.  It, my four years there, was seminal to my life.

I was reminded of that the other day, reading the alumni magazine.  A number of the articles, most by fellow alums, continued to drive home that point.

One of my former students, years after being in my class, said what she remembered most was, "You never would give us the answer."  Well, I'm not sure that was the case all of the time, but surely it was some of it.  Students, of course, want answers, the answers.  I did, too.  Who wouldn't?  Often, knowing "the answers" is the easiest part.

I don't claim any credit for that.  It was what I was taught by many of  my professors at Amherst, not all but many of them.  And, for many, years I tried to teach like they taught.  I met with varying degrees of success--on my part and on the parts of students.

Of course it's important to know "the answers."  But it's also important to challenge and refine our thoughts.  That is what was so great about Lincoln.  He allowed arguments to continue in attempts to discover what was "best" or at least "better."  And he genuinely listened to others.  Yet what is great about Lincoln and my Amherst education is also very humbling--that I might not know the answers.  That can be, I recognize, very disconcerting.

Repeating, without constant or frequent challenge and scrutiny, what we know doesn't bring progress.  In many ways, it's the debate, the argument, the challenge that is the reward that brings the greatest satisfaction and, just maybe, brings "the answer."

Brrr......

It's hard to get my blood boiling or "all het up" over matters when it's 5 or 6 degrees out there.  That's what the temperature was this AM, when I went out for my early run.  People think that's crazy--or worse--to be out there in temperatures that low.  But it's not bad, not bad at all.  I'm never cold, even with a pretty fair wind blowing today.  I bundle up, with several layers of clothing and today I put on my ski mask (although I don't ski!).  I was perfectly warm and had a very nice run.

Still the cold temperatures kept my blood from boiling too high over President Obama's amnesty plan.  Although I think it's a terrible thing to do, the real debasing issue is that of being a nation of laws.  Are we?  First, concerning the amnesty itself:  If I have this straight, 5 million or more people who have broken the law are not going to face any penalties/punishment for doing so.  Not only that, but they are being rewarded with the advantages of American life and no longer any threat of deportation.  I'd like to know if such lawlessness will be extended to, say, US citizens, too.  That is, can I now break the law and pay no consequences?  How about if I don't pay my income taxes?  Can I get an amnesty and, to boot, maybe even a check from the federal government for breaking the law?
Second, it's pretty clear the President is also breaking the law in allowing such inaction and reactions to take place.  And, silly me, I thought his oath of office included the words, "to faithfully execute the laws of the United States."  Richard Nixon, finally, was not allowed to break the law.  I am reminded of a story, perhaps apocryphal, of a Greek politician during the Watergate years.  He asked a US journalist how it was that "The most powerful man in the world [Nixon, the US President] is forced from office [resignation before impeachment and conviction] and not a soldier in any barracks raises a rifle to same him."  No longer......

Of course, the lies continue.  Does anyone really believe, even Obama himself, that this amnesty will lead to illegals now "paying their fair share?"  Oh, surely not!  In fact, it's much more likely that they will be getting fat checks from the federal government.

I really love the posturing by Boehner and McConnell.  Boy, they're really going to put Obama in his place with lawsuits and cessation of funding and......  I will be very surprised if they do anything. Obama's amnesty takes the problem of illegal immigration out of their hands, off the table.  After all, guys like  Boehner and McConnell are Establishment Republicans; they believe in big government, well, at least big government with them in control rather than the Democrats.  Ted Cruz actually had the most reasoned and potentially effective response, well, not a response because he said it before Obama's speech.  And we know how effective the Establishment Republicans are in shutting down ideas like Cruz's.

I wonder if anyone has made this statement.  "Boy, my father really got a lot smarter as I got older."  I know I have, many times.  My dad seemed to really grow the gray cells as I grew older.  I thought of that the other day, out of the blue, but pertaining to Sarah Palin.  It seems to me, with all of the revelations of the Obama Administration and its undertakings, Palin sure seems to have become smarter as I've become older.

The Smothers Brothers

I don't know why, but I thought of these two comedians this AM, in a current context.

The Smothers Brothers were a funny comedy team of several decades ago.  I'd guess their popularity peaked in the  late '60s or early '70s.  They had a television show with what I thought was a funny title, "The Smothers Comedy Brothers Show."  I always found them funny.

One of there schticks was one brother, Tom, going off on some utterly ridiculous rant.  The other brother, Dick, would with logic, just shoot down the rant.  Tom would try to continue, from another angle perhaps, but Dick would still easily thwart his brother with facts and reason.  Finally, left with nothing, Tom would say, "But Mom always liked you best."

I thought of that today, in light of the past few weeks (far longer to anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid being served up by the LameStreams) of revelation after revelation of Obama Administration lies, deception, and other dishonesty.  Die-hard Obama supporters, like Tom Smothers, always had a final retort to any criticism of Obama, "But Bush lied."  That Bush's lie(s) had nothing to do with Obama's ineptitude and dishonesty was irrelevant, "But Bush lied."  It is esp funny now, looking back, at how many folks in everyday conversation just blurted out, "But Bush lied."

Is Obama a pathological liar, in that he lies even when he doesn't have to lie?  Clinton, at least, was trying to protect himself by telling all of his whoppers.  It seems Obama could have easily ended any inquiry by just admitting the truth, esp since it's so easy today to expose a lie. The latest, of course, is Obama's disavowal that he ever heard of this guy Gruber, one of the architects of ObamaCare.  This is despite records of multi-visits to the White House and Obama himself on tape thanking him for his work on ObamaCare.  Hmmm......  Of course there are far more.

One of them is "You can keep your health insurance, the same coverage you have now, and it won't cost you a penny more."  Or something like that.  Well, as I noted in a mass e-mail I sent out last week, I now pay almost $1500 more a year for "the same coverage," except it's not the same coverage.  My deductibles and co-pays have risen, too.  In my mass e-mail, I invited any ObamaCare supporters, those who believed Obama (certainly Congressman Wilson of SC, of "You lie!" fame didn't), to send me a check for $1500 ("Let's just make it even.") to counteract Obama's lies.  We now know, thanks to recordings of speeches and testimony from Gruber, that lies and other obfuscation were used to pass ObamaCare.  These liars even bamboozled the CBO in order to get the lesser figures they wanted for predicted costs.  And, as noted, they also figured American voters were "too stupid" to figure out the truth.  Now, that might have been something factual, that US voters are too stupid......

Of course, we can always fall back on the tried and true.  "But Bush lied......"

Sun AM Thoughts

Is it any wonder Americans are fed up with politicians, from both parties?  Note what is happening, both in DC and in Lansing.

The recent election, according to all accounts (well, "all" except those of the delusional President), sent a clear message to Washington and here in Michigan.  So, what do we see the legislators in both places hurry to do?  Yep, they are trying to negate that "message" before the newly-elected folks can come in and do what voters elected to do.

I won't list the many issues, such as increasing the gas tax in Michigan, purportedly to "fix the roads,' (as if anyone believes that this time).  They are easily researched, out there for all to see.

But everyone, regardless if the results of the election were liked or no, should be concerned with these lame-duck moves.  They reek of everything that's wrong with government and politicians.  They are duplicitous and sneaky.  Politicians who lacked the integrity and courage to do act on these measures before the election are now hiding behind the lame-duck sessions' protection.  I will repeat:  it is dishonest and cowardly.

It's telling that lead editorials in both today's Free Press and News condone this lame-duck junk, calling it "responsible" or acting like "grown-ups."  So, dishonesty and lack of courage and integrity are "responsible" and "grown-up?"  Very interesting.  Gee, one of the papers railed against such actions when ObamaCare was passed so nefariously.  And the other one was equally upset when the right-to-work legislation was enacted.

Integrity isn't integrity when it can be thrown out of the window just because it's something you want.

There was also a good op-ed in the Free Press (Yep, I actually said that!) today.  It concerned college football, namely at the big schools.  He cited the mockery and hypocrisy (my terms) of players recruited to play big-time college football with the inducement of receiving "a world-class education."  (Yep, he was citing the U of M, but could be applied to many places.)  U of M's graduation rate for football players is considerably lower than that for the student body as a whole.  I suspect that is true all over at the major football schools.  (The new U of M president, to his credit, addressed that as a concern last week.  Then he backed off of it, not to his credit.)  The op-ed was mainly pointing a finger at the colleges, rightfully so.  But I also suggest that the players hold a great deal of responsibility, too, for not getting that "world-class education."  It's almost as if, because they are football players, they feel entitled to degrees, if not the "education." Study?  Work hard?  Go to class?  Do the work?  C'mon--we play football.  I don't think, in light of the graduation rates, I'm being overly harsh.  These players have taken the "student" out of "student-athlete."

Contrast this to ESPNU's "Road Trip" last week to "The Biggest Little Game in America," the annual football game between Amherst and Williams.  I wonder how many viewers, if there were any other than Amherst and Williams alumni, noted the Amherst players who were interviewed.  They were articulate and didn't throw out all the lame cliches and platitudes to which we have become accustomed.  Their career goals were college professor, doctor, etc.  Gee, do you mean they actually have to go to class, do the work, etc.?  Yep, they do--I know.

All that's wrong with big-time college sports might be fixed by following the Division 3 model.  I'm not going to hold my breath, though.  Money and the willingness of alumni to see their college degrees denigrated for better football records will trump mockery and hypocrisy every time.

Some Quick Thoughts

I read an article in today's newspaper about Terri Lynn Land's dreadful candidacy for the US Senate seat from Michigan.  It concerned what we can learn from it, the defeat.  I think I took something far different than the columnist intended.  I still can't understand how the margin was so large, about 30% or so.  OK, Land's campaign was rotten and she certainly didn't appear prepared to be a US Senator.  But I guess my view is a bit different.  How many great campaigners have been to the US Senate and been rotten Senators?  I think a lot of them have and can think of quite a few right now.  I still can't understand how people could vote for a guy like Gary Peters, with his record as a career politician, a typical Democrat who never met a tax he didn't like, someone who voted for ObamaCare.  So, Land's campaign was terrible.  I'd suggest Peters' run as a politician has been equally so.

And I must be losing it, not able to understand how people think--or maybe they don't?  One of the big gripes against Rick Snyder as governor was his signature on the bill that taxed public employees' pensions, not all of the pensions, but above $20,000 for individual filers and double that for couples. I would guess, then, that most pensioners paid, if anything, a few hundred bucks.  Now, I don't like that, giving more of my money to people who waste much of it, but c'mon......  Consider Mark Schauer, Snyder's opponent for governor.  Again, a typical Democrat who has voted many times to raise our taxes and, although vague during the campaign, seemed to want to raise them again if elected.  Why were so many, esp retired teachers, upset with Snyder and pension taxes, but supportive of Schauer and his history of increasing taxes?  And, going back to Peters' vote for ObamaCare, I've paid about three times as much in one year thanks to ObamaCare as I've paid in two years of pension taxes.  I know, I know, I've said this before, but it bears repeating if only to try to get through to the hypocrites (if possible), if taxes are so good, that they help government solve all problems by throwing more money at them, why don't the doo-gooders (and, again, I certainly mean "doo") embrace higher taxes such as on their pensions or, better yet, voluntarily give money to the gov't?  I know why and so do they--other people should pay more, not them.

I think it's a sad state of affairs regarding schools, education, teaching, and learning.  I read another article that led me to think, again, about this.  Students today are looking for ways to gain future material rewards or advantages to get such rewards.  That is, they are looking for ways to find jobs that pay more money.  That's all education has become.  No longer do they seek to find themselves or discover their interests through education.  There is no learning for the joy of learning.  In other words, as I've written and said many times before, "Is love of learning no longer enough?"  Working hard as a matter of principle has disappeared.  Surely, this doesn't describe all students--from all grades, at least those who can figure such things, but esp high school and college.  Unfortunately, though, this describes too many, a number that is growing I fear.

And, such attitudes are aided and abetted by some who should know better.  That is, those in the education establishment have fostered them.  Why should students do well, go on to college?  Well, of course, it's to "get a better job," earn more money, etc.  Do teachers ever talk about the love of learning?  Do they ever get away from teaching to those dreaded, dastardly state tests?

In this, teachers and administrators who blindly go along with the decidedly misnamed "reforms" in education are helped by parents who want the high grades so their children can get into "the best" schools, of course, to then enhance their future earnings.  (More about that later.)  And, of course, let's not let the politicians and corporate-types off the hook.  They do are culpable.  Look at their insistence on the Common Core, designed to create little-thinking minions for the corporate/business world.  It's a said state of affairs and is not at all likely to improve, esp since "reform" seems to have taken on a new meaning, one not associated with "better."

With this I have thought about the requirement in Michigan that students take two years of algebra.  Why is that?  Oh, I think students should take math each and every year, just not necessarily algebra.  Maybe even one year of algebra isn't necessary, but I'm willing to concede that one year.  But, again, some math should always be on a student's schedule.  Why do the politicians and corporate-types insist on two years of algebra?  I'm tempted to ask my math friends to draw up a typical algebra test and then have all those politicians favoring the algebra requirement take it.  Why do I strongly suspect they wouldn't do very well?   Oh, there's more on math, for instance, no longer is there a necessity to know multiplication tables or division by sight.  Oh no, not them.  Students must now be able to reason out why, say 5 X 6 equal 30.  How silly!  It just is; that' good enough for the vast majority of math students.  Those math majors interested in math theory, etc., can explore the "reasons."  I don't need to know why my car runs or why my computer works in order to use them effectively.  Let's put it this way, I can do college calculus, but have to sometimes struggle to help my granddaughter do third grade math--the questions are so bad!  And, in being able to do that calculus, guess what, I don't have to know what the new math thinks is necessary to do multiplication and division.  Once again, we've let people with their eyes on money run things.

Shame on us......

Detroit Bankruptcy

I'm not perfectly clear on the Detroit bankruptcy ruling the other day.  But it seems to me that much of it is wrong.

OK, Detroit will get a new start, a chance to get it right, whatever "it" is.  If that paves the way for a real revival, a renaissance of the city, then great.  I think......

I'm just concerned about the lessons of the ruling.  That is, I wonder if any lessons were actually learned.  If I'm correct, banks and other lenders (such as bondholders) got the short end of the stick.  Of course, those who made shady deals with the city's politicians deserve the short end--and worse.  But those who lent the city money in good faith, fully expecting to be paid back at some future date, got a raw deal.  Is there any reason or incentive for these same institutions to lend money to the city again?  Likely, the government will step in and force lending if it is not forthcoming.  But if you lent money to a friend or a family member, who then didn't pay you back, would you lend more money if asked?  I don't know; maybe you would.

And what penalties were there for the city and its politicians?  Yes, some went to jail and some are still waiting for trials.  But there seems to be an institutional culture that wasn't addressed or, at least, wasn't punished/penalized.  What's to prevent the same wrong things from happening again?

In many ways, I'm left with the same feeling that I get when I hear the radio commercials aimed at those who owe a lot of money or even back taxes.  "Get the help you need to pay 15 cents on every dollar you owe" or something like that.  Why don't all of us do that, borrow money, and then call on some company that specializes in helping us not to pay it all back?  I know there are bankruptcy laws, but why should those who declare bankruptcy get a clean slate, to start on an even ground with those who have always paid what they owed?  I read that the fed gov't is reverting to some of its former lending rules on home mortgages, the ones that got us in trouble a decade ago.  So, it does happen, that we don't learn our lessons.

Of course, why do we need to learn anything?  As long as there are successful people to bail out others......

"Common Ground?"

Whatever happened to "Elections have consequences?"

Of course, the search for "common ground" or "middle ground" could be seen coming, esp as Obama and the Democrats were facing the defeat they did.

Gee, did Obama look for "common ground" in pushing ObamaCare?  I think not.  How about Harry Reid, when he buried hundreds of bills sent to the Senate by the Republican-controlled House?

This will get interesting.  The Republicans were painted as "The Party of No" for the past few years.  If Obama, as he has threatened, uses his veto liberally (yes, pun intended), will he be labeled "The President of No?"  We all know the answer to that one.

I'm not sure what to make of the results of Tuesday.  Hmmm......  How many of the Republicans are merely Establishment Republicans?  If most of them are, well, don't expect much in the way of change.  We know what Establishment Republicans are all about, and it's not us.

More later, when I have more time.  A thrilling lecture, I'm sure, awaits on Sectionalism in the Ante-Bellum years.  (Not Anti-Bellum!!!!!!)  Ha Ha Ha......

Motown: The Musical

Karen and I went down to the Fisher yesterday to see Motown: The Musical.  It was terrific, if not better!  I really enjoyed it, esp the first act (of two).

The plot/story line was OK, but I'd imagine most folks came for the music.  In comparison, though, it was a better plot than, say, Jersey Boys.

The actors/actresses were wonderful.  They sang and danced very, very well.  The actress who sang Diana Ross's parts was perhaps closest to the original and was very good.  (The plot involved much with the affair between Berry Gordy and Ross.)  And I say that, although it was the Supremes who really hooked me to Motown music, they were never one of my favorite groups.  Oh, I enjoyed them a lot, but they never were up there with Smokey, the Temptations, Levi, etc.  Still, she was good.

So was the actor who sang Marvin Gaye.  He captured much of Marvin's passion and sang well.  I think the crowd really latched on to the kid who was "Michael Jackson," when the Jackson Five were presented.  He/They evoked the most audience reaction.  (Second was "My Girl," of course.  I think the reaction to the Jacksons, Michael, was more due to the age, perhaps, though, the age of the crowd which may not have been old enough to remember the earlier stuff.)

Best was the orchestra.  It was terrific!  It did play the tunes, mostly, with a faster tempo than the studio cuts.  But those who remember the old live Motown shows (including the Motortown Revues) know that was frequently the case.  It's not at all a criticism.  The orchestra was wonderful.

It was good to see "Motortown Revue" in the playbill.  When I tell people the original show at the Fox Theater was so-named, not "Motown Revue," I am met with skepticism.  This provides some vindication (as if anyone else noticed?), even that I am not completely senile.

As noted, I enjoyed the entire show, but Act One more than the second.  I think that was because of the music of the '60s (and late '50s).  I'm not sure the audience as a whole would agree.  But, again, that's not at all a criticism.  I wonder if anyone really recognized the Berry Gordy-written songs of Jackie Wilson--"Reet Petite," "Lonely Teardrops," and "To Be Loved" (a terrific ballad and one of my favorites).  I would have preferred that "Lonely Teardrops" had been performed in toto and by the actor who sang Jackie Wilson.  I also got a kick out of hearing some of the names of DJs from the black radio stations of the '60s, stations I mostly listened to at the time.  Karen claims not to remember the names of Ernie Durham ("Frantic Ernie D") or even Martha Jean "the Queen" Steinberg.  But I do and their stations--WJLB and WCHB, both AM stations.

Again, this is not a criticism, but a tribute to the Motown family.  As good as these singers and dancers were, I think the originals were better.  (And, in comparison again, with Jersey Boys, I thought the play's singers were better than Frankie Valle and the Four Seasons.)  This was esp so with Smokey, the Temptations, and Levi.  (The actress who sang Martha Reeves--of the Umbrellas--could really belt them out, though, and did!)  And who could match the moves of The Temps?  Of course, I never thought that, say, the Contours or the Pips were in the same league with the Temps, although these two groups were often cited for their dancing/moves.  Again, not at all a criticism.

All in all a great show!  I told Karen, "I want to come back next week."  But both the newspapers and a couple of ushers indicated that each show is already sold out.  Good for the show and good for those with tickets.  I think they'll really enjoy Motown: The Musical.  I did!

Einstein and Insanity

What was it Albert Einstein said about insanity?  It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It seems to me that's what American voters do at election time.  They vote the same people or others of the same ilk into office.  Note how many years politicians in DC have been there.  Dingell is wrapping up his 59th year and Levin his 36th.  Conyers has been there more than 50 years.  And down the line......  In Michigan, by a two-to-one margin, people say they favor term-limits.  Apparently they don't realize they hold "term-limits" in their hands; they can vote against incumbents.  But they don't.  And, although state-wide offices have been term-limited by law for some time now, voters don't seem to understand how that works. State office-holders are term-limited, but then run for a different office--and voters oblige by voting for them in their new candidacies.  So, we want term-limits, ostensibly to keep the same people from running government.  But we turn around and send the same people back, only in different positions.  Huh??????

Einstein's definition nailed it.

I continue to get a kick out of US Senate candidate Gary Peters' ads.  In one, he claims to be quite frugal, at least around his household.  He doesn't believe "in spending money we don't have."  Ha Ha Ha!  Name one Democrat or even an Establishment Republican who doesn't "spend money we don't have" in Washington or Lansing.  Oh, it's not their money.  I guess that's different.

I was also surprised, but not surprised by the Det News endorsement of Gary Peters.  First, Peters stands for just about everything the News editorial board opposes.  How can the newspaper urge people to vote for the guy?  It's as if the rotten Terry Lynn Land campaign has swayed them.  Yep, she's shown a very incompetent campaign.  I agree she's not at all a good candidate, although I think she is/was a reluctant one.  (And isn't there at least something noble about "taking one for the team," when no other top Republicans would run for the office?)  But do campaigns and performance in office translate congruently?  I really don't think so.  Look at all the great campaigners who turned out rotten in office.  (OK, you don't have to look too far.  Start with the President.)

Of course, the Free Press endorsed Rick Snyder for governor.  It was a surprise, if quite lukewarm.  I get a big kick out of the Democrat ad complaining about Snyder signing the bill that taxed previously un-taxed pensions.  Oh the teachers are griping and grousing about having to pay taxes on their retirement incomes.  But I don't remember them griping and grousing any time the Democrats raised taxes while the teachers were working.  Besides, if they are really Democrats, they should love paying taxes.  Taxes build bigger government with greater spending and that's the solution to every problem:  throw money at it.  Ah, the hypocrisy of it all.

"Useful Idiots"

The term "useful idiots" is generally attributed to Vladimir Lenin, the commie leader of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.  (Oh, there he goes with that history stuff again!)  He used it to describe those in the West, living in the comforts provided by their distinctly un-Bolshevik countries, who blindly apologized and defended Marxism/communism.  Lenin knew how "useful" these "idiots" could be in helping to undermine the West, its capitalism and democratic governments.  And he also knew that they were "idiots."

There have been many over the years.  I forget the NY Times columnist, somebody Duranty (?), who reassured concerned Americans of the goodness of Joseph Stalin, that rumors of his cruelty and barbarity were just that, rumors.  This was in the midst of the Harvest of Sorrows, a period in which Stalin forcibly starved. murdered, millions of Ukrainians who opposed his policy of collectivization.  When, a couple of decades later, historian Robert Conquest wrote of the several million who Stalin killed, he was criticized as "right wing."  Stalin may have been a little harsh, but certainly Conquest was way off base.  Well, it turned out Conquest was wrong, quite wrong, but in the wrong way.  When Soviet files were opened up after the fall of the commies in the USSR, it turned out Stalin had starved millions more than even Conquest thought.  Yeah, Stalin was just a little harsh.

I'm trying to remember which Major League team owner, oh, maybe 20 or 30 years ago, asserted he'd never sign a player who came from Cuba.  He didn't want to embarrass Fidel Castro, another all-round nice guy.

I was thinking of this term the other day, in another similar context.  President Obama, with all the serious goings-on right now, has been attending a number of fund-raising dinners.  Oh, these dinners aren't for you and me, oh no.  They have been $30,000 and $40,000 a plate dinners.  (I thought, if Karen and I attended one of these, we'd have no money, zero, for the rest of the year.  That includes both of our incomes!)  Now, who can afford these?  (And if they can, more power to them; I don't begrudge anyone the amount of money one has or how one spends it.  It's the hypocrisy that I find grating.)  Those who can afford them are the ones Obama is out to destroy.  His are the policies that hurt the wealthiest.  (I know about the bailouts, the corporate-subsidies, the crony capitalism......)  So why would they give Obama--or any Democrats--all that money?  Maybe it's to assuage some sense of guilt, however misplaced or erroneous?  Maybe it's to make them feel more comfortable, that is, that they are doing something to help?  ("Help" what, I don't know.)  Maybe it's a sense of noblesse oblige?   Regardless of their reasons, Obama and the Dems must be laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak.  I doubt, since Obama and his administration/advisers have shown no knowledge of history, they know of Lenin's term, "useful idiots."  But even without the term, they must be thinking along those lines.

Lunar Eclipse/Sunrise

The penumbra is clearly visible now, with the lunar/full moon eclipse.  The peak is schedule in about an hour and a half, so I am monitoring it.  And, a double treat, right about then we are on the cusp of being able to see the full eclipse and the sunrise at the same time.  Astronomers have said that's a pretty rare occurrence.

Recently, with deaths and illnesses of so-called "celebrities," I realized once again that we throw around terms like "legend," "classic," "icon," "idol," etc. far too frequently.  Not everyone merits such a description and to use it so freely diminishes it when it is really deserved.  I won't mention any names, but if you've been following the news in the past month or so, you'll know of whom I write.

And, speaking of honors, I wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is having second thoughts on awarding its prize to President Obama.  Nah, I don't think so.  He didn't deserve it in the first place, so now ordering the air strikes on ISIS/ISIL won't affect their thinking.  Still, considering the previous paragraph, does this affect the legacy of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and others who really did deserve the Nobel?

Speaking of ISIS/ISIL and the bombings, are these attacks doing any good?  Apparently the Islamofascists are on the verge of  taking a Kurdish city near the Syrian border.  They've had to attack across the open desert, with no anti-aircraft capabilities.  How can that be?  If they are out there in the open, why aren't our planes bombing them to "extinction?"  It seems, with our capabilities and the millions of dollars of bombs being dropped (somewhere?), ISIS/ISIL could be decimated out in the open, unless......

I see, flying under the radar, that more people are losing health insurance due to ObamaCare.  Of course, some would dismiss that as not true.  (Have we become so cynical, so unable to face what we don't like to hear, that we label such information as "lies?")  I read, maybe on the MSNBC Web site?, that there are several million fewer people with health insurance today than two years ago.  Hmmm.  Maybe there are fewer Americans?  I do know that, personally, my premiums have gone up more than $1,000 a year, almost $1,500 ($140 a month).  A recent op-ed revealed an interesting phenomenon occurring with doctors.  Many are now opting out of accepting patients covered by any government plan, including Medicare/Medicaid.  Some even refuse to accept private insurance patients.  They are going to patient-pay or even a sort of retainer system, where, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, patients pay a monthly/annual amount to a doctor and then can see the doctor when needed, if needed.  Doctors who are now employing this say they have more time to devote to patients, with less red-tape, government regulations to handle.  No doubt, some folks are very happy with ObamaCare.  Those are the people touted by the federal government, at least the backers of ObamaCare, and the LameStream media.  My guess, and I'm only making a reasoned guess, is that there are far more people not happy with it.  I see Wal-Mart is cutting health coverage for its part-time employees.  There have been recently articles in the local newspapers and the WSJ citing small businesses who are also dropping health plans for their employees.  Now, one might call these employers "greedy."  But are they any greedier than those who embraced Hillary Clinton's "You shouldn't have to have a job you don't like just to be able to take care of your family.  You shouldn't be forced to abandon your dreams."  (OK, I'm paraphrasing.)  Nope,  The responsibility of caring for one's family should take a backseat to what I want--me!  me!  me!  Nope, that's not selfish or "greedy."

I saw another article the other day that caused me to laugh right out loud.  Bill Clinton either gave a speech or wrote an article on "principles and values."   I'm still chuckling.

The minimum/living wage folks are still at it.  Although some are settling as a matter of reality at the $10.50 an hour rate, many are still insisting on $15 an hour.  It's, of course, a political issue, plain and simple.  The evidence is clear.  Raising the minimum wage that much will cost jobs, many jobs, esp those of the workers who are supposed to be helped by the increase.  Again, as I have noted before, a minority of, say, fast-food workers are actually raising a family on their pay.  More than 50% of them are 24 or younger, and more than half of them are still in their teens.  What families are they raising?  And, if they are, that leads to other questions.  (Well, I suppose we're not supposed to ask them, are we?)  How many are senior citizens supplementing Social Security or pensions, not really raising families?  And, of course, who's going to pay for the increase?  My guess is not many Big Macs or Whoppers are going to be sold at $10 a pop.  (In fact, to lure more traffic, both McD's and Whopper's) are lowering prices on items such as chicken nuggets.  What will higher prices do to "traffic?")  And, I submit, $15 an hour?  For what?  Again I say, my wife runs an elementary school.  (Anyone familiar with public education knows that the secretaries run the elementary schools.)  She barely makes the demanded minimum wage per hour.  I mentioned this to someone a while back and met with, "Well, that's ridiculous.  She should be paid more."  I, of course, agreed, but asked, "Are you willing to pay more taxes so she can?"  The silence told me all I needed to know.  Similarly, I've asked some proponents of the higher minimum wage if they, when going to fast-food restaurants, leave tips of 15-20% for the workers.  Of course they don't.

OK, out to check on the current stage of the eclipse.

Doo Gooders

The Doo Gooders (and I do mean doo) never learn, do they?  They are fixated on their correctness, that they know better than the rest of us.

More evidence is that this is hooey.  I've written before about how schools are now required to serve so-called "healthy" foods to students, thanks to the arrogant self-righteousness of Michelle Obama, members of Congress who passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act a few years ago, and the Depts of Education and HHS.  Anecdotal evidence, not to mention logic, suggests that kids are either not buying the choices or, if part of free lunches, are merely throwing the food in the trash.

Some of the defenders have actually said that, when the kids get hungry enough, they'll eat the new healthier food.  Great, just great.  Now we lead our kids to starvation so they will comply with more government dictates.

An article in this AM's newspaper details how poorly the healthy food program is going, after four or more years.  A number of school districts have documented that kids "are just throwing away" the foods they don't like.  And one district has noted that its famous cookies are no longer "legal" to sell, not even as fundraisers.  Its high school is losing tens of thousands of dollars of activities monies due to the lower sales.  Another district laments the waste of food, although I would also add the waste of taxpayer money that pays for the free breakfasts and lunches.  Whole grain bagels have been "a disaster," said one, adding that whole grain mac and cheese is also "a hard sell."  No kidding.

One of the state bureaucrats (See my blog of earlier this week!) said, "We need to give it [forcing kids to eat foods they don't want] some time."  Hmmm......  I guess four or five years isn't enough "time."

How about this?  Michelle Obama and all the other doo-gooders can give their kids what they want for breakfast and for lunch.  Let me give my kids what I know they'll eat--not throw away and waste.  Is that so hard?  It is for the arrogant elitists who know more than you and I know.

And we all know how easy it is to bribe the schools, especially when all they have to give up is their principles.

Administrative Law?

I read an interesting article on the growth of administrative law, that is, rules and regulations handed down by unelected bureaucrats.  The increase in the number of us rules and regulations is striking and why we tolerate them is beyond me (other than we're too busy with the NFL, American Idol, or how poorly the Michigan football team is doing).  This is especially so since such rules and regulations, remember handed down by people we don't elect, usually have the effect of law.  That is, you can be punished if you don't follow them--fines, jail, etc.

I think administrative law might well be unconstitutional.  After all the Constitution itself reads. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States......"  It doesn't say "Some legislative powers" or "Most legislative powers."  I'm aware of Nondelegation Theory and that is not absolute.  But the Supremes have ruled that Congress may delegate some of its legislative authority if such delegation is accompanied by "intelligible" guidelines.

"Intelligible?"  Hmmm......  Let's look at the current US Tax Code.  It is composed of almost 75,000 pages--not 7,500, but 75,000!  How "intelligible" can that be?  (I am aware of the challenges to this number, mostly made by, you guessed it, bureaucrats.  The actual federal tax law is more than 2,600 pages.  Toss in, though, more than 10,000 pages of IRS rulings, guidelines, regulations, and other junk.  We also have thousands of pages of US Tax Court rulings.  As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.")  For a long time the Wall Street Journal conducted a phone survey of IRS offices, calling the IRS offices for each state, or at least around the country.  For the exact same question, dozens of IRS answers were given--by the IRS itself!  And, remember too, if you don't follow the rules and regulations, you can be punished--fines, jail, garnishment, etc.--just as if you had broken the actual law.

Let's also consider that such administrative laws can be arbitrary, to punish or weaken political opponents, to push ideological or even trendy agendas, etc.  They often plan undue onuses on the economy, especially costs to small businesses, driving them out of business, and to consumers.

They, too, frankly are intrusions on our personal liberties.  Bureaucrats, who think they are smarter than we are, tell us how we must live our lives.  Go ahead, try to buy the fertilizers, television sets, toilets, light bulbs, health insurance, shower heads, and more that you might want.  (Those new energy-efficient light bulbs don't do much for my vision; I find it very hard to read by them and can't do it for very long.)  The President's wife wants to tell us what we can give our kids for school lunches, what schools must serve, although kids throw out much of that healthy food.  The mayor(s) of NYC want to tell us what size sodas we can purchase.  Those things are none of their business, none of it!  How dare they try to intrude on my choices, my individual freedom!

One last note, when was the last time you voted for a bureaucrat?

No Mas! No Mas!

I concede!  I have been judged by a jury of my peers and found guilty of being wrong.  Apparently I am wrong about Kid Rock.  I received many personal replies, none agreeing with my assessment of his voice.  All but a couple were strongly supportive of him--his songs, his voice, his concerts, etc. And those couple were merely tepid toward him, not negative.  I will repeat, though, I don't quite understand.

It leads me to wonder if some other guy could have been equally successful (and popular) with the same marketing, the same band/background, etc.  Where would Mick Jagger have been without the Stones ("The world's greatest rock 'n' roll band," some said.), Madonna without her schtick and studio voice enhancements, Springstreet without Clarence Clemons and the rest of the E Street Band, etc.

While I am at it, what a cool AM to run!  It was very reminiscent of AMs on the Cape, Cape Cod that is.  Cool, cloudy/dark, and windy, enough to make noise.  It brought back memories, a nostalgic wave.  Mon night coming home from class, the full moon was reflecting off Union Lake.  I pulled into the parking lot at the access site just to drink in a few minutes of it.  Then, the next AM, as the sun was rising and peeking between the clouds, it reflected off Lake Sherwood.  That, too, was very cool, worth stopping to look for a while.

Random Thoughts on a Wed AM

...or is it PM already?  Hmmm......

I haven't posted here in a while, but that doesn't mean I haven't been writing.  Sometimes, instead of blogging, I sent out mass e-mails, to a couple dozen people or more.  This week, maybe Monday, I sent out one that I hoped would generate some responses.  I was surprised, yet not at all surprised.

In that e-mail, I noted a television commercial I had seen last week and then again on Sun.  It was for a truck; which one I don't remember.  (Good commercial, huh?)  The song for it was pretty good, certainly one to get the body moving a bit.  But the singing was atrocious, even worse than that.  It was atonal, not hitting any notes, at least none that I could fathom.  I asked my grandson if he knew who the singer (and I was using the term loosely) was.  He said, "That's Kid Rock."  Now, I've always found that name to be hilarious.  I know it's a stage name, but for an adult....?  I guess I was surprised at Michael's answer.  I don't know if I could identify any of his songs if they came on the radio; I'm pretty sure I couldn't.  But I always figured, because he is so popular, that he'd be good.  I find this commercial to be laughable, with such lousy singing.  (Of course, I am reminded of others who are very successful, many of whom I like, who also are not top flight with the voices.  Coming to mind are Madonna (Can a voice be any tinnier?), Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, and even Bruce Springsteen.  Like I said, I like some (not all) of these entertainers.  And consider many of the so-called "bands," who seem to think screaming louder and longer is the same thing as hitting notes.

But what really surprised me was the response I received from my e-mail.  I sometimes mass e-mail a few dozen people about education, the President, our governor, etc.  Sometimes it's about sports, college or professional.  Criticizing Kid Rock, though, resulted in a record number of replies.  One sent a list of a dozen of his songs, all supposedly good.  I never heard of any of them, including one that seemed, by its title, perhaps obscene.  Some replies noted that he "puts on a great concert."  I never get the number of replies with more serious e-mails, never.  And I never said people couldn't like the guy or that they didn't or shouldn't enjoy his stuff.  I just said I thought his voice on this commercial was lousy.

This plays into a C-Span show I watched, only briefly, last weekend.  On weekends, C-Span 2 and 3 run history programming.  (Don't ever tell anyone you watch C-Span; you can watch it, just don't tell anyone.)  A nun had written a book about how, for all of our communicating with each other, we really don't talk about anything significant.  She was explaining that and she was right on the money.  We talk, talk, talk (on the cell phone, texting, etc.), but rarely of anything of any real consequence.

And example is the recent death of that woman comedienne, whose name I don't remember.  But apparently she was popular and I must not have cared for her comedy or I'd remember her name.  her death has been in the headlines for days now.  Hollywood-types are now the significant parts of our society, of our dialogue.

Yep, I find this all curiouser and curiouser.

Politically, it's hard to believe that in the Michigan US Senate race Gary Peters is ahead of Terry Lynn Land.  Land is hardly a top-flight candidate, but I guess the Republicans had a hard time finding anyone who would run.  (I'm guessing nobody was afraid of running against Peters.  But what person with any integrity or self-respect would run for political office??????  Think of the shame to have one's name associated with the political class that includes Pelosi, Reid, Obama, the Clintons, McConnell, Dingell, Conyers, Boehner, et al!)  But, c'mon...Gary Peters?  How can anyone vote for him?  Just look at the record of this career-politician.  What's that definition of "insanity," doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?  As unhappy as the people of Michigan should be, they keep sending the same people who created the messes (Dems and Reps) back to DC, Lansing, etc.  I'm reminded of what so many suburbanites said during the downfall of Kwame Kilpatrick.  The people of Detroit, for electing him not once but twice, got what they deserved.  The people of Michigan are getting what they deserve for electing all these Bozos.  Unfortunately, the rest of us are getting what they deserve, too.

K and I were at Michael's curriculum night at school last night.  It's become too hard to be a parent of a kid in school.  I'll bet K copied down a dozen or more Web sites that we are supposed to follow to keep track of achievement, homework, and everything.  I left the school pretty well tuckered out from hearing all that I'm supposed to do.  How about the teachers just teach my kid(s)?  Let me know if there's a major problem.  Forget all than damn homework.  It's almost as if they are trying already lay the foundation for blame--not on them if students don't do well, but on parents (me).  Oh, I don't blame them, in a way.  They are getting all this from above.  The god of "Technology" has to be used to keep parents involved.  (Remember, "parental involvement" to the schools means blindly agreeing with them, supporting whatever they do, no matter how stupid.  Cross them mean getting labeled, "a troublemaker" or worse.)  But teachers should be able to stand up for somethings, not just kowtow.  But, then again, I expect too much of teachers, who have shown me over the years their mettle, or lack of it.  I was also dismayed to hear two teachers, at least, say that their classes would "really prepare" students for the ACT.  Of course, not every student goes to college and some who do shouldn't.  But that's not what upset me.  It was the idea that the ACT is it, the be-all and end-all.  No doubt this is the result of the push to test, test, test.  Yes, it was a distressing visit.

Oh, there's lots more on my mind today, not the least of which is that watching Miggy hit again, now that he's hot, is really great.  He roped two shots yesterday, after last week's five home runs.  But I have to write a note to Bill Bennett (about teacher tenure), finish up the laundairy [sic], clean up the kitchen dishes, and grade essays (ugh!).

"Too Big Too Fail?"

The next time somebody says that the Democrats are for the little guy, throw this one at him.

Of course, Chrysler, GM, and all those Wall Street banks got federal money because they were, at least we were told, "too big to fail."  Now it appears that all we little guys, those who had significant portions of our homes damaged by the floods here in Metro Detroit a couple of weeks ago, are just that "too little to help."  If things play out the way they look, no federal money will be coming to assist all those common homeowners.  Nope, even though they are taxpayers and they have, as Brooks Patterson said, "a need of expectation and support," they won't get it.

First, I 'm from Detroit.  I worked for Fords (which I'm glad to say didn't take federal money), growing up practically in the backyard of the Rouge Plant.  But I also opposed the federal bailout.  "Too big to fail?"  Bah!  First, for years people around here knew that GM and Chrysler were making junk.  And they were both arrogant about it, sort of an arrogant incompetence.  Note their dealings with the UAW, which also bears much of the blame for the demise of the companies.  Second, I really doubt those companies, esp GM, would have gone bankrupt.  Someone somewhere would have come across with the money, loans rather than government handouts.  After all, people are still investing in Detroit, aren't they??????  Third, even had they gone bankrupt, it's reasonable to assume that all that plant, all that equipment, all that capacity, etc. would have been bought by someone and retooled.  Fourth, what a terrible precedent!  Go ahead and mismanage, be malfeasant.  That's OK, because if the feds like you you will get a bailout.  There are not consequences (for the bad behavior and decisions of management and unions).  Yeah, right, "a precedent."  But there's likely no money coming for Detroiters who find their homeowners' insurance policies don't cover their water-damage losses.

In fact, what took FEMA more than two weeks to come here to assess the damage?  I'm no fan of Gov. Snyder, but criticism of him for taking too long to request federal aid smacks of nothing more than politics, of shifting blame.  He actually cut short a trip to the UP to assess storm damage, unlike our golf-playing, vacationing President.

And immigrants illegally coming into this country are getting government aid--schools, hospitals, food, and more--while our own citizens are getting the fickey-doo from their own government??????  Where are the confrontations with Levin, Stabenow, and our Michigan House delegation?  Why aren't Michigan folks calling them on the carpet for this?  After all, the ads all tout how much they do for Michigan.  Yes, I do sent e-mails to all three of my members of Congress.  One responds (but he has no clout, not even within his own party since he's not an Establishment Republican--that is a big-government Republican; besides, after the primary loss, he's a lame-duck), the two others (both Democrats) usually ignore my letters or, if they do answer, it's months later and often the replies have absolutely nothing to do with my original e-mail.  Sometimes it's quite comical, sort of "What would your rather do, ride a bicycle or live in Michigan?

That the infrastructure broke down during the storm can't be blamed on one party--both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.  They spend money where it shouldn't be spent and don't spend it where it should be spent.

I was thinking of this one the other day, too.  So this Beyonce (I think that's how her name is spelled.  I'm not sure.  I surely wouldn't recognize any of her songs--isn't she a singer?--and probably not even a photo of her.) is claiming to be "a feminist."  And, I guess, the feminist movement is jumping on board.  Hmmm.....  I always thought feminism was a movement that opposed the exploitation of women.  What is it the Beyonce wears, from what I understand, not much!  Oh, so she's taking advantage of her good looks by dressign in a skimpy manner?  Isn't that anti-feminism??????  Ah, but what would one expect from a movement that embraces Bill Clinton as a feminist President?  Right, not much.

BTW, more shootings and murders in Detroit the past few days.  Several have been of young people and gangs have been targeted as the perpetrators.  It certainly appears that outrage and even concern among our leaders is quite selective--once again.

Legal Persons?

The law says corporations are "legal persons."  Hence the name/term "corporate," from the Latin corpus for body and corpare for to form a body.  In essence, a corporation can act like a person in forming contracts, to sue or be sued, etc.  Therein lies the problem.

There are lots of advantages to a corporation being held, in legal eyes, as a person.  But it is also controversial.  Is it any surprise that positions by the same persons are often contradictory?  Two examples of this are "inversion" and "political speech."

Here in Michigan, voters just passed, by a wide margin, Proposal A.  That eliminated a tax on business equipment, a tax which was levied annually.  Corporate-types (and their magnificent propaganda machines!) were able to present a favorable picture of Proposal A.  Of course, it benefited them, esp the giant corps, immensely--it cut their taxes.  Their argument, as seen in several ads, was that "We paid a tax on this piece of equipment when we bought it.  Why should we have to continue to pay a tax on it each year?  That's not fair."  (There's that word again, fair.)  Well, wait a minute.  I must pay taxes on, say, my house and property annually--each year!  I paid the year(s) I bought them.  Why should I have to pay property taxes every year?  "Oh, that's different--you're a person."  Wait a minute!  Aren't corporations legal persons??????  So, then, why should they (and now in reality are) be treated any differently than we real persons?  Hmmmmmm......

Of course, liberals opposed this Proposal A while conservatives favored it, both for obvious reasons.  Conservatives don't want so much government spending (unless they are fake conservatives like Establishment Republicans) and liberals love spending other people's money.  At the heart of the matter, for both groups, is the issue of  the "personhood" of corporations.

Now let's go back to the Citizens United case, delivered by the Supremes.  In it, the Supremes held that corporations (and other groups) also have the right of free speech because they are legal persons.  Conservatives lauded the ruling, which they insist upholds the right of free speech of corporations, legal persons.  Liberals lambasted the decision, of course, arguing that corporations aren't persons.  (What is the old saying, "I'll believe corporations are persons when one of them gets the death penalty?")

So, which is it?  If one supports Citizens United, one should oppose Proposal A and vice versa.

Sometimes......

......I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits."  I was reminded of this old cartoon caption the other day and wonder if the latter, "just sits," is often a better option.  I know, from history, there have been times that have been real dark, almost as if humanity was being driven into a black hole.  But, boy, today just seems as if we are once again heading in that direction.

There is that old adage/definition that insanity is continuing to do the same old failed things and expecting better results.  That seems to be all around us.  I note one of the Detroit newspapers, once again, vilifying a candidate for office as "lightly qualified."  I suppose that's a slam at the guy.  But what makes a candidate "well qualified" or, at least, "qualified?"  The suggestion in this op-ed was experience as a politician.  First, the Founders of this nation considered holding political office to be "citizen service," that ordinary citizens can and should serve in those capacities, but not for life.  Note the greatness of George Washington, "The American Cincinnatus."  The story goes that King George III asked John Adams after the war, the Continental Army still intact, what "your General Washington will do now."  The expectation was that Washington would use his army to become another "King George."  Adams knew he wouldn't and replied, "I expect he will return to his farm," Mount Vernon.  George III must have shaken his head, saying, "If he does that he'll be the greatest man in the world."  After all, that's what had always happened; a conquering general grabbed power.  Note a decade or so later Napoleon had done that exact thing.  And Washington gave up chances for monarchical power more than once.  "Citizen service......"  Apparently that's a concept foreign to many people, even those who frequently cite the Founders' intent as to the Constitution and its system of governance.  The implication, no the assertion!, that political experience trumps all else is, perhaps, "insanity."  First, what makes career politicians "well qualified" or even "qualified?"  Don't we, as a rule of thumb, scorn "career politicians?"  (Of course, it's always the other guy's "career politician."  Ours is always "pretty good.")  What makes them smarter or, at least, better able to handle problems we face?  Frankly, nothing!  And, second, who has put us in much of this mess??????  Politicians!  Now, they might have had the best of intentions, but good intentions don't always translate to good politics, good policies, good results.  And, what do these career politicians do, usually?  Yep, they use government in the same old ways that caused problems in the first place.  Of course, we all know that they are arrogant elitists; they know more than we do, are smarter than we are.  Just listen to any of them on radio interviews, television sound bites, etc.  And, one would think, the LameStream Media would know better than to claim "lightly qualified," then to give almost blanket endorsements to incumbent candidates.

I heard this term the other day, "the paralysis of hypersensitivity."  I think it's a good one.  We've become too concerned with political correctness and things like it.  It seems like we must stop and think every time we think to make sure we aren't "offending" this group or that.  For instance, the US Navy just implemented a policy that removes Bibles from all hotels under Naval jurisdiction (whatever those are).  Let's see; I wonder who could have been "offended" by Bibles?  Oh, I guess there's a big list.  And, now that the Bibles have been removed, someone else is "offended."  Now that the US Navy has caved into some atheist or other group is bad enough; but that some group thinks that somehow their rights have been trampled by the mere presence of a Bible confounds me.

And have you heard of Operation Choke Point?  It's another overreach by the federal government to stifle those who disagree with the current administration.  No, I wasn't surprised by this either.  It appears that the feds have put pressure on banks and other lending institutions (investigations, fines, etc.) to stop them from lending money to groups, individuals, businesses, etc. that the administration doesn't like.  For instance, a hardware store in Mass, with a perfect financial record and history, was denied a loan by a bank with which it has done business for years.  The reason?  The bank indicated it didn't want to run afoul of the feds who had hinted that a loan to the hardware store might bring the bank trouble--investigation, fines, etc. Well, what is wrong with the hardware store?  Gee, it sells guns!  Yep, that's it.  It doesn't do anything remotely illegal or even unsavory.  It merely engages in a legal business that the administration doesn't like.  Am I the only one who finds that frightening??????  And Obama, for political reasons and to deflect any criticism or investigation of the illegal doings of his administration, sends Holder to Ferguson, MO to run some scam there.

Speaking of Ferguson, MO, it appears, as is often the case, the LameStreams have the story wrong--at least a good part of it is inaccurate.  I'm still not sure, but the dead kid was 6' 4", 300 lbs, a behemoth.  So that makes that video of him manhandling the store owner who was trying to stop him from stealing a bit more revealing.  Again, he likely didn't deserve to die, but the rush to judgment of the media, the inciters, the out-of-towners, etc. was just that, a rush to judgment.

Another columnist was defending the corporate practice of inversions, that is, US firms merging with often smaller foreign firms in order to take advantage of the foreign tax laws and not pay US taxes.  This columnist defends the practice as "sensible," that the only obligation of corporations is to maximize profits for their shareholders.  Talk about "greed!"  It's such an attitude that gives corporations a bad name, that leads to corporate leaders called "robber barons," among other things.  Now, I agree that profits have to be number one on the list of objectives; if companies don't make money, they die.  But there are other responsibilities, too.  The columnist writes, "If businesses supposedly have other responsibilities, who decides what they are?"  He then goes on to assume that government decides.  That, I think, is a false premise.  Why can't the businesses decide what their other responsibilities are?  After all, think of all the decisions that are made.  He belittles those who criticize the Citizens United case, those who claim corporations aren't "people."  I happen to agree with him, the concept that corporations are legal persons.  That said, shouldn't corporations also be held to a civic duty?

Last but not least, since the Codester wants to put together a jigsaw puzzle, what's going to happen with this radical Islamist group ISIS/ISIL?  The President's comments were hardly a hallmark of condemnation--but, of course, he was only ten minutes away from the golf course.  Where is the call from Amnesty International, the Red Cross/Crescent, the UN (OK it did pass something, of little or no consequence.), and all the other doo-gooders (and I do mean doo)?  Isn't beheading children a crime against humanity?  Isn't selling women into prostitution and slavery a crime against humanity?  Isn't crucifying men a crime against humanity?  The offense of these people?  They refused to convert to Islam. Where is the world-wide condemnation--on a loud and daily basis?  Why does our President not speak out in the loudest, most condemnatory language--every day?  (I wonder how loudly he yells, "Fore!")  ISIS/ISIL will not go away by itself, nope. And, as Winston Churchill said, "We cannot solve our problems by closing our eyes to them."  Yet that seems to be the US reaction/policy to this genocide.