It's about 9 degrees here now, 9 degrees below zero! If it hit at the airport or wherever the official temperatures are kept, that will break the record for this date. Schools are closed, even both of mine! I can't wait for my run, in a short while......
I know Brooks Patterson, the Oak Co executive, flies off the handle quite a bit. He says things that he might well mean, but probably shouldn't say. That's the case with his recent diatribe about Detroit. Although the Detroit newspapers are filled with letters, from Detroiters and suburbanites both, condemning Patterson's words, I wonder how many people really think as he does. But more to the point, at least to me is this--why is there so much outrage and reaction to Patterson's mere words, but so much silence to the number of murders that go on, every day! Go ahead, pick up a Detroit newspaper and you'll find a story of the latest one. Now, you may have to look closely. Apparently there are so many, that is, murder had become so commonplace, that the stories are buried back on, say, Page 11A. And how many of these murders involve kids?!?!?! That's where our outrage should be. But, no, more people are offended by some guy's anti-Detroit words than kids being killed. What's happened to us?
I see the Farm/Food Stamp bill is set to be passed by Congress. It raises again the question, when is a "cut" not a "cut?" Of course, the answer is when it involves government, esp Congress. In the past four years, farm subsidies spending has increased from about $600 billion to almost $1 trillion, just short of that. So, after about $376 billion in increases, Congress agrees on a compromise "cut," a "cut" of $8 billion. I won't belabor the point by detailing the specifics of the "automatic" subsidies that kick in if revenues fall to 86% of current levels. (Hey, I think my wife has had a 14%--or more!--cut in pay over the past few years. Where's her "subsidy?")
I see the Free Press ran a piece on the current "income inequality" issue created by the Democrats. Again, I wonder if any of those writers/editors would be willing to assuage the "income inequality" by combining their incomes with those of some minimum-wage earners and then splitting the pay, 50-50. Nah, I don't wonder. Of course they wouldn't. It's always the other guy who should do that. And, just once, I'd like to see a story or at least some statistics, not about how big the supposed gap is, but how much better or worse off people are who supposedly are fall behind. That is, to use this analogy, a typical US urban worker was making less money in 1900 than he was in 1880. But, because prices had fallen so drastically due to innovations in industry, that lesser money could purchase more goods. And the variety and quality of the goods also improved. (Can we discount the reformer's zealousness in The Jungle?) Is that the situation today? I'd like to see similar statistics. After, how many of these so-called "poor" have cell phones, big-screen televisions, and more? How many of the so-called "shrinking middle class" have homes that would have been unimaginable when, well, my parents were considered middle class (or, for that matter, that I can't afford)? Yes, there's income inequality in this nation and the truly poor deserve assistance in a nation so wealthy. Yet, I suspect, as Paul Harvey used to say, a "rest of the story." And I also suspect the Democrats are politicizing yet another issue. (Oh, c'mon, Ron.) I would guess a smart Republican could easily defuse the issue, but......
In a similar vein, I wonder why the completely outrageous money given to professional athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy rock stars, and television personalities is never questioned. It's never on the table. Some guy playing baseball is paid $15 million a year?????? I'm not arguing he's not worth it (or worth it, for that matter), but it sure seems obscene. I don't listen to much of contemporary noise, er, music (or what passes for singing), but from what I do hear, I wonder how those noisemakers, er, singers, make what they make. I don't care, per se, what money these folks get--as long as it's legal--esp since it has little impact on my life. But I just wonder why nobody ever targets these outrageous salaries. In fact, they are widely celebrated, with the middle class fans wanting to spend even more to pay these folks--sports signing, concert tickets, etc.
I chuckled as I went through a list of Grammy winners from the other night. It was a cursory glance, just to see. I don't think I recognized many names, maybe a couple, but the big winners--nope. And I felt no sense of loss or deprivation.
Now, out for that run...after I get Ash her breakfast.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
January Running
It's been a rough month for running. If I get in half of my usual weekly mileage now I feel fortunate.
Oh, it's not the cold temperatures, at least not directly. And I don't think it's the considerable amount of snowfall, again at least not directly.
With the first wave of cold temps and the 15-16 inches of snow a couple of weeks ago, I didn't run for 72 hours. I don't remember the last time I took that much time off. I usually take at least one day off a week, to rest, by design. I'm not a streaker and build in rest days to my training. But three days??????
Again, it's not the cold. I was out there last week at 10 degrees below zero and at 8 below a couple of days ago. I dress properly--several long-sleeved shirts, a Gore-Tex windbreaker, and ski mask--and am never cold. In fact, I am my usual "schweaty" self at the finish, the long-sleeved shirts drenched. If anything gets close to being cold, it's my hands. But they are never cold enough to be uncomfortable. I wear a pair of fleece "glubs," with Turtle Gloves on top. The Turtles are terrific--light, but quite warm. Karen concurs with their warmth, but doesn't like their style. Carrie really likes them, "light and warm," she said--commandeering the second pair for herself (with my blessings). No, I never get cold. That's not the problem.
I do get tired running somewhat shorter distances. I wonder...... Is the extra clothing a factor? Does running in the cold weather tax the body to a greater degree? I'm convinced the answers are affirmative.
The snow and cold also play havoc with footing. Deep snow isn't a problem, by itself. Traffic that has packed it down is. Sometimes it's ice under loose snow or, as was the case this AM, the snow having melted to solid ice, some roads becoming ice rinks, literally. Often the ice can be seen (not black ice), but sometimes it's buried under loose snow, making it even more treacherous. Sometimes it just the cars making the snow, when it refreezes, difficult to negotiate. It's more uneven than the trails I run most of the year. Feet and ankles turn on the frozen-over ruts, some pretty deep. The shoulders of the roads, although plowed, are not very wide, not as wide as normal. And, the potholes...? Besides being more numerous, they are often hard to see under the snow. More difficult than the temperatures is the wind. I don't care for running in the wind, strong winds, regardless of the season. This is esp tough in the winter, not necessarily due to the so-called "wind chill factor." Wind is tough to run against. It chills the "schweat" from the heavier clothes. And it blows thin veneers of snow across the roads, making them slippery, more so when covering icy patches.
I often wonder if it's better to just fall when I slip on the ice. Usually, as I start to tumble, I struggle to keep from falling. Does the jerking of my body--granted my older body!--first from the possible fall, then from the attempts to avoid falling, hurt me more than a fall would? Shoulders, back, and even arms sometimes later feel the effects of the jerking, esp the attempts to avoid falling. Hmmm......
That said, there's something cool about running out there in these less-than-favorable elements. It's almost a badge of honor for people to think or even say, "You're crazy." Yep, and I'm not a wimp/whimp. Two AMs ago, I was thinking along that line. "What a bad motor scooter and mean go-getter," I chuckled to myself, out on a snow-covered street, with a bit of wind, at 5:30 AM. (OK,"bad motor scooter and mean go-getter" dates me pretty badly, doesn't it?). Then, all that came crashing down. I noticed other footprints in the snow! Maybe I wasn't so "bad" or "mean," at least not compared to someone else already out there, earlier than I. Yet, although I didn't see my compatriot, I did feel a sense of companionship.
I was disturbed, though, yesterday on my drive up to class. Just north of Holly, on the shoulder of North Holly Road, was a guy on his bicycle! Yep, he was peddling on the side of the road, moving to the shoulder when traffic came. No, the shoulder hadn't been plowed, covered with an inch or two of snow. I didn't like what I saw.
Out to complete my running log for today......
Oh, it's not the cold temperatures, at least not directly. And I don't think it's the considerable amount of snowfall, again at least not directly.
With the first wave of cold temps and the 15-16 inches of snow a couple of weeks ago, I didn't run for 72 hours. I don't remember the last time I took that much time off. I usually take at least one day off a week, to rest, by design. I'm not a streaker and build in rest days to my training. But three days??????
Again, it's not the cold. I was out there last week at 10 degrees below zero and at 8 below a couple of days ago. I dress properly--several long-sleeved shirts, a Gore-Tex windbreaker, and ski mask--and am never cold. In fact, I am my usual "schweaty" self at the finish, the long-sleeved shirts drenched. If anything gets close to being cold, it's my hands. But they are never cold enough to be uncomfortable. I wear a pair of fleece "glubs," with Turtle Gloves on top. The Turtles are terrific--light, but quite warm. Karen concurs with their warmth, but doesn't like their style. Carrie really likes them, "light and warm," she said--commandeering the second pair for herself (with my blessings). No, I never get cold. That's not the problem.
I do get tired running somewhat shorter distances. I wonder...... Is the extra clothing a factor? Does running in the cold weather tax the body to a greater degree? I'm convinced the answers are affirmative.
The snow and cold also play havoc with footing. Deep snow isn't a problem, by itself. Traffic that has packed it down is. Sometimes it's ice under loose snow or, as was the case this AM, the snow having melted to solid ice, some roads becoming ice rinks, literally. Often the ice can be seen (not black ice), but sometimes it's buried under loose snow, making it even more treacherous. Sometimes it just the cars making the snow, when it refreezes, difficult to negotiate. It's more uneven than the trails I run most of the year. Feet and ankles turn on the frozen-over ruts, some pretty deep. The shoulders of the roads, although plowed, are not very wide, not as wide as normal. And, the potholes...? Besides being more numerous, they are often hard to see under the snow. More difficult than the temperatures is the wind. I don't care for running in the wind, strong winds, regardless of the season. This is esp tough in the winter, not necessarily due to the so-called "wind chill factor." Wind is tough to run against. It chills the "schweat" from the heavier clothes. And it blows thin veneers of snow across the roads, making them slippery, more so when covering icy patches.
I often wonder if it's better to just fall when I slip on the ice. Usually, as I start to tumble, I struggle to keep from falling. Does the jerking of my body--granted my older body!--first from the possible fall, then from the attempts to avoid falling, hurt me more than a fall would? Shoulders, back, and even arms sometimes later feel the effects of the jerking, esp the attempts to avoid falling. Hmmm......
That said, there's something cool about running out there in these less-than-favorable elements. It's almost a badge of honor for people to think or even say, "You're crazy." Yep, and I'm not a wimp/whimp. Two AMs ago, I was thinking along that line. "What a bad motor scooter and mean go-getter," I chuckled to myself, out on a snow-covered street, with a bit of wind, at 5:30 AM. (OK,"bad motor scooter and mean go-getter" dates me pretty badly, doesn't it?). Then, all that came crashing down. I noticed other footprints in the snow! Maybe I wasn't so "bad" or "mean," at least not compared to someone else already out there, earlier than I. Yet, although I didn't see my compatriot, I did feel a sense of companionship.
I was disturbed, though, yesterday on my drive up to class. Just north of Holly, on the shoulder of North Holly Road, was a guy on his bicycle! Yep, he was peddling on the side of the road, moving to the shoulder when traffic came. No, the shoulder hadn't been plowed, covered with an inch or two of snow. I didn't like what I saw.
Out to complete my running log for today......
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The Comedy Continues......
Michigan Republicans are demanding that Dave Agema, a Republican Congressman from the west part of the state step down as a National Republican Committee member. Agema has made some controversial and bigoted statements about gays and Middle Easterners.
It's hard not to laugh at these Republicans demanding the resignation. These are the same guys, including the governor, who engaged in underhanded activities over the past few years. Remember the NERD fund? How about limiting what courts can hear cases, those pertaining to a certain party? Then there was locking the capitol doors while considering a bill. Let's not forget using the capitol police to keep Michigan citizens away from the capitol another time. The list seems endless--and growing.
Yet, these guys are all upset about Agema, most likely because they perceive he will cost them votes, not at all due to any moral, ethical, etc. concerns. Agema needs to go. But he's not the only one, not if we're concerned with morals, ethics, honesty, and integrity.
But when it comes to the two major parties, I'm talking to myself.
It's hard not to laugh at these Republicans demanding the resignation. These are the same guys, including the governor, who engaged in underhanded activities over the past few years. Remember the NERD fund? How about limiting what courts can hear cases, those pertaining to a certain party? Then there was locking the capitol doors while considering a bill. Let's not forget using the capitol police to keep Michigan citizens away from the capitol another time. The list seems endless--and growing.
Yet, these guys are all upset about Agema, most likely because they perceive he will cost them votes, not at all due to any moral, ethical, etc. concerns. Agema needs to go. But he's not the only one, not if we're concerned with morals, ethics, honesty, and integrity.
But when it comes to the two major parties, I'm talking to myself.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Today's Topics?
I listened to the radio for much of my driving today. That's unusual, but I guess I just wanted to listen. I switched between three or four stations and there were similar topics, between stations and between hosts.
One was medical marijuana. Prescribed marijuana is now legal or will soon be in several states. I'm not sure I agree. Intuitively, I find something wrong with prescribing "smoking" for someone's condition. I thought smoking is bad, no matter what the substance is. So, then, how is prescribing "smoke" good? I'm also under the impression that the chemicals in marijuana have been linked to genetic mutations. I might be wrong, but I think I remember reading that in several places, although it was a while ago (years) and I'm not certain where. It may be anecdotal, but it also seems pretty clear that there is a connection between habitual marijuana use and sloth, a lack of incentive. What message(s) are we sending to our children? That marijuana is still illegal for minors doesn't build confidence--so are alcohol and tobacco. The argument that other drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco, are legal, so should marijuana rings very hollow. That reminds me of the private sector workers who are opposed to teacher tenure saying, "Why should teachers be protected from vindictive or stupid bosses when we aren't?" Boy, that sounds as stupid now as it ever did. And I'd bet the chemicals in marijuana that are supposedly beneficial can be extracted and put into pill or capsule form. It sure seems to me that this medical marijuana movement is just an attempt to get the drug fully legalized through the back door.
Another topic was interesting, one that addressed a tangential question I've had. Why do we have this rash of shootings--at malls, at schools, at theaters, etc.? One suggestion, on at least two of the radio shows today, was that the anti-depression drugs have an opposite and polar effect. I'm not an expert on this and, frankly, know little about it. I am of the belief that we prescribe far too many drugs, esp for kids. How much is prescribed because the kids are antsy, acting like, well, kids? I don't know.
I caught the tail end of a discussion of the Bridgegate scandal with Chris Christie. The gist of the discussion, from what I gathered, was what I've been asking for the past week or more. Why is there so much national attention to this esp relative to the quiet of the NSA, IRS, FBI, etc. scandals? And I can't imagine such silence had these illegal and unconstitutional actions had been done under the aegis/orders of a Republican, say Nixon, administration.
And I wonder if some newspaper folks read this blog?????? I doubt it, but I do find some of my ideas, posted here, showing up in op-ed pieces. Today there was something about the minimum wage/unequal income issue. Doesn't this, from such an op-ed, ring familiar? "The next time someone rises to support arbitrary government wage-setting [that is, a minimum wage], they [sic] should be asked what they are doing personally to help the economically disadvantaged?" Yep......
One was medical marijuana. Prescribed marijuana is now legal or will soon be in several states. I'm not sure I agree. Intuitively, I find something wrong with prescribing "smoking" for someone's condition. I thought smoking is bad, no matter what the substance is. So, then, how is prescribing "smoke" good? I'm also under the impression that the chemicals in marijuana have been linked to genetic mutations. I might be wrong, but I think I remember reading that in several places, although it was a while ago (years) and I'm not certain where. It may be anecdotal, but it also seems pretty clear that there is a connection between habitual marijuana use and sloth, a lack of incentive. What message(s) are we sending to our children? That marijuana is still illegal for minors doesn't build confidence--so are alcohol and tobacco. The argument that other drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco, are legal, so should marijuana rings very hollow. That reminds me of the private sector workers who are opposed to teacher tenure saying, "Why should teachers be protected from vindictive or stupid bosses when we aren't?" Boy, that sounds as stupid now as it ever did. And I'd bet the chemicals in marijuana that are supposedly beneficial can be extracted and put into pill or capsule form. It sure seems to me that this medical marijuana movement is just an attempt to get the drug fully legalized through the back door.
Another topic was interesting, one that addressed a tangential question I've had. Why do we have this rash of shootings--at malls, at schools, at theaters, etc.? One suggestion, on at least two of the radio shows today, was that the anti-depression drugs have an opposite and polar effect. I'm not an expert on this and, frankly, know little about it. I am of the belief that we prescribe far too many drugs, esp for kids. How much is prescribed because the kids are antsy, acting like, well, kids? I don't know.
I caught the tail end of a discussion of the Bridgegate scandal with Chris Christie. The gist of the discussion, from what I gathered, was what I've been asking for the past week or more. Why is there so much national attention to this esp relative to the quiet of the NSA, IRS, FBI, etc. scandals? And I can't imagine such silence had these illegal and unconstitutional actions had been done under the aegis/orders of a Republican, say Nixon, administration.
And I wonder if some newspaper folks read this blog?????? I doubt it, but I do find some of my ideas, posted here, showing up in op-ed pieces. Today there was something about the minimum wage/unequal income issue. Doesn't this, from such an op-ed, ring familiar? "The next time someone rises to support arbitrary government wage-setting [that is, a minimum wage], they [sic] should be asked what they are doing personally to help the economically disadvantaged?" Yep......
Monday, January 20, 2014
Reading
I enjoy reading history books, some current affairs/events, and action novels. I really like the books of the late Vince Flynn, Lee Child, Brad Thor, Ben Coes, and Robert Crais. The action is really great and most of the books are tightly written, with good/interesting (if not always completely believable) plots. I think I like them most because the good guys win and the bad guys lose. Mitch Rapp, Jack Reacher, Scot Harvath, et al may have unorthodox methods, but they are always for the cause of good, of justice. I think I like that, for once, good triumphs over evil, right wins over wrong. OK, these books are fiction, but still they are a respite from what seems, more and more, that the bad guys win in real life.
I also enjoy reading Tess Gerritsen's novels. OK, she's a bit strange. Where does she come up with all of that grisly stuff? What does she have in her mind? Still, her novels are gripping. They form the basis for the TV series about her two major characters, Rizzoli and Isles. But I don't watch the television shows. In part it's because I don't watch much television. But I think in part it's also because the TV characters don't match at all my vision (or Gerritsen's) of Rizzoli and Isles in the book(s).
I like the late Jack Clancy, too. But, phew, those 1000-page tomes are sometimes tough to lug around. I wonder who does his research for him?
And, in many of these books, I wonder how much is true, even remotely? If close or even close to close, what goes on out there is pretty frightening.
Some of my favorite nonfiction writers are mostly historians. I like Joseph Ellis on US History, esp the early years and Founding Fathers. One of my college dept heads from years ago always was critical of David McCullough because he was not "a trained historian." Yet, I find him terrific and his range is remarkable, from John Adams and the year 1776 to the Panama Canal to the Johnstown Flood to American expatriate authors in Paris in the '20s. Harold Holzer is terrific on Lincoln, although I still am hooked on Stephen Oate's With Malice Toward None.
For current commentary, it's tough to beat Thomas Sowell, who's been at it for about 40 years. His writing is clear and logical. And it has the added advantage of being backed up with facts!
I know how difficult writing is/can be. That these authors and many others (fiction and nonfiction) are so good at it is a marvel to me. I certainly hold them in high regard.
I also enjoy reading Tess Gerritsen's novels. OK, she's a bit strange. Where does she come up with all of that grisly stuff? What does she have in her mind? Still, her novels are gripping. They form the basis for the TV series about her two major characters, Rizzoli and Isles. But I don't watch the television shows. In part it's because I don't watch much television. But I think in part it's also because the TV characters don't match at all my vision (or Gerritsen's) of Rizzoli and Isles in the book(s).
I like the late Jack Clancy, too. But, phew, those 1000-page tomes are sometimes tough to lug around. I wonder who does his research for him?
And, in many of these books, I wonder how much is true, even remotely? If close or even close to close, what goes on out there is pretty frightening.
Some of my favorite nonfiction writers are mostly historians. I like Joseph Ellis on US History, esp the early years and Founding Fathers. One of my college dept heads from years ago always was critical of David McCullough because he was not "a trained historian." Yet, I find him terrific and his range is remarkable, from John Adams and the year 1776 to the Panama Canal to the Johnstown Flood to American expatriate authors in Paris in the '20s. Harold Holzer is terrific on Lincoln, although I still am hooked on Stephen Oate's With Malice Toward None.
For current commentary, it's tough to beat Thomas Sowell, who's been at it for about 40 years. His writing is clear and logical. And it has the added advantage of being backed up with facts!
I know how difficult writing is/can be. That these authors and many others (fiction and nonfiction) are so good at it is a marvel to me. I certainly hold them in high regard.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
That's What It's All About!
Out of the mouths of babes!!!!!!
After all these years, I finally figured out what it's all about. Finally...... And the clue came from Ashley, so simply. It's the Hokey Pokey!!!!!! She was singing and dancing it this AM and shaking and putting in and putting out and...closing with "That's what it's all about!" How simple! Now, if I can remember that.
Not quite as profound is the publication of Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK)'s 2013 Wastebook. It highlights numerous (more than 100 examples) of gross waste in federal spending. Here are some examples: The federal gov't spent almost $400,000 on a YouTube video that tells school kids to "stand up" to climate change. Then there were $10,000,000 spent to promote the National Guard in the latest Superman movie. Another $400,000 was devoted to studying whether Tea Partiers are "dumb." (Now, I can think of other people to "study" on that matter.) Not quite a million bucks were spent for another "study," romance (whatever that is) in the media--huh? Coburn's documented examples total about $30 billion, what he claims are "a small fraction of the more than $200 billion we throw away every year through waste, fraud, duplication, and mismanagement." Yet, we continue to do it year after year after year. Now, about that study to determine who's "dumb......"
A recent monster.com survey revealed that high school teachers tied for second in regretting their jobs, that is, taking them. It's not a surprise and, my guess is that regret will grow with all of the government interference (from people who have no idea what quality education entails). Reasons cited included that they didn't realize what the job requires. Of course, almost everyone thinks teaching is easy. After all, everyone went to school and saw how easy it is; everything runs so smoothly. And no doubt they remember the teachers who really didn't do much. Also cited were an uncaring "bureaucracy," the modest pay (The best teachers are vastly underpaid; those not-so-good very much overpaid.), unwillingness of students to work hard, lack of resources and support. Many didn't realize the school politics involved, which might well be an indictment of the lack of administrative leadership and understanding of the rigors of quality education. Each of the other five "most regretted" jobs were significantly lower in pay, explaining their rankings. But that teacher pay is higher than the others also speaks volumes about the job itself.
Now, if I can only remember, "That's what it's all about......"
After all these years, I finally figured out what it's all about. Finally...... And the clue came from Ashley, so simply. It's the Hokey Pokey!!!!!! She was singing and dancing it this AM and shaking and putting in and putting out and...closing with "That's what it's all about!" How simple! Now, if I can remember that.
Not quite as profound is the publication of Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK)'s 2013 Wastebook. It highlights numerous (more than 100 examples) of gross waste in federal spending. Here are some examples: The federal gov't spent almost $400,000 on a YouTube video that tells school kids to "stand up" to climate change. Then there were $10,000,000 spent to promote the National Guard in the latest Superman movie. Another $400,000 was devoted to studying whether Tea Partiers are "dumb." (Now, I can think of other people to "study" on that matter.) Not quite a million bucks were spent for another "study," romance (whatever that is) in the media--huh? Coburn's documented examples total about $30 billion, what he claims are "a small fraction of the more than $200 billion we throw away every year through waste, fraud, duplication, and mismanagement." Yet, we continue to do it year after year after year. Now, about that study to determine who's "dumb......"
A recent monster.com survey revealed that high school teachers tied for second in regretting their jobs, that is, taking them. It's not a surprise and, my guess is that regret will grow with all of the government interference (from people who have no idea what quality education entails). Reasons cited included that they didn't realize what the job requires. Of course, almost everyone thinks teaching is easy. After all, everyone went to school and saw how easy it is; everything runs so smoothly. And no doubt they remember the teachers who really didn't do much. Also cited were an uncaring "bureaucracy," the modest pay (The best teachers are vastly underpaid; those not-so-good very much overpaid.), unwillingness of students to work hard, lack of resources and support. Many didn't realize the school politics involved, which might well be an indictment of the lack of administrative leadership and understanding of the rigors of quality education. Each of the other five "most regretted" jobs were significantly lower in pay, explaining their rankings. But that teacher pay is higher than the others also speaks volumes about the job itself.
Now, if I can only remember, "That's what it's all about......"
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
??????
Weather is a funny thing. Last Wed, I ran at ten degrees below zero, actually temperature. And, although most folks will think I'm crazy, I was quite comfortable, not at all cold. This AM, just a week later, the temp was 25 degrees. But, I was much colder, at least until I warmed up a bit. 35 degrees warmer, yet I was colder? It wasn't that I was underdressed. There was a strong breeze that was the culprit. And, funny too, I couldn't figure out the direction of the wind. Every turn I seemed to make, the wind was still in my face.
It seems just a couple of weeks ago I was scrounging around the house for a book to read. Oh, I have some floating around in different places. Karen would certainly say "You have more than some!" None really struck me, though. I plodded through a couple of them, though, learning some things. At the least it reminded me that not all things worth doing are necessarily fun. Yet, now I look up and see a pile of eleven books! All look inviting, too. Some were gifts--Matt sent me three that appear interesting. So, now I have another dilemma, a problem of a different sort. Which one(s) should I read first?????? Now if only all of our problems were such!
I came across an interesting analysis of Bill Clinton the other day. "He had no use for the truth." The analysis went on to add that Clinton or his spokesmen, when facing charges of scandal or other misdoings, "always answered in double talk and legalese." Yep.
I still get a kick out of all those, esp, Democrats who are crying about "income inequality." First, I personally don't care how much money the next guys make. I am by no means wealthy--and certainly can't match my father's financial standing at the same age and we have the smallest house in our subdivision by far--but I am comfortable enough. I don't want much and what I want or need I am able to purchase. I don't care how much the bankers, athletes, Hollywood-types or hippy rock stars, CEOs, etc. earn. (Oh, I think it's obscene how much some of them make, but that's not my concern.) More important, it seems to me that those elected representatives clamoring bout "income inequality" are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Look at the DC-types who are yammering, Reid, the Levin brothers, Biden, Pelosi, et al. (And if he hadn't died, I have no doubts "The Lion of Chappaquiddick, er, the Senate, Ted Kennedy would be at the forefront.) Hey, look at my friends and acquaintances who support this drive to end "income inequality." They certainly don't really mean what they say. How about each of the the millionaires of the House and Senate add his/her income to a fast-food worker and then divide it so each gets half? Or, how about Obama adding his salary (I can't afford a $1,000,000 house!) to my household income and then we'll split the total 50-50? Gee, I haven't heard any of them offer to do that. Granted, that would be a drop in the bucket, but what ever happened to leading by example? Have I ever used the word "hypocrite" before? Once again, the Democrats have outfoxed the Republicans by created a false issue that they have no intention of solving. (Are the Republicans that dense, that they can't defuse these false issues?) Now, would these same doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") hold that, say, their guy George Clooney (Is that his first name? I'm not certain.) should be paid the same as the woman who does his make-up or the guy who delivers his lunch on the set? Should the usher who helps fans find their seats at the stadium be paid the same (or close to it) as Peyton Manning? For that matter, should the Congressional page be paid the same as a Congressman or Senator? Boy, those would go a long way to equalizing income! But that's not what they really mean. First, it's always the other guy who makes too much, well, the other guy who isn't a Democrat. It's never the Democrats. Second, it's the CEO who makes too much and the mail room boy who should make more. Third, it's all about politics, distracting from real issues and getting votes in the next election.
I see the IRS using its power to attack political opponents of the Administration has been dismissed by some panel/investigator of the FBI as a mere bureaucratic snafu. Yeah, right. I read that--back on page 11 or so of the newspaper this AM. The Chris Christie bridge story was on page 3. Ha ha ha.
It seems just a couple of weeks ago I was scrounging around the house for a book to read. Oh, I have some floating around in different places. Karen would certainly say "You have more than some!" None really struck me, though. I plodded through a couple of them, though, learning some things. At the least it reminded me that not all things worth doing are necessarily fun. Yet, now I look up and see a pile of eleven books! All look inviting, too. Some were gifts--Matt sent me three that appear interesting. So, now I have another dilemma, a problem of a different sort. Which one(s) should I read first?????? Now if only all of our problems were such!
I came across an interesting analysis of Bill Clinton the other day. "He had no use for the truth." The analysis went on to add that Clinton or his spokesmen, when facing charges of scandal or other misdoings, "always answered in double talk and legalese." Yep.
I still get a kick out of all those, esp, Democrats who are crying about "income inequality." First, I personally don't care how much money the next guys make. I am by no means wealthy--and certainly can't match my father's financial standing at the same age and we have the smallest house in our subdivision by far--but I am comfortable enough. I don't want much and what I want or need I am able to purchase. I don't care how much the bankers, athletes, Hollywood-types or hippy rock stars, CEOs, etc. earn. (Oh, I think it's obscene how much some of them make, but that's not my concern.) More important, it seems to me that those elected representatives clamoring bout "income inequality" are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Look at the DC-types who are yammering, Reid, the Levin brothers, Biden, Pelosi, et al. (And if he hadn't died, I have no doubts "The Lion of Chappaquiddick, er, the Senate, Ted Kennedy would be at the forefront.) Hey, look at my friends and acquaintances who support this drive to end "income inequality." They certainly don't really mean what they say. How about each of the the millionaires of the House and Senate add his/her income to a fast-food worker and then divide it so each gets half? Or, how about Obama adding his salary (I can't afford a $1,000,000 house!) to my household income and then we'll split the total 50-50? Gee, I haven't heard any of them offer to do that. Granted, that would be a drop in the bucket, but what ever happened to leading by example? Have I ever used the word "hypocrite" before? Once again, the Democrats have outfoxed the Republicans by created a false issue that they have no intention of solving. (Are the Republicans that dense, that they can't defuse these false issues?) Now, would these same doo-gooders (and I do mean "doo") hold that, say, their guy George Clooney (Is that his first name? I'm not certain.) should be paid the same as the woman who does his make-up or the guy who delivers his lunch on the set? Should the usher who helps fans find their seats at the stadium be paid the same (or close to it) as Peyton Manning? For that matter, should the Congressional page be paid the same as a Congressman or Senator? Boy, those would go a long way to equalizing income! But that's not what they really mean. First, it's always the other guy who makes too much, well, the other guy who isn't a Democrat. It's never the Democrats. Second, it's the CEO who makes too much and the mail room boy who should make more. Third, it's all about politics, distracting from real issues and getting votes in the next election.
I see the IRS using its power to attack political opponents of the Administration has been dismissed by some panel/investigator of the FBI as a mere bureaucratic snafu. Yeah, right. I read that--back on page 11 or so of the newspaper this AM. The Chris Christie bridge story was on page 3. Ha ha ha.
Monday, January 13, 2014
What a Difference...
...a week makes. Last Mon, it was well below zero. Today, a week later, it is 41 degrees.
I wonder, now, at the intense media coverage of the Chris Christie bridge scandal. Is it my imagination or have the LameStream Media focused far more on the Christie mess than the IRS scandal? I'm not sure nationally, but the Detroit newspapers surely seem that way. I don't know if anyone believes Christie when he claims to have been ignorant of any political shenanigans involving the bridge. But, it was a local matter and, after all, hasn't this kind of stuff--penalizing political opponents--been going on for a long, long time? Oh, I think it's relevant for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that some people (certainly not I!) project Christie as a Republican candidate for President. But the IRS using its power against political opponents of the President is a far heftier matter. This is esp so when evidence points to full knowledge in the White House, if not orders themselves coming from there. I can think of only one reason why the local matter has swamped us while the national one has largely been forgotten in the media. Is there anyone around who still believes the LameStreams are unbiased?
I'm finishing this book on the Presidents. I wrote about it the other day. Presidents are depicted, not chronologically, but in categories such as "Undisputed Champions," "Heavyweights," "Club Fighters," and so on. I like the format. But the author falls into the same old rankings that have been in textbooks for years. These rankings, like the textbooks, are written by and large by liberal/Democrat authors. What do the polls show, that 90% or more of college history professors identify themselves as "liberals/Democrats?" That's fine, what they are, but their views show up in their text books, for instance in ranking Presidents, in calling industrialists "Robber Barons" (as if that isn't a loaded term!), etc. Such reliance on the conventional, if trite and not necessarily accurate, wisdom is compounded by using before-and after-Presidency accomplishments to rank. Two glaring differences with me are the ratings of Calvin Coolidge--I rank him higher--and Jimmy Carter--I rank him lower.
I had to laugh at a Det Free Press column yesterday. It involved a possible gerrymandering plan of the Republicans to help Republicans at the expense of Democrats. The writer seemed shocked, completely put out, by this. Now, I'm not a big fan of this columnist and wonder how he got the job and how he keeps it. His ideas are shallow and often bear no semblance to balance or fairness. Yet, he is now shocked that Reps would do something to help themselves at the expense of Dems? Take a look at the word gerrymander, its etymology. One party looking after its own has been going on since the early days of this country.
And state Democrats are worried about cooperation between the White House and Michigan governor in trying to help Detroit. Apparently they are miffed that credit will go to Gov Snyder at the expense of Dems seeking office, namely Mark Schauer running for governor and Gary Peters running for US Senator. (I've already written why I think nobody should vote for Peters.) So the resurgence of Detroit, or its possible resurgence, should take a back seat to politics, namely the election of 2014? "Detroit be damned! If fixing it doesn't help our party, don't fix it!" Don't you just love politics?
I wonder, now, at the intense media coverage of the Chris Christie bridge scandal. Is it my imagination or have the LameStream Media focused far more on the Christie mess than the IRS scandal? I'm not sure nationally, but the Detroit newspapers surely seem that way. I don't know if anyone believes Christie when he claims to have been ignorant of any political shenanigans involving the bridge. But, it was a local matter and, after all, hasn't this kind of stuff--penalizing political opponents--been going on for a long, long time? Oh, I think it's relevant for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that some people (certainly not I!) project Christie as a Republican candidate for President. But the IRS using its power against political opponents of the President is a far heftier matter. This is esp so when evidence points to full knowledge in the White House, if not orders themselves coming from there. I can think of only one reason why the local matter has swamped us while the national one has largely been forgotten in the media. Is there anyone around who still believes the LameStreams are unbiased?
I'm finishing this book on the Presidents. I wrote about it the other day. Presidents are depicted, not chronologically, but in categories such as "Undisputed Champions," "Heavyweights," "Club Fighters," and so on. I like the format. But the author falls into the same old rankings that have been in textbooks for years. These rankings, like the textbooks, are written by and large by liberal/Democrat authors. What do the polls show, that 90% or more of college history professors identify themselves as "liberals/Democrats?" That's fine, what they are, but their views show up in their text books, for instance in ranking Presidents, in calling industrialists "Robber Barons" (as if that isn't a loaded term!), etc. Such reliance on the conventional, if trite and not necessarily accurate, wisdom is compounded by using before-and after-Presidency accomplishments to rank. Two glaring differences with me are the ratings of Calvin Coolidge--I rank him higher--and Jimmy Carter--I rank him lower.
I had to laugh at a Det Free Press column yesterday. It involved a possible gerrymandering plan of the Republicans to help Republicans at the expense of Democrats. The writer seemed shocked, completely put out, by this. Now, I'm not a big fan of this columnist and wonder how he got the job and how he keeps it. His ideas are shallow and often bear no semblance to balance or fairness. Yet, he is now shocked that Reps would do something to help themselves at the expense of Dems? Take a look at the word gerrymander, its etymology. One party looking after its own has been going on since the early days of this country.
And state Democrats are worried about cooperation between the White House and Michigan governor in trying to help Detroit. Apparently they are miffed that credit will go to Gov Snyder at the expense of Dems seeking office, namely Mark Schauer running for governor and Gary Peters running for US Senator. (I've already written why I think nobody should vote for Peters.) So the resurgence of Detroit, or its possible resurgence, should take a back seat to politics, namely the election of 2014? "Detroit be damned! If fixing it doesn't help our party, don't fix it!" Don't you just love politics?
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
NSA, Presidents......
OK, I'm bothered that NSA can spy on us through computers, cell phones, and other personal technology. (Yet another reason not to have a cell phone!) I'm bothered that NSA does spy on US citizens, too. But what really is bothersome and frightening is the denials. It begs the question of "why?"
I know people who are worried about government spying on citizens are marginalized and written off as paranoid. But I think it's a legitimate concern. And where are our elected representatives on this? Like those who voted for ObamaCare, they are noticeably silent.
Speaking of ObamaCare, as more and more becomes known, it is becoming clearer why there was nary a peep of protest from the pharmaceutical companies and large health insurance provides. Yep, they, unlike those who passed the darn thing, must have have read it.
I'm reading a book about Presidents. It's easy reading, fun to find tidbits I didn't know (or had forgotten!), and interesting to analyze, not the Presidents, but the author. He seems to have tipped his biased hand in ranking Presidents. For instance, FDR is rated "A Champion," along with Washington, Jefferson, and, of course, Lincoln. And, in considering the magnitude of change FDR brought to both the Presidency and to the nation, he belongs there. But unlike the author, I don't agree that the changes FDR brought were good for either the nation or the Presidency. The author claims that FDR saved the US from the Depression. The evidence has pretty much piled up disproving that. Now, he might well have eased it for some, at least temporarily, but he didn't end the Depression, didn't bring us out of it. That's something this author must have picked up from high school and other textbooks, which still maintain that FDR did. And the author does something I caution my students against when rating Presidents. Consider what the man did as President, not what he did before (or even after). For instance, Washington is a "Champion," deservedly. But the author spends a lot of time with Washington during the American Revolution--he wasn't President yet and wouldn't be for some years. Now the personal characteristics he displayed during the American Revolution might have served Washington well as President, but that he was the singular most important person in the US victory (and I still maintain that "victory" was really more Britain quitting), with due respect to Ben Franklin, did not make him a great President. Was, then, US Grant also a "Champion?" Likewise, much time is spend on Jefferson's role with the Declaration of Independence, Virginia religious freedom statutes, etc. in rating him as a "Champion." But he wasn't President yet. Why, then, isn't Madison a great President, considering his role at the Constitutional Convention? And let's toss in Madison as author of the First Amendment. Maybe I think too much when I read??????
I know people who are worried about government spying on citizens are marginalized and written off as paranoid. But I think it's a legitimate concern. And where are our elected representatives on this? Like those who voted for ObamaCare, they are noticeably silent.
Speaking of ObamaCare, as more and more becomes known, it is becoming clearer why there was nary a peep of protest from the pharmaceutical companies and large health insurance provides. Yep, they, unlike those who passed the darn thing, must have have read it.
I'm reading a book about Presidents. It's easy reading, fun to find tidbits I didn't know (or had forgotten!), and interesting to analyze, not the Presidents, but the author. He seems to have tipped his biased hand in ranking Presidents. For instance, FDR is rated "A Champion," along with Washington, Jefferson, and, of course, Lincoln. And, in considering the magnitude of change FDR brought to both the Presidency and to the nation, he belongs there. But unlike the author, I don't agree that the changes FDR brought were good for either the nation or the Presidency. The author claims that FDR saved the US from the Depression. The evidence has pretty much piled up disproving that. Now, he might well have eased it for some, at least temporarily, but he didn't end the Depression, didn't bring us out of it. That's something this author must have picked up from high school and other textbooks, which still maintain that FDR did. And the author does something I caution my students against when rating Presidents. Consider what the man did as President, not what he did before (or even after). For instance, Washington is a "Champion," deservedly. But the author spends a lot of time with Washington during the American Revolution--he wasn't President yet and wouldn't be for some years. Now the personal characteristics he displayed during the American Revolution might have served Washington well as President, but that he was the singular most important person in the US victory (and I still maintain that "victory" was really more Britain quitting), with due respect to Ben Franklin, did not make him a great President. Was, then, US Grant also a "Champion?" Likewise, much time is spend on Jefferson's role with the Declaration of Independence, Virginia religious freedom statutes, etc. in rating him as a "Champion." But he wasn't President yet. Why, then, isn't Madison a great President, considering his role at the Constitutional Convention? And let's toss in Madison as author of the First Amendment. Maybe I think too much when I read??????
Monday, January 6, 2014
Monday Musings
Only one round of snow shoveling today, after four of them yesterday. About 4 to 5 inches from last night, early this AM. All tolled, the accumulation was probably close to 15". My neighbor, who was pretty much out there when I was, thought that was about right, too. "Oh, easily that...." Now, the deep freeze has moved in, dropping from 29 degrees yesterday afternoon to 5 degrees. Apparently, the low tonight will be 11 or 12 below zero and I believe it. The wind is whipping up, quite blustery at times.
My neighbor and I also did some of the elderly couple's driveway and esp the street in front of it and their mailbox. Bopper was with me until I sent him in to avoid any frostbite--teenagers don't want to appear to be whimps/wimps by wearing hats, gloves, etc. I did much of the street in front--it doesn't make much sense to clear out the driveway if we can't get out of the street. I feel surprisingly good today--not sore nor tired. Maybe I have a few years left in me after all......
The Det Free Press had a surprisingly good editorial yesterday. I normally find them lacking in logic or, at least, quite hypocritical. This one, by Stephen Henderson, was very worthwhile. He took the current governor of Michigan to task for dishonesty, in fact, using the word "liar" more than once. And, Henderson provided examples.
I know Rick Snyder has polarized many Michigan voters. Staunch Republicans and diehard Democrats see him in quite different terms. That seems to be the status quo for American politics right now; so be it.
But perhaps there's yet another angle, one that looks not necessarily at programs, policies, and achievements (good or bad), but at actions. That is, as Henderson notes, let's look at principles. "Snyder is no more trustworthy than any other politician I've dealt with. Given the hordes of political liars prowling this city--and this state--that's quite a distinction." Yes, it is and is something voters should strongly consider as they complain about politics, government, etc.
Republicans might not like this, but given all their criticism of the tactics of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other Democrats in Washington, they should certainly entertain another look at Snyder. Republicans claim dishonesty, deviousness, lies, etc. were all involved in passing ObamaCare and other planks of the Obama platform. Yes, they certainly were and deserve our scorn and disdain. Yet, they should, unless filled with hypocrisy, take a good long look at what the Snyder administration and his Republican cohorts in the state legislature have done. Just a few examples involve the right-to-work legislation, transparency (Henderson rightly calls this "laughable'), campaign contribution disclosures including the NERD slush fund, and the EAA. As Henderson notes, "If Snyder so willingly trashes ideals he claimed for himself, he simply can't be trusted." Indeed!
Here's another thing to ponder, from the editorial, "It's the rare politician who says what he means and does what he says. So only the uninitiated [the naive?]are shocked when a public official takes naturally to equivocation or tortured semantic gymnastics to go back on promises made." Isn't it pathetic that this can't really be debated?
My neighbor and I also did some of the elderly couple's driveway and esp the street in front of it and their mailbox. Bopper was with me until I sent him in to avoid any frostbite--teenagers don't want to appear to be whimps/wimps by wearing hats, gloves, etc. I did much of the street in front--it doesn't make much sense to clear out the driveway if we can't get out of the street. I feel surprisingly good today--not sore nor tired. Maybe I have a few years left in me after all......
The Det Free Press had a surprisingly good editorial yesterday. I normally find them lacking in logic or, at least, quite hypocritical. This one, by Stephen Henderson, was very worthwhile. He took the current governor of Michigan to task for dishonesty, in fact, using the word "liar" more than once. And, Henderson provided examples.
I know Rick Snyder has polarized many Michigan voters. Staunch Republicans and diehard Democrats see him in quite different terms. That seems to be the status quo for American politics right now; so be it.
But perhaps there's yet another angle, one that looks not necessarily at programs, policies, and achievements (good or bad), but at actions. That is, as Henderson notes, let's look at principles. "Snyder is no more trustworthy than any other politician I've dealt with. Given the hordes of political liars prowling this city--and this state--that's quite a distinction." Yes, it is and is something voters should strongly consider as they complain about politics, government, etc.
Republicans might not like this, but given all their criticism of the tactics of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other Democrats in Washington, they should certainly entertain another look at Snyder. Republicans claim dishonesty, deviousness, lies, etc. were all involved in passing ObamaCare and other planks of the Obama platform. Yes, they certainly were and deserve our scorn and disdain. Yet, they should, unless filled with hypocrisy, take a good long look at what the Snyder administration and his Republican cohorts in the state legislature have done. Just a few examples involve the right-to-work legislation, transparency (Henderson rightly calls this "laughable'), campaign contribution disclosures including the NERD slush fund, and the EAA. As Henderson notes, "If Snyder so willingly trashes ideals he claimed for himself, he simply can't be trusted." Indeed!
Here's another thing to ponder, from the editorial, "It's the rare politician who says what he means and does what he says. So only the uninitiated [the naive?]are shocked when a public official takes naturally to equivocation or tortured semantic gymnastics to go back on promises made." Isn't it pathetic that this can't really be debated?
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Round Two
Round two came a bit sooner than I anticipated. I figured it would be closer to 5 PM, but opted to go out at 2:00. Good option. We had another 2 1/2", according to Bopper's measurement. My neighbor, who I helped when done with ours, said "about 3"." So far, somewhere around 7" or so, maybe a bit more.
Yep, the Bopp helped, a bit. I had him do the close work, such as the walkway, between the car and lawn, etc. Ash, well, she was content to dig in a big pile. I may have talked her into making a bigger pile (I'm counting on at least two more rounds.) so we can build an igloo. She's all excited.
Round three not far off......
Yep, the Bopp helped, a bit. I had him do the close work, such as the walkway, between the car and lawn, etc. Ash, well, she was content to dig in a big pile. I may have talked her into making a bigger pile (I'm counting on at least two more rounds.) so we can build an igloo. She's all excited.
Round three not far off......
Round One
Those who enjoy shoveling snow will love today!
When is "one to three inches" not "one to three inches?" When the weatherman forecasts it. "One to three inches" this AM was far closer to five inches of snow. Now, what to believe? The forecast is now calling for a total accumulation (until 1 or 2 AM Mon) of up to 14 inches.
I was running this AM, not on a major street, but not a back road or subdivision street. It wasn't too bad. A guy in a pick-up slowed, rolled down his window, and said, "It isn't too smart to be walking in this stuff!" First, I thought, "'Walking?' Am I that slow?" Then, I chuckled. "How much smarter is it to be driving in it?" as the truck slipped and slid down the road.
I helped push two cars out of snow piles this AM, adding to my workout. Neither was stuck too badly.
I opened the garage to shovel the "one to three inches" (not) and one of my neighbors did the neighborly thing and brought over his snowblower. He did about half of the drive, not quite half, before I could stop him and say, "I can to the rest." It's not that I don't appreciate the thought. I enjoy shoveling and it was still light enough to push around. It's outside; it's exercise; and (without snowblowers to disrupt the peace and quiet) it's peaceful and quite--very pretty. I imagine I'll get another two or three rounds in before all is said and done. Bopper will be here soon and he'll help. I'll try to get Ash and the Codester out there, too, although the Code has a habit of taking the snow from the grass/lawn/yard and throwing it on the driveway. Ah, I can't get mad at the guy, though.
I finished about two hours ago, but it looks like another couple of inches have fallen. I don't want to wait too long, when the depth is a bit too much for me (us) to handle.
Now, if the weather guys can be wrong about the predicted string of three-day cold temperatures--lows dipping to 11 or 12 below and highs reaching zero, maybe. I guess that means no birthday dinner for me?
When is "one to three inches" not "one to three inches?" When the weatherman forecasts it. "One to three inches" this AM was far closer to five inches of snow. Now, what to believe? The forecast is now calling for a total accumulation (until 1 or 2 AM Mon) of up to 14 inches.
I was running this AM, not on a major street, but not a back road or subdivision street. It wasn't too bad. A guy in a pick-up slowed, rolled down his window, and said, "It isn't too smart to be walking in this stuff!" First, I thought, "'Walking?' Am I that slow?" Then, I chuckled. "How much smarter is it to be driving in it?" as the truck slipped and slid down the road.
I helped push two cars out of snow piles this AM, adding to my workout. Neither was stuck too badly.
I opened the garage to shovel the "one to three inches" (not) and one of my neighbors did the neighborly thing and brought over his snowblower. He did about half of the drive, not quite half, before I could stop him and say, "I can to the rest." It's not that I don't appreciate the thought. I enjoy shoveling and it was still light enough to push around. It's outside; it's exercise; and (without snowblowers to disrupt the peace and quiet) it's peaceful and quite--very pretty. I imagine I'll get another two or three rounds in before all is said and done. Bopper will be here soon and he'll help. I'll try to get Ash and the Codester out there, too, although the Code has a habit of taking the snow from the grass/lawn/yard and throwing it on the driveway. Ah, I can't get mad at the guy, though.
I finished about two hours ago, but it looks like another couple of inches have fallen. I don't want to wait too long, when the depth is a bit too much for me (us) to handle.
Now, if the weather guys can be wrong about the predicted string of three-day cold temperatures--lows dipping to 11 or 12 below and highs reaching zero, maybe. I guess that means no birthday dinner for me?
Saturday, January 4, 2014
2014
Happy New Year! I hope 2014 is happy, prosperous, and, especially, healthy for all.
I was greeted this new year by one of my favorite quotations from one of the most quotable people in history, Winston Churchill. (He's also provided us with numerous stories worth recounting again and again.)
George Will (I know, he's a conservative, so he's a bigot and a racist....) cited this Churchillian gem: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Alexander Hamilton, I'm sure, would agree with that one.
Yes, voters are ignorant, as Will notes. Only 42% of them can identify the three branches of government. (How do they get out of high school?) Fewer can name their own US Senators and Congressmen/women. I've noted, not all in jest, that more people are concerned with voting for American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than with the people who run our government.
Of course, this is frightening, that voters so ignorant choose who will determine how the rest of us (I'm assuming "us" are informed) have to live. That's not a gross overstatement, is it? Incandescent light bulbs, flush toilets, television sets, fast foods, large sodas, and more have been legislated on the federal or local levels to take personal choice out of our hands. Federally-mandated gasohol (less efficient than gasoline) has driven up the price not only of corn, but all products produced or including corn. (My grandson said he learned in school "That's everything, Grandpa.") How far behind are the mandates about electric cars? The feds already subsidize their purchase. I haven't even mentioned yet taxes and taxes and taxes, the mentality that "More taxes will solve everything" (credit to The Temptations). Yes, in far greater proportion than ever before in US history, government tells us how we must live.
Now, let me defend, in part, American voters. First, government is far too big. It is too removed from the imaginations of the people. Who can fathom billions and even trillions of dollars? Laws are now, not hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of pages long. The legislators don't even read them. When government was more local, Americans could more readily see the results/consequences of their votes, that is, of their elected politicians. Second, lying by politicians has almost become a requisite quality for election. It's not called "lying," but "misspeaking" and other euphemisms to mask the dishonesty. And, because we are so far removed from these liars, the euphemisms are more readily accepted. How are even informed voters supposed to cast an intelligent vote when candidates lie and lie and lie? I'm talking about members of both parties. They lied about ObamaCare. They lied about incandescent light bulbs. The list seems almost endless. And, the problem of dishonesty (or at least disingenuity) is so prevalent that voters throw up their hands and say, "What's the use? They all lie." Third, much of what we must do as federally-mandated, comes from unelected bureaucrats. These pencil-pushers have often been given a free hand by the election officials, spawning a growing regulatory nation. If the bureaucrats are not accountable to the electorate, then what's the use of being an informed electorate?
I also read an op-ed article by one who purports to be a lawyer (maybe he wasn't required to take any courses in Constitutional law?) chiming in on that Duck guy's issue. (I've never seen the show and have no intention of seeing it.) This supposed lawyer quotes from the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...." Then he goes on to say that "if A & E or any other business suspends, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee" because of his/her speech, "that is an obvious violation of the First Amendment." He rightly then asks the obvious question, "Why?" But then he gives the wrong answer. It's not a "violation of the First Amendment" and he answers why, but doesn't know it. "...if A & e or any other business...." The First Amendment is pretty clear when it opens with "Congress shall make no law...." Even the Supremes had to wait until the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person....") to expand freedom of speech guarantees against state intrusions--and that took 57 years! There is no violation--legally or Constitutionally--by a private company/employer/person if the 1st Amendment's own words are taken to mean what they actually read. Law school must not be what it used to be.
BTW, speaking of lawyers, what's with the newly-elected mayor of NYC asking Bill Clinton to due the swearing-in ceremony? Wasn't Clinton disbarred? Hasn't Clinton shown again and again that an oath means nothing to him? Yet more evidence of the dumbing down of America and I'm not talking about education.
Perhaps there is a difference, but I don't see it. Someone recently brought up that a number of states have laws that supersede living wills/trust. That is, if a pregnant woman is on life support, being kept alive only by machines, her desire, as expressed in the living will/trust, is not followed. The argument is that allowing the woman to die, after removal from the machines, would also kill the fetus. Yep, I understand and favor saving/not killing the baby. That's what some folks call a no-brainer, at least to me. Don't kill the baby! OK, now, how is that different from an abortion? Many of the same people who agree with the above law also favor abortions. I don't understand. Unless botched, the abortion will keep the mother alive, but will kill the fetus/baby. What's the difference? If "a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes," (And we don't hold that to be a universal truth; note bans on drug use, prostitution, etc.) why can't she also decide she doesn't want to be kept alive on life support/machines? Is it because if she's allowed to die, the baby also dies? But if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, doesn't the baby die? There must be some nuance I don't quite comprehend.
I was greeted this new year by one of my favorite quotations from one of the most quotable people in history, Winston Churchill. (He's also provided us with numerous stories worth recounting again and again.)
George Will (I know, he's a conservative, so he's a bigot and a racist....) cited this Churchillian gem: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Alexander Hamilton, I'm sure, would agree with that one.
Yes, voters are ignorant, as Will notes. Only 42% of them can identify the three branches of government. (How do they get out of high school?) Fewer can name their own US Senators and Congressmen/women. I've noted, not all in jest, that more people are concerned with voting for American Idol or Dancing with the Stars than with the people who run our government.
Of course, this is frightening, that voters so ignorant choose who will determine how the rest of us (I'm assuming "us" are informed) have to live. That's not a gross overstatement, is it? Incandescent light bulbs, flush toilets, television sets, fast foods, large sodas, and more have been legislated on the federal or local levels to take personal choice out of our hands. Federally-mandated gasohol (less efficient than gasoline) has driven up the price not only of corn, but all products produced or including corn. (My grandson said he learned in school "That's everything, Grandpa.") How far behind are the mandates about electric cars? The feds already subsidize their purchase. I haven't even mentioned yet taxes and taxes and taxes, the mentality that "More taxes will solve everything" (credit to The Temptations). Yes, in far greater proportion than ever before in US history, government tells us how we must live.
Now, let me defend, in part, American voters. First, government is far too big. It is too removed from the imaginations of the people. Who can fathom billions and even trillions of dollars? Laws are now, not hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of pages long. The legislators don't even read them. When government was more local, Americans could more readily see the results/consequences of their votes, that is, of their elected politicians. Second, lying by politicians has almost become a requisite quality for election. It's not called "lying," but "misspeaking" and other euphemisms to mask the dishonesty. And, because we are so far removed from these liars, the euphemisms are more readily accepted. How are even informed voters supposed to cast an intelligent vote when candidates lie and lie and lie? I'm talking about members of both parties. They lied about ObamaCare. They lied about incandescent light bulbs. The list seems almost endless. And, the problem of dishonesty (or at least disingenuity) is so prevalent that voters throw up their hands and say, "What's the use? They all lie." Third, much of what we must do as federally-mandated, comes from unelected bureaucrats. These pencil-pushers have often been given a free hand by the election officials, spawning a growing regulatory nation. If the bureaucrats are not accountable to the electorate, then what's the use of being an informed electorate?
I also read an op-ed article by one who purports to be a lawyer (maybe he wasn't required to take any courses in Constitutional law?) chiming in on that Duck guy's issue. (I've never seen the show and have no intention of seeing it.) This supposed lawyer quotes from the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law...." Then he goes on to say that "if A & E or any other business suspends, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee" because of his/her speech, "that is an obvious violation of the First Amendment." He rightly then asks the obvious question, "Why?" But then he gives the wrong answer. It's not a "violation of the First Amendment" and he answers why, but doesn't know it. "...if A & e or any other business...." The First Amendment is pretty clear when it opens with "Congress shall make no law...." Even the Supremes had to wait until the 14th Amendment ("...nor shall any State deprive any person....") to expand freedom of speech guarantees against state intrusions--and that took 57 years! There is no violation--legally or Constitutionally--by a private company/employer/person if the 1st Amendment's own words are taken to mean what they actually read. Law school must not be what it used to be.
BTW, speaking of lawyers, what's with the newly-elected mayor of NYC asking Bill Clinton to due the swearing-in ceremony? Wasn't Clinton disbarred? Hasn't Clinton shown again and again that an oath means nothing to him? Yet more evidence of the dumbing down of America and I'm not talking about education.
Perhaps there is a difference, but I don't see it. Someone recently brought up that a number of states have laws that supersede living wills/trust. That is, if a pregnant woman is on life support, being kept alive only by machines, her desire, as expressed in the living will/trust, is not followed. The argument is that allowing the woman to die, after removal from the machines, would also kill the fetus. Yep, I understand and favor saving/not killing the baby. That's what some folks call a no-brainer, at least to me. Don't kill the baby! OK, now, how is that different from an abortion? Many of the same people who agree with the above law also favor abortions. I don't understand. Unless botched, the abortion will keep the mother alive, but will kill the fetus/baby. What's the difference? If "a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes," (And we don't hold that to be a universal truth; note bans on drug use, prostitution, etc.) why can't she also decide she doesn't want to be kept alive on life support/machines? Is it because if she's allowed to die, the baby also dies? But if a woman is allowed to have an abortion, doesn't the baby die? There must be some nuance I don't quite comprehend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
