We keep hearing from the White House, from Wall Street, and from the LameStreams how we are finally out of the recession, the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Some might dispute that--both points.
The second one first. Some folks who lived in the late '70s might disagree with the assessment that this was the worst economic recession since the '30s and '40s. There was not only rampant unemployment, but also double-digit inflation. Even those who kept their jobs (and in some areas, such as southeast Michigan, the unemployment figures were close to 20% for a while) saw skyrocketing prices. Interest rates zoomed to more than 20%; imagine what that does to a mortgage payment!
But the first point is what has my attention. We hear from the federal gov't that unemployment is below 7%. Wall Street points to new Dow-Jones highs. The LameStreams trumpet both. But I have my doubts about this so-called "recovery," and always have. First, the gov't has learned how to cook the books, that is, use numbers that are very distorted. OK, let's just call them lies. After all, what is a deliberate distortion? The unemployment figures now used no longer count unemployed people if they are no longer looking for jobs, for whatever reason they quit trying. (Have you seen the take-off of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First," using the faux method of determining "unemployment?" It's a riot.) It also doesn't consider those who've had their hours or income cut and/or those who've had to pay more toward insurance premiums (including higher co-pays and deductibles). This underemployment figure, many economists who don't drink Kool-Aid, is likely between 15 and 20%. Besides, if we just look at the figure, 7% unemployment, it obscures the fact that more than 20 million Americans are out of work. Which has a more dramatic impact, "7%" or "20 million?" Yep, no sense in riling the masses. Gee, who has an interest in persuading Americans that things are better? Such optimism, whether or not grounded in reality, is politically great for the President (and politicians in general) and financially great for Wall Street that wants to see the rosiness continue to drive up the markets.
Let's look at some statistics. In 2013, for the first time, the number of businesses that have tanked surpassed the number that were started. Most of these are small businesses, where half or even up to 75% of all jobs are found. And 2/3 of all good new jobs are found with small businesses. But if small business are dying faster than they are starting......
We keep hearing how home foreclosures are falling, compared to the same points last year or the year before...... Well, of course they are! It's not necessarily good news, certainly not an indication that the economy is better, if people are losing their homes at lower rates than the past few years. There aren't as many homes susceptible to foreclosure! They've already been lost! That homes are still being lost seems to be a sign that things aren't much better, if at all.
Gross National Product (I think the economists now call it Gross Domestic Product, likely so that they can make slight changes in their textbooks and sell them as new editions.) is growing at a far slower rate than the experts have predicted. The past two years' predictions of 3% or higher growth failed to materialize. In fact, last year growth was 50% less than predicted. Economists have forecast 3.5% or higher growth in GNP this year, but based on what--the ouija board? For the first fiscal quarter of '14, US growth was .1%. Yes, that's one-tenth of one percent!
I don't know where you live. I have a relatively small subdivision for a neighborhood, certainly fewer than 40 homes. In the past month alone, two people have lost their jobs. Well, one was merely cut from 40 hours a week to 10. I suppose she isn't counted as "unemployed." And I wonder if the second is counted, as well. He said, although losing his job a month or so ago, he still hasn't filed for unemployment. (I don't know why; I didn't pry.)
And, I don't know about you and your spending habits, but I do the grocery shopping for our household. Since January, at least, food prices have skyrocketed, just zoomed. (And the local grocery stores have discontinued double coupons, adding to the cost.) A gallon of milk, on sale, is now $2.79 where the sales just a short while ago were $1.99/gallon. Check the cost of meats, particularly beef. I saw the Memorial Day Weekend Sale for ground beef at $2.99 a pound--and this week it's listed in the sale paper (Does that mean it's a sale item?) at $3.99 a pound.
I hear the President call some NBA owner's words, "shameful." We all know the story; it's still, several weeks later, in the news practically daily. Oh, all the so-called civil rights leaders have taken to the LameStreams their calls for the NBA to force the ding-a-ling to sell his team. Didn't the players show some displeasure, such as wearing their jerseys inside out or wearing black armbands? I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure none of these players were upset enough to refuse to play for this guy's team. No sir, our "disgust" only goes so far; it doesn't reach to our pocketbooks our own pocketbooks! Now where are the Sharptons, the Jackson, the Obamas, the Holders, etc. when it comes to our black children being shot and killed in American cities at alarming rates? These are our babies! Certainly not two or three days go by, at least in Detroit, where newspapers tell of yet another child who has been shot. Where are these men? Oh, they have time and energy to spout off about some jackass NBA owner, but not about kids getting shot and killed? For that matter, has anyone heard Obama address the problem of fatherless families in the cities? If he has, he must have been whispering. Some leader that guy is, huh?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
Off-Year Elections
The November elections are looming and portend significant influence on the federal government, well, at least that's the so-called "conventional wisdom." I have my doubts.
First, we know what we're getting out of any Democrats running for office. Oh, they'll say the things to try to get themselves elected, but we know how they'll behave once elected and get their hands on other people's money.
It's the Republicans who concern me. I know for a long time I've said that I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, that is, a Republican over a Democrat. In fact, I stopped doing that quite a while ago. There have been a number of blogs and e-mail newsletters that have said, "Vote for conservatives in the primaries and Republican, any Republicans, in the general election."
In my case, that's just not going to happen. Voting "the lesser of two evils" has brought us one thing--collaborators! By electing the Establishment Republicans, we have ensured the cycle of collaboration with the progressives/Democrats. Yes, by electing "the lesser..." we have given the collaborators the advantages of incumbency, the establishment, and, most important I guess, access to money.
The argument of "just one more time," that is, of "holding one's nose..." rings very hollow. Which of these Establishment Republicans didn't at first campaign against big government spending? Now look at them. Go ahead, check their voting records. Many of them voting for the auto bailouts, TARP, Medicare Part D, dozens of times to raise the debt ceiling, and even the "bridge to nowhere." And they've voted the wrong way on the government shutdown, the sequester. Some, of course, were bribed, as Mitch McConnell was with the $3 billion (Yes, b-b-b-billion dollars) earmarks for KY for his vote.
I hope more and more third party candidates are becoming more and more attractive.
First, we know what we're getting out of any Democrats running for office. Oh, they'll say the things to try to get themselves elected, but we know how they'll behave once elected and get their hands on other people's money.
It's the Republicans who concern me. I know for a long time I've said that I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, that is, a Republican over a Democrat. In fact, I stopped doing that quite a while ago. There have been a number of blogs and e-mail newsletters that have said, "Vote for conservatives in the primaries and Republican, any Republicans, in the general election."
In my case, that's just not going to happen. Voting "the lesser of two evils" has brought us one thing--collaborators! By electing the Establishment Republicans, we have ensured the cycle of collaboration with the progressives/Democrats. Yes, by electing "the lesser..." we have given the collaborators the advantages of incumbency, the establishment, and, most important I guess, access to money.
The argument of "just one more time," that is, of "holding one's nose..." rings very hollow. Which of these Establishment Republicans didn't at first campaign against big government spending? Now look at them. Go ahead, check their voting records. Many of them voting for the auto bailouts, TARP, Medicare Part D, dozens of times to raise the debt ceiling, and even the "bridge to nowhere." And they've voted the wrong way on the government shutdown, the sequester. Some, of course, were bribed, as Mitch McConnell was with the $3 billion (Yes, b-b-b-billion dollars) earmarks for KY for his vote.
I hope more and more third party candidates are becoming more and more attractive.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Dangers
The dangers of big government are readily apparent, at least to any who take the slightest time to look for them. It's not just the remoteness, the bureaucracy, etc. Consider, too, the biggest danger: evil people who gain control of government. I'm talking about some folks in government right now, of course, but I also have a very definite example from history.
First, today...... Many Democrats are seeking a Constitutional Amendment to limit campaign contributions, that is to restrict individuals' rights to support candidates of their choosing with money. I guess I'm in with the crowd that considers this free speech, putting one's money where one's mouth is. (Now, I do have some problems with corporate and union contributions. Have you noticed that those who speak out against large donations by big companies, never get exercised, say, by unions' or ethnic groups' spending? Corporations are, legally, treated as persons. But that said, who was it who uttered, "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one?") Harry Reid is behind a Constitutional Amendment authored by Senator Udall that would pretty much give Congress the power to limit spending, that is, free political speech. Funny how all of these liberals, at least superficially for "the people," do the most to curtail individual rights. I reckon this has no chance of going anywhere, but is a political ploy to use against the Reps in the November elections. But, consider if such an amendment would pass, the power over our rights as outlined in the First Amendment would be susceptible to the whims of Congress, esp the big government folks.
No, I'm not going to harp once again on the federal government telling what kind of light bulbs, flush toilets, and everything else to us. Neither am I going to decry the federal government telling what our kids can eat for lunch. I'm not even going to bring up ObamaCare, that the federal government can force us to buy something many Americans don't want to buy--or buy health insurance that isn't as good, costs more, has higher deductibles, may limit our choices of doctors and care, etc. Nope, I'm going back in time, about 90 years, for a history lesson.
Prohibition came with the ratification of the 18th Amendment. Called "the Noble Experiment," I suppose an argument can be made about the pitfalls of alcohol or at least its abuse. I don't agree with that argument, but well, it can be made. But here's the kicker, a tie-in with the dangers of big government, one that has control over our lives. And, if you don't believe it, as Casey Stengel often said, "You could look it up."
The feds found that many folks during Prohibition were getting their alcohol through products legitimately produced. Alcohol can be found in things such as anti-freeze, embalming fluid, etc. People were--ugh!--drinking those things to get their alcohol. Well the feds couldn't have that, could they? So denatured alcohol was required for the anti-freeze, embalming fluid, etc. But, instead of using, say, soap to denature, to make the drinker sick, the feds used strychnine and mercury--yes, poisons! Ingesting them leads to death, an excruciating death. In 1927 several thousand Americans died from drinking denatured alcohol, with some putting the number at closer to 11,000. And why, because the federal government, as used by evil people, deliberately poisoned these citizens. Alcohol, which had been the fifth largest industry in the US, generated about half a billion dollars in revenue a year. The federal government, by pushing Prohibition, took that $500 million out of the hands of legitimate businesses (who paid taxes!) and gave it to thugs, such as the Purple Gang and Al Capone. Oh, there's far more, but that's enough for now.
The next time you're ready to say, "Oh, c'mon Ron......," think of what the federal government, controlled by evil people, did to Americans during Prohibition.
And speaking of big government, it got a boost when Mitch McConnell defeated his Tea Party opponent in the Rep Senate primary in Kentucky. That's too bad. It's apparent that the Establishment Republicans want to continue to throw big government candidates at us--check his record, supporting all that big government stuff pushed by W. Bush--such as TARP.
First, today...... Many Democrats are seeking a Constitutional Amendment to limit campaign contributions, that is to restrict individuals' rights to support candidates of their choosing with money. I guess I'm in with the crowd that considers this free speech, putting one's money where one's mouth is. (Now, I do have some problems with corporate and union contributions. Have you noticed that those who speak out against large donations by big companies, never get exercised, say, by unions' or ethnic groups' spending? Corporations are, legally, treated as persons. But that said, who was it who uttered, "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one?") Harry Reid is behind a Constitutional Amendment authored by Senator Udall that would pretty much give Congress the power to limit spending, that is, free political speech. Funny how all of these liberals, at least superficially for "the people," do the most to curtail individual rights. I reckon this has no chance of going anywhere, but is a political ploy to use against the Reps in the November elections. But, consider if such an amendment would pass, the power over our rights as outlined in the First Amendment would be susceptible to the whims of Congress, esp the big government folks.
No, I'm not going to harp once again on the federal government telling what kind of light bulbs, flush toilets, and everything else to us. Neither am I going to decry the federal government telling what our kids can eat for lunch. I'm not even going to bring up ObamaCare, that the federal government can force us to buy something many Americans don't want to buy--or buy health insurance that isn't as good, costs more, has higher deductibles, may limit our choices of doctors and care, etc. Nope, I'm going back in time, about 90 years, for a history lesson.
Prohibition came with the ratification of the 18th Amendment. Called "the Noble Experiment," I suppose an argument can be made about the pitfalls of alcohol or at least its abuse. I don't agree with that argument, but well, it can be made. But here's the kicker, a tie-in with the dangers of big government, one that has control over our lives. And, if you don't believe it, as Casey Stengel often said, "You could look it up."
The feds found that many folks during Prohibition were getting their alcohol through products legitimately produced. Alcohol can be found in things such as anti-freeze, embalming fluid, etc. People were--ugh!--drinking those things to get their alcohol. Well the feds couldn't have that, could they? So denatured alcohol was required for the anti-freeze, embalming fluid, etc. But, instead of using, say, soap to denature, to make the drinker sick, the feds used strychnine and mercury--yes, poisons! Ingesting them leads to death, an excruciating death. In 1927 several thousand Americans died from drinking denatured alcohol, with some putting the number at closer to 11,000. And why, because the federal government, as used by evil people, deliberately poisoned these citizens. Alcohol, which had been the fifth largest industry in the US, generated about half a billion dollars in revenue a year. The federal government, by pushing Prohibition, took that $500 million out of the hands of legitimate businesses (who paid taxes!) and gave it to thugs, such as the Purple Gang and Al Capone. Oh, there's far more, but that's enough for now.
The next time you're ready to say, "Oh, c'mon Ron......," think of what the federal government, controlled by evil people, did to Americans during Prohibition.
And speaking of big government, it got a boost when Mitch McConnell defeated his Tea Party opponent in the Rep Senate primary in Kentucky. That's too bad. It's apparent that the Establishment Republicans want to continue to throw big government candidates at us--check his record, supporting all that big government stuff pushed by W. Bush--such as TARP.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Follow the Money, Redux
I've expressed my low opinion of the Common Core here before, but I just heard this today and, in light of today's earlier post, thought it relevant.
Forget, for now, my opposition and the reasons for it to the Common Core. Consider this, "Follow the money."
Apparently, the testing companies get from $15 to $30 for every test taken. That is, each student who takes the test gets the testing companies $15 to $30. Now, consider that the test have a built-in 30% failure rate, that 30% of the scores will be failing. (At least that's what this expert from Florida, who identified herself as a left-leaning liberal, who has studied the test, who has lost her job as an administrator because of opposition to it, maintained.) Of course, in many areas, far more than 30% fail the test.
Then consider that each elementary and junior high student takes the test at least once a year. (Hold on to that idea for just a minute.) But high school students take multiple tests, including achievement, subject-area tests, etc., up to 5 or 6 or even 7. And remember the failures...... Also, remember that each test taken nets the testing company from $15 to $30, that is more than $100 up to more than $200 for high school students.
Now that's if each high school student, other than the 30% built-in failure rate (according to this lady on the radio today), takes the test(s) only once. Failing the test means taking it a second time--with, of course, the commensurate $15 to $30 per student re-taking it.
Do we finally see the picture, even without a calculator? Haven't we been told for years and years, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that we shouldn't use our children as pawns, as laboratory rats? I guess when money is concerned, we're just kidding. And I was naive enough to believe that "We're there for the kids." Well, I guess "we are," except when something else comes up, such as testing or start and dismissal times or sizes of athletic teams (esp jr high), etc.
"Follow the money......"
Forget, for now, my opposition and the reasons for it to the Common Core. Consider this, "Follow the money."
Apparently, the testing companies get from $15 to $30 for every test taken. That is, each student who takes the test gets the testing companies $15 to $30. Now, consider that the test have a built-in 30% failure rate, that 30% of the scores will be failing. (At least that's what this expert from Florida, who identified herself as a left-leaning liberal, who has studied the test, who has lost her job as an administrator because of opposition to it, maintained.) Of course, in many areas, far more than 30% fail the test.
Then consider that each elementary and junior high student takes the test at least once a year. (Hold on to that idea for just a minute.) But high school students take multiple tests, including achievement, subject-area tests, etc., up to 5 or 6 or even 7. And remember the failures...... Also, remember that each test taken nets the testing company from $15 to $30, that is more than $100 up to more than $200 for high school students.
Now that's if each high school student, other than the 30% built-in failure rate (according to this lady on the radio today), takes the test(s) only once. Failing the test means taking it a second time--with, of course, the commensurate $15 to $30 per student re-taking it.
Do we finally see the picture, even without a calculator? Haven't we been told for years and years, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that we shouldn't use our children as pawns, as laboratory rats? I guess when money is concerned, we're just kidding. And I was naive enough to believe that "We're there for the kids." Well, I guess "we are," except when something else comes up, such as testing or start and dismissal times or sizes of athletic teams (esp jr high), etc.
"Follow the money......"
Follow the Money
I've had two chats recently, one with an area resident and the other with a television producer, who both, independently, agreed on how to understand things that don't seem to make much sense. I don't remember either's exact words, but they came down to, "Follow the money!" Increasingly, I think this is so.
Why is there such reluctance on the part of the current administration to label Islamic extremists/terrorists, well, "Islamic extremists/terrorists?" I guess I'm thinking now of the kidnapped Nigerian girls' situation. But I also see how the administration refuses to called the Ft. Hood shootings an act of terrorism, despite all of the overt evidence, clinging to "workplace violence." And what is the continued embrace of so many of the Middle Eastern despots, who rule by imposing Shar'ia standards? (Isn't a Christian girl who is pregnant in one of them now facing the possibility of death, based on Islamic law, Shar'ia?) Can it be that many of these folks, such as the Sultan of Brunei, are heavy contributions to Obama, the Clintons, and the Democratic Party? (They might well also contribute to the Republicans, I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised at the Establishment Republicans.) Gee, what is it either of the Clintons get for a speech in the Middle East--almost half a million dollars? Who would criticize anyone who is willing to pay $500,000 for a speech, just to remain principled? I guess I assume too much--that people still have principles. Let's follow the money.
(Interesting in that those who have opposed the recent Supremes' rulings on political contributions haven't made a peep--at least none I've heard--about foreign campaign/political contributions. Hmmm......)
Why would anyone opposed the Keystone XL pipeline? OK, the radical environmentalists do. (I won't get into their hypocrisy in many of there lives, not today.) But who does such opposition help and who does it hurt? And consider these in light of the current administration. China is helped; so is Venezuela. Why would the US--or at least its President--want to help either of those countries? Let's toss in Russia, in light of the Ukrainian situation. So are that California billionaire hedge-fund guy (Hey, aren't those guys supposed to be the bad guys? Oh, not if they contribute hundreds of millions to right, er, the left cause.) and Warren Buffett (And where do his political contributions go?). (So, then what's so different about the Koch Brothers, other than they give to the "wrong" causes?) Americans, that is, you and me are hurt. US workers are hurt. Canada, a loyal ally, is hurt. Hmmm...... Shall we follow the money?
Why is there such reluctance on the part of the current administration to label Islamic extremists/terrorists, well, "Islamic extremists/terrorists?" I guess I'm thinking now of the kidnapped Nigerian girls' situation. But I also see how the administration refuses to called the Ft. Hood shootings an act of terrorism, despite all of the overt evidence, clinging to "workplace violence." And what is the continued embrace of so many of the Middle Eastern despots, who rule by imposing Shar'ia standards? (Isn't a Christian girl who is pregnant in one of them now facing the possibility of death, based on Islamic law, Shar'ia?) Can it be that many of these folks, such as the Sultan of Brunei, are heavy contributions to Obama, the Clintons, and the Democratic Party? (They might well also contribute to the Republicans, I don't know. But I wouldn't be surprised at the Establishment Republicans.) Gee, what is it either of the Clintons get for a speech in the Middle East--almost half a million dollars? Who would criticize anyone who is willing to pay $500,000 for a speech, just to remain principled? I guess I assume too much--that people still have principles. Let's follow the money.
(Interesting in that those who have opposed the recent Supremes' rulings on political contributions haven't made a peep--at least none I've heard--about foreign campaign/political contributions. Hmmm......)
Why would anyone opposed the Keystone XL pipeline? OK, the radical environmentalists do. (I won't get into their hypocrisy in many of there lives, not today.) But who does such opposition help and who does it hurt? And consider these in light of the current administration. China is helped; so is Venezuela. Why would the US--or at least its President--want to help either of those countries? Let's toss in Russia, in light of the Ukrainian situation. So are that California billionaire hedge-fund guy (Hey, aren't those guys supposed to be the bad guys? Oh, not if they contribute hundreds of millions to right, er, the left cause.) and Warren Buffett (And where do his political contributions go?). (So, then what's so different about the Koch Brothers, other than they give to the "wrong" causes?) Americans, that is, you and me are hurt. US workers are hurt. Canada, a loyal ally, is hurt. Hmmm...... Shall we follow the money?
Friday, May 9, 2014
Government at Its Best!
I don't remember the name of the city, but I heard this one today.
During this continued season of potholes, one driver who had already lost several tires due to blowouts decided to take matters in his own hands--that is, he did what a good citizen should do. The city, claiming poverty, didn't fix the potholes on the road(s) he uses--on the way to work, in front of his house, wherever. So, taking money from his own pocket, he filled in the potholes himself. (I was really glad to hear this; on more than one occasion over the years, I have bought bags of cold patch and filled in large potholes on our street.) Apparently he was thanked by a number of fellow citizens who appreciated his efforts at fixing the road(s).
Oh, but here's where it gets interesting, crazy, or typical--of government. (Remember, how many stories do we hear every summer of local authorities closing down kids' lemonade stands because they don't have permits!?!?!?) A few days after the repairs, this guy gets a nasty phone call from his city (or town). Some city wonk criticized him for fixing the road(s). The wonk, somewhat unbelievably, said some folks called to complain that the repairs could (not that any did) damage their cars. Hmmm...... But the potholes couldn't?
Oh, but there's more. The Good Samaritan was then told he'd have to "undo" the repairs, to restore the road(s) to its/their previous condition. Does that mean restore the potholes?????? Indeed, it did. And, if he didn't, the city (or town) would and then would bill him for the work. Let's let no good deed go unpunished.
And more...... He had to restore the road to the city's (town's) standards. So, I guess the city (town) has standards for potholes??????
Someone should bring an auditor in to examine the gov't books. There's not enough money to fix potholes, materials and employee time, but there is enough to restore potholes to their original axle-breaking condition?
Is anyone really surprised by all of this? If so, we don't really have to look any farther than "lemonade stands." And here's another one.I pay a small city income tax. Invariably I get a pittance of a refund and I always send in a signed note to the city to just keep my refund. I figure it needs the few bucks more than I do; besides, in a small step in walking the walk instead of just talking the talk (as so many of our hypocrites do). But no, I always get a refund check--often 6 or 7 months later. It must cost the city more to process the check and for postage than the refund is. The city is in big financial trouble, but if it doesn't want help, well...... (It reminds me of the Red Cross, always pleading for blood because of shortages. Over the past ten or more years I'll bet I've been turned away a dozen times or more and sometimes even when I bring a second donor. "I'm sorry, but an appointment is required." But I can't make appointments because of the fluid nature of my daily schedule. I often don't know what I'm doing just minutes before I must do it. In fact, more than once, including the last time, I was turned away because of no appointment. I noted to the workers, "But there's nobody on any of the tables and only one person in line." Nope, I still didn't have an appointment. I've mentioned this numerous times to the folks who always call--I have a rare blood type--and nothing comes of it. Besides, isn't the CEO of the Red Cross one of those who is compensated extremely well? But I digress.)
I have two other things that are bothering me. Can you imagine Obama talking "income inequality" to people who just paid anywhere from $10,000 to $35,000 a plate for dinner?????? Of course, I mentioned these kinds of people above. And remember, this President and his family have spent more money on vacations than I have earned my entire life time, more than 50 years of work and often with two or three or more jobs. Yeah, let's talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk......
This reminds me of the big talkers, supporting the increase of minimum wages and decrying "income inequality," all the while owning two or three or more residences, taking African safaris, going on vacations for three or four weeks to Europe or Australia or wherever, golfing every weekend at the most exclusive golf clubs/courses, etc.
Speaking of international vacations, why would any American opt to spend his vacation money helping the economies of, say, Commie China? OK, I understand the rich culture and history of the place. But, as I've blogged about companies and states that go out of their ways to do business with the ChiComs, why do we give money to support these places? Should we talk about violations of human rights? How about thievery of our technology? What happens when these guys begin to take over Japanese islands? Taiwan/Formosa? I'm pretty sure the Chinese have zero fear of the US right now, not with this President and administration, esp this Sec of State.
Speaking of international vacations, why would any American opt to spend his vacation money helping the economies of, say, Commie China? OK, I understand the rich culture and history of the place. But, as I've blogged about companies and states that go out of their ways to do business with the ChiComs, why do we give money to support these places? Should we talk about violations of human rights? How about thievery of our technology? What happens when these guys begin to take over Japanese islands? Taiwan/Formosa? I'm pretty sure the Chinese have zero fear of the US right now, not with this President and administration, esp this Sec of State.
Which commandment is it that proscribes stealing, the 7th? Well, isn't that what the Pope is calling for, in asking governments to engage in "legitmate redistribution of wealth?" He wants gov'ts to forcibly take other people's money? First, maybe this Pope should read Morris West's Shoes of the Fisherman, a novel of the '60s or so. His words would ring a lot less hollow if he began to divest the church of its billions or trillions before he asked gov'ts to steal other people's money. Besides, aren't there some other issues that this Pope should tackle before this--like the epidemic of pedophilia among priests, exclusion of women from the priesthood (It is the 21st Century after all! And don't people criticize Muslims for still living in the 7th and 8th centuries?), illegitimate births, etc.?
I did get a nice e-mail that pointed out the problems with charter schools. And I had the beginnings of an interesting conversation about how today's 20- and 30-year olds are more self-centered than previous generations. (I'd actually go so far as to include my generation, but my conversation partner was just talking about our own children, adults.) But we were interrupted and I am now, too. Perhaps I can address these later this weekend--although it's a pretty full calendar I'm checking.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Strange Values
So, the President finds the botched Oklahoma execution of a convicted murderer "troubling." Hmmm......
OK, this has been eating at me all day. It's "Benghazi." (Now, what has taken John Boehner so long to appoint a select committee to investigate is beyond me. Of course, we know Harry Reid won't do anything.)
First, there's Nancy Pelosi asking, "Benghazi? Benghazi? Benghazi! Can't we just get over it?" That reflects Hillary Clinton's "What difference does it make?" (And lapdog LameStream media-types' attempts notwithstanding, I don't at all think her words were "taken out of context." They certainly weren't.) Four Americans, serving their country, were killed. And, it surely appears that the US government tried to cover up (and then cover up the cover-up) the affair, lest their Islamist friends be identified as the culprits or their own policies demonstrated as bankrupt.
Then this week there's this lame-brain "communications expert" coming from the White House who, in reply to a reporter's question about Benghazi, so eloquently stated, "Dude, that was two years ago!" Oh, I get it. "Can't we just get over it?" "What difference does it make?" Where'd this guy get his degree?????? If I was that school, I'd surely think about asking for him to return it--or at least hang my head in shame. (Darn, I forgot again--there is no shame any longer.) "Dude, that was two years ago!" Just think about that one for a minute. (OK, I must give the guy some credit. I guess I wouldn't have been surprised had he said, "Dude, that was so two years ago!" But he didn't and deserves a little credit for not being a complete cretin, just mostly.)
Now let's put this in a little perspective. "Watergate? Watergate? Watergate? Can't we just get over it?" Besides, "What difference does it make?" And since the Senate was led by Democrats, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield didn't hesitate in appointing Sam Ervin to head a select committee to investigate Watergate, a Republican crime. Besides, "Watergate? Dude, that was last year!"
No, I'm not defending Nixon or diminishing the impact of Watergate. Perhaps the perpetrators of it didn't get punished enough! And I'm not picking on just Democrats. People know I've also been pretty hard on Republicans; note Boehner. But amid all this Benghazi lethargy, Obama has the temerity to "find troubling" that a convicted murder's execution may have not gone exactly as drawn up. Now, this guy wasn't just a murderer. Apparently he was caught, with buddies,, breaking into a house. He shot a woman and then buried her in the backyard--while she was still alive! So, this--the botched execution--is "troubling," Yet, a terrorist attack on an American government facility was met with, well, preparing for a fundraiser with Hollywood-types or a debate with Romney?????? (I've forgotten which.) I guess my priorities are all wrong--I hope yours aren't. I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy who shot and buried a woman while she was still alive (and whose execution was botched) and "get over" the terrorist murders of four American government workers in Libya. OK, I think I have it straight now.
And there are still people with Obama/Biden bumper stickers on their cars! At least 40 years ago people were ashamed, "I didn't vote for him [Nixon]," although most of them did--he won 49 states. I know, I know..."But Bush lied." But, "Dude, that was 12 years ago!"
As we slip further into the abyss, the Apocalypse is nearly upon us.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Liberal Arts
Last week or the week before I heard one of these radio talking heads ask a caller, "Why'd you let your son waste his time and your money?" That was after the radio guy heard the son was getting a college degree in the liberal arts. And this week one of the online sites listed "Liberal Arts" as the 5th "worst degree if you want a good job," as a waste, I guess.
Of course, we might ask what is meant by "a good job." Is it one that earns lots of money? Is it one with a great deal of prestige? If so, I would not agree with the premise, not at all. (But I know a lot of people would.)
I couldn't disagree more, for many reasons, including my own personal experiences.
I guess I would question why any so-called "intelligent" or "educated" person would question the value of a wide range of knowledge, with breadth of knowledge to go along with it. There's nothing wrong with specialization, if a wider base of knowledge is included or comes first.
Note how many people complain about doctors who can't communicate with them, their patients. Oh, they can diagnose and maybe even "fix" what's wrong. But that can't empathize or accurately depict what is going on, what needs to be done, what options there may be, etc. And, in many medical situations, aren't people's feeling, attitudes, and understanding important? In fact, how many times do we hear that a positive attitude has been helpful in recoveries, cures, etc. A doctor who has been well-rounded might be far more capable of helping in this area than one who has merely "specialized."
Think how much better a scientist or engineer could/would be if he/she actually understood people, presumably the ones he/she is working to help (or at least better their lives). Now, I won't toss in politicians, unless they clean up their acts and get rid of the many who are all about getting re-elected, forgetting about the people and the harm being done to them by policies aimed not at helping, but getting re-elected. (OK, I had to throw that one in here.)
Isn't this pretty much what the Common Core is all about, specialization? That is, it seems to me that the CC is all about preparing students for the work force, for jobs. Of course this is a major reason why so many big corporations and foundations are behind this, throwing in their support and money. What do they care about "well-rounded" especially when compared with "job-ready employees?" And, from poll after poll, from all the anecdotal evidence, it's pretty clear that customer service is at an ebb--and as long as the money keeps pouring in, companies don't care much about that.
I think about my college mates and our liberal arts degrees. Yes, economics majors went on to be CEOs and other officers in large, Fortune 500 companies. But think of the psychology majors (another of the "worst degrees") who also rose to the tops of companies. One fine arts major, with a senior thesis of a sculpture if I recall correctly, later became an MD/anaesthesiologist (after a stint in the NFL). A political science major ran one of the biggest conglomerates in the US.
If a liberal arts degree teaches students to think, to work hard, to solve problems, to communicate--over a wide spectrum of disciplines--I can't think how that can do anything but make one a prime candidate for practically any job. To have knowledge and experience with many perspectives is an asset, not "a waste of time and money."
There was a wonderful article in this month's Atlantic Magazine, titled, "Why I Teach Plato to Plumbers." It is well worth reading.
Of course, we might ask what is meant by "a good job." Is it one that earns lots of money? Is it one with a great deal of prestige? If so, I would not agree with the premise, not at all. (But I know a lot of people would.)
I couldn't disagree more, for many reasons, including my own personal experiences.
I guess I would question why any so-called "intelligent" or "educated" person would question the value of a wide range of knowledge, with breadth of knowledge to go along with it. There's nothing wrong with specialization, if a wider base of knowledge is included or comes first.
Note how many people complain about doctors who can't communicate with them, their patients. Oh, they can diagnose and maybe even "fix" what's wrong. But that can't empathize or accurately depict what is going on, what needs to be done, what options there may be, etc. And, in many medical situations, aren't people's feeling, attitudes, and understanding important? In fact, how many times do we hear that a positive attitude has been helpful in recoveries, cures, etc. A doctor who has been well-rounded might be far more capable of helping in this area than one who has merely "specialized."
Think how much better a scientist or engineer could/would be if he/she actually understood people, presumably the ones he/she is working to help (or at least better their lives). Now, I won't toss in politicians, unless they clean up their acts and get rid of the many who are all about getting re-elected, forgetting about the people and the harm being done to them by policies aimed not at helping, but getting re-elected. (OK, I had to throw that one in here.)
Isn't this pretty much what the Common Core is all about, specialization? That is, it seems to me that the CC is all about preparing students for the work force, for jobs. Of course this is a major reason why so many big corporations and foundations are behind this, throwing in their support and money. What do they care about "well-rounded" especially when compared with "job-ready employees?" And, from poll after poll, from all the anecdotal evidence, it's pretty clear that customer service is at an ebb--and as long as the money keeps pouring in, companies don't care much about that.
I think about my college mates and our liberal arts degrees. Yes, economics majors went on to be CEOs and other officers in large, Fortune 500 companies. But think of the psychology majors (another of the "worst degrees") who also rose to the tops of companies. One fine arts major, with a senior thesis of a sculpture if I recall correctly, later became an MD/anaesthesiologist (after a stint in the NFL). A political science major ran one of the biggest conglomerates in the US.
If a liberal arts degree teaches students to think, to work hard, to solve problems, to communicate--over a wide spectrum of disciplines--I can't think how that can do anything but make one a prime candidate for practically any job. To have knowledge and experience with many perspectives is an asset, not "a waste of time and money."
There was a wonderful article in this month's Atlantic Magazine, titled, "Why I Teach Plato to Plumbers." It is well worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
