Since 2000, 500 kids have been shot and killed in Detroit. I believe that's just the city, not including the suburbs, which would add to this appalling number. That's almost 3 a month! What is with us?
The latest was an 8-year old shot while sleeping. Some derelict, who has learned to believe that he can shoot somebody if he is "dissed" or isn't given something he wants or you name it, opened fire with a high-powered rifle. A bullet struck the kid.
I know the argument about guns--far too many of them out there with far too many people who shouldn't have them. But does anyone think that if we move to get rid of guns, these derelicts will give up theirs?
What about--and I'm continuing to beat this horse and will until it's dead--changing the culture of violence, of thinking so little of human lives that it's permissible to take them for so trivial reasons? Someone has shoes or a jacket you want? Just shoot him or her and take it. Someone insulted you or you think insulted you? Just shoot him or her to take back your street cred.
I have no data, none, but I must think that television, movies, video games, and even some types of music have heavily influenced this culture of violence. We know advertising on television, etc. influences people's actions and attitudes. So, why then wouldn't all the violence in these media and games also influence people's actions and attitudes?
Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their ilk on this? Why aren't they leading the black communities out of this morass? For that matter, where is the President? Wasn't he a "community leader?" Isn't a President supposed to lead? How can they find issues more pressing than the epidemic of shooting and killing our kids?????? Of course, I have my ideas where these so-called "leaders" are. I won't offer what I think, but I think you can guess. They are some of the reasons why we have reached a state of moral mud.
Violence? How about in Gaza? And what are the LameStreams and the Obama Administration doing about that? (I will omit the United Nations, for obvious reasons.) For one thing, they are rewarding terrorists. Hamas, a terrorist organization, engages in regular/periodic attacks on Israel and Israelis and it's the Israelis of whom demands for concessions are made. How irrational is that? It reminds me of a local elementary school principal and his way of handling bullies in his school. When the bullies disrupted games on the playground, instead of punishing them, he let them pick the teams and make the rules! I am not making this up, not at all. This was his solution, to give the bullies "ownership," whatever the heck he meant by that. And by rewarding the bullies, did this principal end the bullying? Of course not; he encouraged even more of it. And some of us wonder why our schools are in the sad shape they are...... Look no farther than your local administrator. (OK, some of our teachers, too.)
Speaking of schools, when did it become "smart" to make education resemble video games? That's what is happening, you know. Oh, the euphemism is "technology." It's taken over classrooms and whole schools. There are virtual schools, where students don't have to take off their pajamas for class. (Oh, for that matter, many schools let kids where their PJs to school now and not only on special days!) I've written about the new god, "Technology," and how anyone who questions it immediately dismissed as a Neanderthal, Luddite, or worse. (There is a place for technology in education, but it's not the place it's now given. It is where it is now because, well, "follow the money.") I know, I know, we have to make education "relevant." Courses/Classes need to touch students, to grab their attention, and all that rigamarole. Students have to learn at their own paces. Hogwash! When did it become smart to allow students to determine the parameters of education? What do students know? Of course, we might ask this question. What do educators know if they let this occur and, in fact, encourage it?
And I wonder why I get headaches! (Actually, I don't believe in headaches; I don't get them.)
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Mother Nature
Boy, Mother Nature is fickle and, at times, very powerful. That was the case with the storm the other day and quite a storm it was.
Here, we had two strong blows, about half an hour apart, with some rain accompanied by thunder and lightning. The rain was steady, but not particularly hard and didn't last an hour, not close to it. The winds, both times, were strong. We had some patio furniture on the deck knocked over, but that was about it.
The tornado/storm siren went off twice. The first time, the storm came and went. The skies cleared to a beautiful blue, with few clouds. The warning siren sounded. Too late! The second time it went off was just before the second wave of wind and rain/thunder and lightning.
But north of here, about 15 minutes or so, look out! I spent a few hours today helping friends to clean up their yard. I've never seen so many green leaves fallen on the ground. It was like the autumn, except the leaves weren't all the fall colors--just deep green. There were no large limbs down, but lots and lots of small twigs and branches. But more so, it was seeing the damage by the hail. Here, we had no hail, none at all. There, the newspapers reported "golf-ball size hail...." That was wrong. I saw my friends photos and the hail was closer to baseball-size. Their cars were pock-marked with big dings and dents from the hail. A tail-light was knocked out. The windshields were cracked in numerous places. The house?????? Siding was as dented as the autos. Several glass-brick windows were shattered. Plants were beaten to the ground. Even those heavy-duty plastic outdoor storage bins were pounded with holes! Those things are thick and sturdy, too! The roof needs to be repaired; window frames were destroyed.
Driving on their street, sort of a cul de sac, I've never seen so much traffic there. About 90% of it was construction vehicles. My friends said, since Sun, they come home and find many flyers from restoration companies on their door--and numerous calls from those companies are on their voice mails. Some houses, too, on their block were even worse off with damage.
We didn't do any restoration/repairs. The insurance folks are coming out to assess the damage and give an estimate. We just cleaned up the yard, which was work enough.
Now, a mile or two south--no hail. A mile or two north--no hail. There was the strong wind, like we had, and rain, but no hail. Fickle Mother Nature.
What was the old television for Imperial Margarine? "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Here, we had two strong blows, about half an hour apart, with some rain accompanied by thunder and lightning. The rain was steady, but not particularly hard and didn't last an hour, not close to it. The winds, both times, were strong. We had some patio furniture on the deck knocked over, but that was about it.
The tornado/storm siren went off twice. The first time, the storm came and went. The skies cleared to a beautiful blue, with few clouds. The warning siren sounded. Too late! The second time it went off was just before the second wave of wind and rain/thunder and lightning.
But north of here, about 15 minutes or so, look out! I spent a few hours today helping friends to clean up their yard. I've never seen so many green leaves fallen on the ground. It was like the autumn, except the leaves weren't all the fall colors--just deep green. There were no large limbs down, but lots and lots of small twigs and branches. But more so, it was seeing the damage by the hail. Here, we had no hail, none at all. There, the newspapers reported "golf-ball size hail...." That was wrong. I saw my friends photos and the hail was closer to baseball-size. Their cars were pock-marked with big dings and dents from the hail. A tail-light was knocked out. The windshields were cracked in numerous places. The house?????? Siding was as dented as the autos. Several glass-brick windows were shattered. Plants were beaten to the ground. Even those heavy-duty plastic outdoor storage bins were pounded with holes! Those things are thick and sturdy, too! The roof needs to be repaired; window frames were destroyed.
Driving on their street, sort of a cul de sac, I've never seen so much traffic there. About 90% of it was construction vehicles. My friends said, since Sun, they come home and find many flyers from restoration companies on their door--and numerous calls from those companies are on their voice mails. Some houses, too, on their block were even worse off with damage.
We didn't do any restoration/repairs. The insurance folks are coming out to assess the damage and give an estimate. We just cleaned up the yard, which was work enough.
Now, a mile or two south--no hail. A mile or two north--no hail. There was the strong wind, like we had, and rain, but no hail. Fickle Mother Nature.
What was the old television for Imperial Margarine? "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."
Monday, July 28, 2014
Looking Back
Sometimes things pop up in my mind from years and years ago. This is particularly astounding when often I can't walk from one room to the other without forgetting why I went there. I was reminded of this yesterday, a particularly humid day. I ran long early, with a medium-long bike ride. Then I mowed the back yard and did some other yard work, trimming bushes/shrubs and trees and collecting the yard waste. As the while, during my run, my ride, and my yard work, the "schweat" was just pouring off of me. The humididity [sic] had to be near 100%. Way back when, almost 50 years ago, when I worked road constructions, some of the old-timers (which, I guess, is what I am now?) would say on similarly humid days, "If it doesn't rain, it's missing a good chance."
Eventually we did get some rain, along with thunder and lightning. The rain was about an hour long, if that. And it appears we dodged a bullet. A friend of ours, about 15 mins north, sent some photos of what the almost baseball-sized hail did to her house, yard, and cars. Yep, she had a picture of the hail, in her hand. It was larger than a golf ball. It broke windows, dented (deeply) aluminium [sic] siding and her cars, and more, esp breaking the bottles of her wine tree. Fortunately, she lost power only for a short while. I read in the newspaper today that more than 200,000 utility customers were still without power overnight. I may be called into clean-up service tomorrow, after the insurance adjuster visits.
I guess CNN says it's "complicated" to determine if Hamas is using Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as "human shields" to cover their rocket attacks on Israel. Why is that "complicated?" Hamas and other terrorist groups constantly use this strategy/tactic (I'd guess it would really be a strategic, but see where it could be considered a tactic). They know the world, through the UN, with its lack of credibility, and the sissies in the US, will decry any Israeli retaliation that kills "innocent civilians." Oh, the protests! So, what are the Israeli's supposed to do? "Well, I guess since Hamas is firing rockets at us from populated areas, we can't fight back and defend ourselves. Oh we...." "Complicated," says CNN. I understand some people's concerns with Fox News and bias. But why are there no similar concerns with CNN or, for instance, NPR and other news providers?
I received an interesting article/blog today from another historian. It was about WW1 and, in particular, why it was a bad war in which to involve the US. What was most interesting to me was the view of President Woodrow Wilson. It was gratifying to see him portrayed as he really was, not how most historians and their books distort (lie?) about him. "Wilson's ego...knew no bounds," reads the article. Is that like me telling my students "Wilson was the most arrogant of elitists?" The historians and their textbooks never let on about the bigoted and racist Wilson, his intolerance of opposition, etc. And, for the most part, the deliberate (Doesn't it have to be deliberate, considering the intelligence of many historians?) deception/distortion (lies?) has worked. It reminds me of how well the similar views of Franklin Roosevelt has succeeded. Go ahead, try to tell someone that Roosevelt's New Deal, for instance, did not pull the US out of the Depression. Use facts and statistics, such as unemployment rates, production levels, etc. It won't matter. Any challenge to the prevailing view that the New Deal was marvelously successful will be met with largely deaf ears. For fun, try suggesting that the New Deal actually lengthened and maybe even deepened the Depression, as facts and statistics allow for arguing. But, no...... The historians and their textbooks have spoken. FDR has been anointed and there is no besmirching him, not even with facts. I've tried this and people look at me with an expression that all but says, "And you're supposed to be a history teacher?" This is with some college-educated people. Hey, even teachers I worked with wouldn't listen to my nonsense. Of course, many of them knew only what was in the textbook(s). I suppose that's what makes it easier to perpetuate the distortions about Wilson, F. Roosevelt, and others.
Eventually we did get some rain, along with thunder and lightning. The rain was about an hour long, if that. And it appears we dodged a bullet. A friend of ours, about 15 mins north, sent some photos of what the almost baseball-sized hail did to her house, yard, and cars. Yep, she had a picture of the hail, in her hand. It was larger than a golf ball. It broke windows, dented (deeply) aluminium [sic] siding and her cars, and more, esp breaking the bottles of her wine tree. Fortunately, she lost power only for a short while. I read in the newspaper today that more than 200,000 utility customers were still without power overnight. I may be called into clean-up service tomorrow, after the insurance adjuster visits.
I guess CNN says it's "complicated" to determine if Hamas is using Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as "human shields" to cover their rocket attacks on Israel. Why is that "complicated?" Hamas and other terrorist groups constantly use this strategy/tactic (I'd guess it would really be a strategic, but see where it could be considered a tactic). They know the world, through the UN, with its lack of credibility, and the sissies in the US, will decry any Israeli retaliation that kills "innocent civilians." Oh, the protests! So, what are the Israeli's supposed to do? "Well, I guess since Hamas is firing rockets at us from populated areas, we can't fight back and defend ourselves. Oh we...." "Complicated," says CNN. I understand some people's concerns with Fox News and bias. But why are there no similar concerns with CNN or, for instance, NPR and other news providers?
I received an interesting article/blog today from another historian. It was about WW1 and, in particular, why it was a bad war in which to involve the US. What was most interesting to me was the view of President Woodrow Wilson. It was gratifying to see him portrayed as he really was, not how most historians and their books distort (lie?) about him. "Wilson's ego...knew no bounds," reads the article. Is that like me telling my students "Wilson was the most arrogant of elitists?" The historians and their textbooks never let on about the bigoted and racist Wilson, his intolerance of opposition, etc. And, for the most part, the deliberate (Doesn't it have to be deliberate, considering the intelligence of many historians?) deception/distortion (lies?) has worked. It reminds me of how well the similar views of Franklin Roosevelt has succeeded. Go ahead, try to tell someone that Roosevelt's New Deal, for instance, did not pull the US out of the Depression. Use facts and statistics, such as unemployment rates, production levels, etc. It won't matter. Any challenge to the prevailing view that the New Deal was marvelously successful will be met with largely deaf ears. For fun, try suggesting that the New Deal actually lengthened and maybe even deepened the Depression, as facts and statistics allow for arguing. But, no...... The historians and their textbooks have spoken. FDR has been anointed and there is no besmirching him, not even with facts. I've tried this and people look at me with an expression that all but says, "And you're supposed to be a history teacher?" This is with some college-educated people. Hey, even teachers I worked with wouldn't listen to my nonsense. Of course, many of them knew only what was in the textbook(s). I suppose that's what makes it easier to perpetuate the distortions about Wilson, F. Roosevelt, and others.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
??????
Sometimes I can't get my mind around things.
I saw today that ISIS in Iraq blew up a shrine in Iraq, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. I think that's what it was. It is holy to both Jews and Christians. But, regardless, the Muslim fundamentalists destroyed it, as they have many Christians in that city, Mosul. At one time Mosul had tens of thousands of Christians; now there are none.
So, where are the protests from the West? I'm not necessarily talking about Christians and Jews, but those who purport to believe in the ideas of the Enlightenment, you know, human rights?????? One of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment is freedom of religion. (Remember Voltaire's criticism of the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly in France on people's religion and religious thought--"Crush the infamous thing [the Church].") But, oh, these same human rights activists are all over criticism of Islam! Remember their condemnation of the anti-Islam video that purportedly was the cause of the Benghazi murders? (And, of course, we now know this was a blatant lie by the Obama administration.) How about the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad? Let's toss in the so-called "honor killings," where fathers and/or other relatives murder their own Muslim kin because of conversions to other religions. Yep, where is their outrage over this?
And, of course, they are all over Israel, too, for trying to defend itself. Apparently the tunnel system didn't sway them that Hamas means to do serious damage, even fatal damage, to the state of Israel. Note, too, the celebration as martyrs by the Palestinians of 25 of them supposedly killed by the IDF. It now seems as if those 25 Palestinians were shot, without any judicial proceedings, by Hamas for collaboration with the IDF.
Yet, note the left-wing criticism of the Supremes' decision in the Hobby Lobby case, one that deals with Christians' freedom of religion. First, I believe Hobby Lobby is a privately-owned corporation, a family company. Second, Hobby Lobby only opposed ObamaCare's dictate that it pay for all birth control, even the four methods that are abortive. Hobby Lobby's still paid for insurance that paid for 16 other methods of birth control. Third, if those are opposed are so adamant about Hobby Lobby's stance, to paraphrase the Starbucks' CEO in another, but I think related matter, "You can take your business elsewhere."
I saw today that ISIS in Iraq blew up a shrine in Iraq, the birthplace of the prophet Jonah. I think that's what it was. It is holy to both Jews and Christians. But, regardless, the Muslim fundamentalists destroyed it, as they have many Christians in that city, Mosul. At one time Mosul had tens of thousands of Christians; now there are none.
So, where are the protests from the West? I'm not necessarily talking about Christians and Jews, but those who purport to believe in the ideas of the Enlightenment, you know, human rights?????? One of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment is freedom of religion. (Remember Voltaire's criticism of the Catholic Church, which had a monopoly in France on people's religion and religious thought--"Crush the infamous thing [the Church].") But, oh, these same human rights activists are all over criticism of Islam! Remember their condemnation of the anti-Islam video that purportedly was the cause of the Benghazi murders? (And, of course, we now know this was a blatant lie by the Obama administration.) How about the Dutch cartoons of Muhammad? Let's toss in the so-called "honor killings," where fathers and/or other relatives murder their own Muslim kin because of conversions to other religions. Yep, where is their outrage over this?
And, of course, they are all over Israel, too, for trying to defend itself. Apparently the tunnel system didn't sway them that Hamas means to do serious damage, even fatal damage, to the state of Israel. Note, too, the celebration as martyrs by the Palestinians of 25 of them supposedly killed by the IDF. It now seems as if those 25 Palestinians were shot, without any judicial proceedings, by Hamas for collaboration with the IDF.
Yet, note the left-wing criticism of the Supremes' decision in the Hobby Lobby case, one that deals with Christians' freedom of religion. First, I believe Hobby Lobby is a privately-owned corporation, a family company. Second, Hobby Lobby only opposed ObamaCare's dictate that it pay for all birth control, even the four methods that are abortive. Hobby Lobby's still paid for insurance that paid for 16 other methods of birth control. Third, if those are opposed are so adamant about Hobby Lobby's stance, to paraphrase the Starbucks' CEO in another, but I think related matter, "You can take your business elsewhere."
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Thurs AM
Some random Thur AM thoughts:
Is this year seeing a bumper crop for deer? I see them all over the place, on the trails in the woods on my runs and bike rides, in people's front yards, off in fields as I drive by. Yesterday, a doe was standing in a front yard out on a back road, with a couple of fawns next to her. (Which reminds me of the Three Stooges schtick, "Oh, see the littler deer. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks.) The day before in the woods, another deer was standing out in the path, not moving until I was within 20 or so yards. And they've multiplied as road kill. Not far down the road toward town, a large one had been hit by a car, likely Sat night/early Sun AM. We saw it, dead, when we drove to Kensington Sun AM for our bike ride. With the heat and humidity, it didn't take long to putrefy--and putrefy it did! Wed evening, I finally saw a county truck stop to remove the carcass. Meanwhile, driving past while taking Bopper to basketball camp was certainly an olfactory experience--and not a pleasant one! How did the residents stand that rotten smell?
Today's newspaper had an interesting article on compensation ("outlandish" was used more than once) for college administrators. I've blogged about this several times, but the article is worth reading, esp for those who will pay for their kids' and grandkids' college educations. And, I submit, such ridiculous pay has percolated down to the public schools. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/07/21/why-are-campus-administrators-making-so-much-money/
Who was surprised to discover that that animal who brazenly shot that two-year old girl in the head last month had been released from prison early? Yep, instead of being out on the street shooting this little girl in front of her father, this guy should have been in jail, not on one conviction, but at least two! BTW, a photo in the newspaper at his arraignment shows him with this wise-guy smirk on his face, like he's really baaaddd.
Related was another article about a convicted murderer who lasted an hour and a half during his execution. Oh, he "gasped" and "snorted" for almost two hours before he died. No doubt, the state of Arizona botched the execution. But are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy?????? One of the family members commented, to one of the murderer's lawyers (?), "This man conducted a horrific murder," actually two of them, planned and carried out, because a woman didn't want to date him, "and you guys [the lawyers who were seeking an emergency appeal during the protracted execution] are worried about the drugs [used to kill the scum]?"
BTW, it's been revealed that the EMU football player who was shot to death was killed for his iPhone. OK, I understand about guns, although I don't necessarily agree with banning them. What I don't understand is the reluctance, nay, the refusal to address the culture that makes killing other people OK. Where is the outrage against attitudes that encourage (and, yes, they are encouraged by our culture) shooting someone else because she has something you want, because he "dissed" you," etc.? Where are those like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. on this?
OK, so if we are so dissatisfied with the way things are in Washington (and, by transference, in our lives), if Congress has its lowest ratings ever, if 2/3s of Americans want to throw the bums--their bum--out, if the Tea Party is offering real differences, etc., why are voters opting to return the same bozos to Congress? In 293 primaries already held in various states, 291 of the incumbents have won. Granted, some of the results have been close, which might be saying something in light of the clout carried by incumbents and the money they can raise. Still, not only can we throw out the bums, but we can send a message that we're tired of elections being bought. (After all, look at the outcry over Citizens United, etc.) We continue to say one thing, but do another. We have chances to right the ship, but blow the opportunities, again and again.
And newspaper endorsements continue to baffle. All year long editorials and other opinion articles criticize elected officials--and in most cases rightly so. Then, when elections come, the newspapers almost always seem to endorse the incumbents or some other career/Establishment politician. Yep, baffle is the correct word.
BTW, we're at it again. Congressman Kerry Bentivolio, in the primary election coverage, is referred to as "the reindeer farmer...." But why isn't his opponent called "the lawyer who helped foreclose tens of thousands of home" during the recession? Again, how anyone can vote for a candidate who is supported by the Establishment is beyond me. At one time, when the Establishment could be trusted, yes. In recent years, not a chance.
So, what's with all these "shifts" in baseball? When certain hitters, usually the best or at least the big power hitters, bat, defenses will put three infielders on the pull-side of the infield. (For a left-handed batter, for instance, three infielders will play to the right of second base, one sort of a short outfielder.) Critics are decrying the loss of offense because of the shifts. There is even a movement, however incipient, to change the rules to prohibit shifts. C'mon, that whole idea is wrong in too many ways to list. First, can't these million-dollar Major League hitters hit one "the other way, " that is, away from the shift??? The ball doesn't even have to be hit hard since there is only one infield on the opposite side. Have they ever heard of bunts? Yep, with the third baseman playing out in short right field would make a bunt down the third base line a tough play, wouldn't it? (A couple of weeks ago, Karen was watching the game and Cabrera came to the plate. "Miggy's up!" she called to me. I came in to watch and he laced a rope up the middle--a sure hit, except that a shift was on and it was caught by the 2Bman. The next time up he dribbled a ball through the vacated right side of the infield, intentionally (not an intentional dribble, but to the right side), for a base hit. And the time after that he drilled a clothes line through the 2B position for yet another hit. The next day/game, there was no shift, same team.) Also, if we want to add to the offense, how about we ban certain pitches. Sliders are real hard to hit and what about cut fastballs? I think some pitchers still effectively throw forkballs/split finger fastballs. Let's get rid of them since they cut down on offense.
Is this year seeing a bumper crop for deer? I see them all over the place, on the trails in the woods on my runs and bike rides, in people's front yards, off in fields as I drive by. Yesterday, a doe was standing in a front yard out on a back road, with a couple of fawns next to her. (Which reminds me of the Three Stooges schtick, "Oh, see the littler deer. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks.) The day before in the woods, another deer was standing out in the path, not moving until I was within 20 or so yards. And they've multiplied as road kill. Not far down the road toward town, a large one had been hit by a car, likely Sat night/early Sun AM. We saw it, dead, when we drove to Kensington Sun AM for our bike ride. With the heat and humidity, it didn't take long to putrefy--and putrefy it did! Wed evening, I finally saw a county truck stop to remove the carcass. Meanwhile, driving past while taking Bopper to basketball camp was certainly an olfactory experience--and not a pleasant one! How did the residents stand that rotten smell?
Today's newspaper had an interesting article on compensation ("outlandish" was used more than once) for college administrators. I've blogged about this several times, but the article is worth reading, esp for those who will pay for their kids' and grandkids' college educations. And, I submit, such ridiculous pay has percolated down to the public schools. Here's a link to the article:
http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/07/21/why-are-campus-administrators-making-so-much-money/
Who was surprised to discover that that animal who brazenly shot that two-year old girl in the head last month had been released from prison early? Yep, instead of being out on the street shooting this little girl in front of her father, this guy should have been in jail, not on one conviction, but at least two! BTW, a photo in the newspaper at his arraignment shows him with this wise-guy smirk on his face, like he's really baaaddd.
Related was another article about a convicted murderer who lasted an hour and a half during his execution. Oh, he "gasped" and "snorted" for almost two hours before he died. No doubt, the state of Arizona botched the execution. But are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy?????? One of the family members commented, to one of the murderer's lawyers (?), "This man conducted a horrific murder," actually two of them, planned and carried out, because a woman didn't want to date him, "and you guys [the lawyers who were seeking an emergency appeal during the protracted execution] are worried about the drugs [used to kill the scum]?"
BTW, it's been revealed that the EMU football player who was shot to death was killed for his iPhone. OK, I understand about guns, although I don't necessarily agree with banning them. What I don't understand is the reluctance, nay, the refusal to address the culture that makes killing other people OK. Where is the outrage against attitudes that encourage (and, yes, they are encouraged by our culture) shooting someone else because she has something you want, because he "dissed" you," etc.? Where are those like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. on this?
OK, so if we are so dissatisfied with the way things are in Washington (and, by transference, in our lives), if Congress has its lowest ratings ever, if 2/3s of Americans want to throw the bums--their bum--out, if the Tea Party is offering real differences, etc., why are voters opting to return the same bozos to Congress? In 293 primaries already held in various states, 291 of the incumbents have won. Granted, some of the results have been close, which might be saying something in light of the clout carried by incumbents and the money they can raise. Still, not only can we throw out the bums, but we can send a message that we're tired of elections being bought. (After all, look at the outcry over Citizens United, etc.) We continue to say one thing, but do another. We have chances to right the ship, but blow the opportunities, again and again.
And newspaper endorsements continue to baffle. All year long editorials and other opinion articles criticize elected officials--and in most cases rightly so. Then, when elections come, the newspapers almost always seem to endorse the incumbents or some other career/Establishment politician. Yep, baffle is the correct word.
BTW, we're at it again. Congressman Kerry Bentivolio, in the primary election coverage, is referred to as "the reindeer farmer...." But why isn't his opponent called "the lawyer who helped foreclose tens of thousands of home" during the recession? Again, how anyone can vote for a candidate who is supported by the Establishment is beyond me. At one time, when the Establishment could be trusted, yes. In recent years, not a chance.
So, what's with all these "shifts" in baseball? When certain hitters, usually the best or at least the big power hitters, bat, defenses will put three infielders on the pull-side of the infield. (For a left-handed batter, for instance, three infielders will play to the right of second base, one sort of a short outfielder.) Critics are decrying the loss of offense because of the shifts. There is even a movement, however incipient, to change the rules to prohibit shifts. C'mon, that whole idea is wrong in too many ways to list. First, can't these million-dollar Major League hitters hit one "the other way, " that is, away from the shift??? The ball doesn't even have to be hit hard since there is only one infield on the opposite side. Have they ever heard of bunts? Yep, with the third baseman playing out in short right field would make a bunt down the third base line a tough play, wouldn't it? (A couple of weeks ago, Karen was watching the game and Cabrera came to the plate. "Miggy's up!" she called to me. I came in to watch and he laced a rope up the middle--a sure hit, except that a shift was on and it was caught by the 2Bman. The next time up he dribbled a ball through the vacated right side of the infield, intentionally (not an intentional dribble, but to the right side), for a base hit. And the time after that he drilled a clothes line through the 2B position for yet another hit. The next day/game, there was no shift, same team.) Also, if we want to add to the offense, how about we ban certain pitches. Sliders are real hard to hit and what about cut fastballs? I think some pitchers still effectively throw forkballs/split finger fastballs. Let's get rid of them since they cut down on offense.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Hypocrisy?
Perhaps I'm a bit too harsh on people, esp in expecting them to live what they preach. Is that too much of me to expect?
Headlines on today's front page showcase Michael Moore, the highly-esteemed (at least in liberal quarters) film maker. Frankly, I haven't seen any of his movies, but have read reviews of them by both liberals and conservatives. And, I have heard interviews, not many, over the years. I find him a typically bloviated, hypocritical liberal. This newspaper article confirms that view.
This guy, who passes himself off as sort of a "common man," looking out for the interests of the little guy who is at the mercy of those evil capitalists, is hardly that. A divorce proceeding has highlighted the hypocrisy. I wonder how many "common men" are worth more than $50 million? How many of them have a $2 million home on Torch Lake, not to mention a place in NYC? Yet, as a permanent resident of the Up North community said, "He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich." I might add filthy rich.
Again, I ask, why doesn't he live in a house like mine (which I find perfectly fine, considerably bigger and nicer than the one I grew up in back in the city) and give the rest of his money to the downtrodden, those whose dire lives he purports to improve? (According to our latest assessment, my house is worth less than 10%, considerably less, than his. And I'm perfectly comfortable and content.) But, again, perhaps I ask too much??????
Of course, that's par for the course for some doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). According to tax info supplied by both the President and VP, I give more (as a percentage of income) to charity than either--and in some years, more as a percentage of income than both combined. I'm not at all patting myself on the back; I should give more, but don't. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo).
I know I've written this before, many times. But how many of these people (regular folks, people I know) who criticize the greedy wealthy people, who lament the poor conditions of the downtrodden, etc., live what I consider to be extravagant lives? Variously, some live on lakes and have a boat or two or three. Many have one or two more cars than drivers in their households and we aren't talking about Ford Fiestas! What about their swimming pools and hot tubs, with decks with more square footage than my house--or at least close to it? How many have places Up North or Down South and take multiple vacations, often to escape the Michigan winters? There's more, like fine wines, memorabilia, sporting events (season tickets), and more.
I don't bemoan these people what they have. I don't begrudge them--not at all. It's their money and they can spend it any ways they want. What really grates me is their criticism of the greed of others.
Perhaps I just remember growing up, maybe differently from many of these people. I am grateful for what i have. Fifty years ago, had someone told me what my house and yard today would look like, I'd have laughed at him. Hey, we mowed the lawn, not with a power mower, but my hand--and it didn't take 15 minutes. (Oh, but we still groused; we were kids!) I'm guessing we didn't have 1,000 square feet in the house. Vacations? Oh, we took three or four that I remember, but that's about it. Our play pants/clothes were last year's school clothes. Fortunately, I love spaghetti because we had that two times a week--not to mention the leftovers for lunches. And I didn't and still don't complain. We were never hungry, always had clothes, etc. Many of my buddies describe the same scenarios, then and now. We'd have never thunk......
It's funny, just this AM, I was talking with another former teacher from our local school district, who taught about the time I did for just about as many years. We weren't at all complaining about our pensions, our retirement incomes. But when we both said the maximum we ever made in teaching here (Remember, the big argument against ever giving us more money, when it was there--Yep, administrators lied!--was that we had a good retirement/pension.) we chuckled and at least I thought, "That's chump change." And consider that, at least in this district, teachers have been forced to take 15-20% pay cuts over the past few years.
Headlines on today's front page showcase Michael Moore, the highly-esteemed (at least in liberal quarters) film maker. Frankly, I haven't seen any of his movies, but have read reviews of them by both liberals and conservatives. And, I have heard interviews, not many, over the years. I find him a typically bloviated, hypocritical liberal. This newspaper article confirms that view.
This guy, who passes himself off as sort of a "common man," looking out for the interests of the little guy who is at the mercy of those evil capitalists, is hardly that. A divorce proceeding has highlighted the hypocrisy. I wonder how many "common men" are worth more than $50 million? How many of them have a $2 million home on Torch Lake, not to mention a place in NYC? Yet, as a permanent resident of the Up North community said, "He criticizes capitalism, but capitalism made him rich." I might add filthy rich.
Again, I ask, why doesn't he live in a house like mine (which I find perfectly fine, considerably bigger and nicer than the one I grew up in back in the city) and give the rest of his money to the downtrodden, those whose dire lives he purports to improve? (According to our latest assessment, my house is worth less than 10%, considerably less, than his. And I'm perfectly comfortable and content.) But, again, perhaps I ask too much??????
Of course, that's par for the course for some doo-gooders (and I do mean doo). According to tax info supplied by both the President and VP, I give more (as a percentage of income) to charity than either--and in some years, more as a percentage of income than both combined. I'm not at all patting myself on the back; I should give more, but don't. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo).
I know I've written this before, many times. But how many of these people (regular folks, people I know) who criticize the greedy wealthy people, who lament the poor conditions of the downtrodden, etc., live what I consider to be extravagant lives? Variously, some live on lakes and have a boat or two or three. Many have one or two more cars than drivers in their households and we aren't talking about Ford Fiestas! What about their swimming pools and hot tubs, with decks with more square footage than my house--or at least close to it? How many have places Up North or Down South and take multiple vacations, often to escape the Michigan winters? There's more, like fine wines, memorabilia, sporting events (season tickets), and more.
I don't bemoan these people what they have. I don't begrudge them--not at all. It's their money and they can spend it any ways they want. What really grates me is their criticism of the greed of others.
Perhaps I just remember growing up, maybe differently from many of these people. I am grateful for what i have. Fifty years ago, had someone told me what my house and yard today would look like, I'd have laughed at him. Hey, we mowed the lawn, not with a power mower, but my hand--and it didn't take 15 minutes. (Oh, but we still groused; we were kids!) I'm guessing we didn't have 1,000 square feet in the house. Vacations? Oh, we took three or four that I remember, but that's about it. Our play pants/clothes were last year's school clothes. Fortunately, I love spaghetti because we had that two times a week--not to mention the leftovers for lunches. And I didn't and still don't complain. We were never hungry, always had clothes, etc. Many of my buddies describe the same scenarios, then and now. We'd have never thunk......
It's funny, just this AM, I was talking with another former teacher from our local school district, who taught about the time I did for just about as many years. We weren't at all complaining about our pensions, our retirement incomes. But when we both said the maximum we ever made in teaching here (Remember, the big argument against ever giving us more money, when it was there--Yep, administrators lied!--was that we had a good retirement/pension.) we chuckled and at least I thought, "That's chump change." And consider that, at least in this district, teachers have been forced to take 15-20% pay cuts over the past few years.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Scary Times?
There was an op-ed in the Wash Post this AM that "these are not the worst of times." The author might well be right, but they certainly are frightening.
She compares nuclear capabilities and accounts of political rights around the world then and today. She also notes Vietnam and how millions have escaped poverty (although it's somewhat surprising to see a Wash Post columnist cite "open markets" as a cause). But I think she misses some points.
There are some very scary things going on out there. One, of course, is Gaza. More than 300 Palestinians have died already. I'm not sure how many Israelis have been killed, but the number is considerably less, but not for want of trying by Hamas. The Israeli rocket defense dome, the uncovering of the tunnel system used by terrorists, etc., have limited their casualties. Yet, as Charles Krauthammer notes in his op-ed today, people are still talking (and hand-wringing) about "the cycle of violence." It's as if, to these people, the results of what the Israelis are doing and what Hamas is doing are morally equivalent. They aren't, not at all.
Here's Krauthammer's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
A disturbing thing is the habit of one side or even ignorant people to redefine terms, such as "moral equivalence." Read the paragraph, at least, of Krauthammer's piece. People, all hung up of other things, seem to have forgotten the past. Krauthammer reminds us of recent history, only ten or twelve years ago. I remember all those Israeli concessions to the PLO, led by Yassir ("That's My Baby") Arafat and that, after making this demands, he rejected Israel's concessions, at least at first. Yep, the Israelis gave Arafat everything he demanded, yet he demurred. Again, read the article and see what the Palestinians of Gaza did with what they were given. And ask yourself this, "What did all these other nations/people--the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, even the Brits--ever give to the so-called 'Palestinians?'" These are the people who treated the Palestinians much worse than the Israelis. Oh, the answer to my question is, essentially, "nothing."
There was an editorial cartoon depicting the Tea Party, with the statement, "We are not extremists...and if you say we are, we'll destroy you." First, I've never heard any Tea Partier say that and have never seen any Tea Partier write that. And, what's "extreme" about the Tea Party goals? What's wrong with wanting lower taxes? What's wrong with wanting less government spending and less government control over our individual lives? What's wrong with wanting an end corporate welfare as well as much of the wasted individual welfare, so often abused? Of course, the Tea Party has targeted the liberals/Democrats, the architects of the now nearly $18 trillion (I can't begin to fathom a billion dollars let alone get my mind around trillions of them) of US debt, which doesn't include five or six times that of unfunded liabilities. (There we go again, redefining things to make them sound other than what they really are.) And Establishment Republicans have aided and abetted the spending insanity, not to mention the increasing controls on our freedoms. The LameStream media go right along with this, too. Oh, they criticize on occasions, but note, for instance, recent newspaper endorsements of candidates in the upcoming primary elections; they back the same old Establishment candidates, the ones who've wreaked all the damage. I'm not exactly sure why there has been such massive effort to inaccurately defame the Tea Partiers (OK, I at least have a pretty good idea.) with so much time, effort, and energy. But the defamation campaign has worked.
"Freedom of speech," guaranteed in the First Amendment. Now, there can be legitimate differences about the degree of "freedom" of our expression, for instance, "Yelling fire in a crowded theater." (How different our government's relationship to free expression than merely ten or twelve years ago when I was teaching government. Gee, I wonder if I'd get away with telling the truth today, of how government is chipping away little by little and lot by lot, at our freedoms of expression.) Note the number of journalists who have been targeted by the Justice Dept, not because they've done anything illegal, but merely to monitor sources and how they get their information. In fact, the Justice Dept has never claimed or alleged these journalists have broken any laws. Interesting, isn't it, how very silent the LameStream media are with this??????
And, regarding redefining terms, check out this article, very thought-provoking and relevant to what is happening right now. http://spectator.org/articles/59987/gutting-first-amendment
The author cites this chilling trend among our government officials, including members of Congress and some Supremes: "freedom of speech isn't an inalienable individual right--[that is] a right to say what you want regardless of what others think--but a privilege [my emphasis] that we exercise at the sufferance of 'the public.'" If there is any doubt to this, consider our college campuses, supposedly bastions of free thought and expression. While liberal speakers are invited with open arms, regardless of the legitimacy of their ideas, conservatives are usually not invited or, if they are, are met with hoots and shout-downs. (And, more and more over the past decades, we find this in our public schools.) So much for open dialogue, being able to defend thoughts in the face of challenges, or even rethinking one's opinion. (One of the things great about Abraham Lincoln was that he embraced this.)
Lots of food for thought for us today in the newspapers......
She compares nuclear capabilities and accounts of political rights around the world then and today. She also notes Vietnam and how millions have escaped poverty (although it's somewhat surprising to see a Wash Post columnist cite "open markets" as a cause). But I think she misses some points.
There are some very scary things going on out there. One, of course, is Gaza. More than 300 Palestinians have died already. I'm not sure how many Israelis have been killed, but the number is considerably less, but not for want of trying by Hamas. The Israeli rocket defense dome, the uncovering of the tunnel system used by terrorists, etc., have limited their casualties. Yet, as Charles Krauthammer notes in his op-ed today, people are still talking (and hand-wringing) about "the cycle of violence." It's as if, to these people, the results of what the Israelis are doing and what Hamas is doing are morally equivalent. They aren't, not at all.
Here's Krauthammer's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
A disturbing thing is the habit of one side or even ignorant people to redefine terms, such as "moral equivalence." Read the paragraph, at least, of Krauthammer's piece. People, all hung up of other things, seem to have forgotten the past. Krauthammer reminds us of recent history, only ten or twelve years ago. I remember all those Israeli concessions to the PLO, led by Yassir ("That's My Baby") Arafat and that, after making this demands, he rejected Israel's concessions, at least at first. Yep, the Israelis gave Arafat everything he demanded, yet he demurred. Again, read the article and see what the Palestinians of Gaza did with what they were given. And ask yourself this, "What did all these other nations/people--the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, even the Brits--ever give to the so-called 'Palestinians?'" These are the people who treated the Palestinians much worse than the Israelis. Oh, the answer to my question is, essentially, "nothing."
There was an editorial cartoon depicting the Tea Party, with the statement, "We are not extremists...and if you say we are, we'll destroy you." First, I've never heard any Tea Partier say that and have never seen any Tea Partier write that. And, what's "extreme" about the Tea Party goals? What's wrong with wanting lower taxes? What's wrong with wanting less government spending and less government control over our individual lives? What's wrong with wanting an end corporate welfare as well as much of the wasted individual welfare, so often abused? Of course, the Tea Party has targeted the liberals/Democrats, the architects of the now nearly $18 trillion (I can't begin to fathom a billion dollars let alone get my mind around trillions of them) of US debt, which doesn't include five or six times that of unfunded liabilities. (There we go again, redefining things to make them sound other than what they really are.) And Establishment Republicans have aided and abetted the spending insanity, not to mention the increasing controls on our freedoms. The LameStream media go right along with this, too. Oh, they criticize on occasions, but note, for instance, recent newspaper endorsements of candidates in the upcoming primary elections; they back the same old Establishment candidates, the ones who've wreaked all the damage. I'm not exactly sure why there has been such massive effort to inaccurately defame the Tea Partiers (OK, I at least have a pretty good idea.) with so much time, effort, and energy. But the defamation campaign has worked.
"Freedom of speech," guaranteed in the First Amendment. Now, there can be legitimate differences about the degree of "freedom" of our expression, for instance, "Yelling fire in a crowded theater." (How different our government's relationship to free expression than merely ten or twelve years ago when I was teaching government. Gee, I wonder if I'd get away with telling the truth today, of how government is chipping away little by little and lot by lot, at our freedoms of expression.) Note the number of journalists who have been targeted by the Justice Dept, not because they've done anything illegal, but merely to monitor sources and how they get their information. In fact, the Justice Dept has never claimed or alleged these journalists have broken any laws. Interesting, isn't it, how very silent the LameStream media are with this??????
And, regarding redefining terms, check out this article, very thought-provoking and relevant to what is happening right now. http://spectator.org/articles/59987/gutting-first-amendment
The author cites this chilling trend among our government officials, including members of Congress and some Supremes: "freedom of speech isn't an inalienable individual right--[that is] a right to say what you want regardless of what others think--but a privilege [my emphasis] that we exercise at the sufferance of 'the public.'" If there is any doubt to this, consider our college campuses, supposedly bastions of free thought and expression. While liberal speakers are invited with open arms, regardless of the legitimacy of their ideas, conservatives are usually not invited or, if they are, are met with hoots and shout-downs. (And, more and more over the past decades, we find this in our public schools.) So much for open dialogue, being able to defend thoughts in the face of challenges, or even rethinking one's opinion. (One of the things great about Abraham Lincoln was that he embraced this.)
Lots of food for thought for us today in the newspapers......
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Water......
Water, water everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink.
Water, water everywhere
Or nary a drop to drink.
The latest brouhaha in Detroit is over water. With the Great Lakes surrounding Michigan, who'd a thunk water would be the latest in the long list of problems in Detroit?
Well, it's not water, per se. It's people not paying their water bills. Apparently, the scofflaws have had their water shut off. According to one newspaper account, as many as half of Detroiters don't pay their bills. But, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are already on the march. These include some Hollywood-types (Cher chimed in yesterday.) and some group (Homeroots Nation?) coming in for some sort of convention.
We are hearing claims of "cruel," "inhumane," and even "unconstitutional" to describe the shut-offs of water to homes. Of course, if that was the real story, we could understand. But, as Paul Harvey used to say on his radio show, "Here's the rest of the story."
While 50% of Detroiters pay their water bills, half opting not to pay, 2/3 of Detroiters still pay their cable and/or satellite television bills. And more than that, almost 3/4 continue to pay their cell phone bills. (And why do I think most of these cell phones are not of the most basic variety? Why do I think they have all the bells and whistles? Hmmm......) Isn't water a necessity? Aren't television and cell phones, if not out-and-out luxuries, merely desires? Of course, since water is a necessity, those doo-gooders will argue shutting it off, even though people opt to pay cable and cell phone bills instead of water bills, is inhumane, yet another reason to criticize the fabric of American society. This is a humanitarian crisis, of growing and epic proportions.
I wonder how much money Cher has. I'll bet she can take some of her money and pay the water bills for a lot of those Detroiters, so they can keep their phones and television. Now, wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do? In fact, there's nothing to prevent others, in the spirit of humanitarianism, to skip those dinners out, their latest vacations, those bottles of wine, etc. from paying the water bills of the scofflaws.
I suppose that's what comes with the growing idea that people deserve freebies, that things they need, but don't want to pay for, should be paid for by others. Besides, the UN has declared water to be a basic right of people. And, if the UN has spoken......
No doubt, there are some folks genuinely in need, perhaps living below the poverty level. But don't they already get assistance, federal or state money, food stamps, etc.? Why isn't that money used to pay for necessities, like water? For what is that money being spent? Remember, the US and Americans have been the most charitable people in the history of the world. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."
Someone must pay for the water, pumping it, purifying it, delivering it, maintaining its infrastructure, etc. With so many scofflaws, those who pay their bills must cover the extra costs. That's why there's a double-digit percentage increase in rates in Detroit. And that's why there is talk of as much as a 50% rate increase for suburban water-users. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch (water). Somebody has to pay for it.
Which brings about another troubling thing. From what I understand, the county executives in Oakland and Macomb counties have been muzzled by the federal judge overseeing the Detroit bankruptcy. They've been warning of the 50% increase on suburbanites. Yet, those who support "free water" are allowed to continue to speak their views. Isn't this America?
Gee, I wonder why so many more Detroiters who don't pay, opt to pay their cell phone and cable/satellite television bills. Can it be that the phone and television people actually shut off services if not paid? Besides, it's a lot harder to garner humanitarian sympathy over the loss of cable and cell phones, but that's not too far in coming, I'd guess.
I recall this more and more. Legend has it the British army band, under Cornwallis, who was surrendering to Washington at Yorktown, played "The World Turned Upside Down."
And all the boards did shrink.
Water, water everywhere
Or nary a drop to drink.
The latest brouhaha in Detroit is over water. With the Great Lakes surrounding Michigan, who'd a thunk water would be the latest in the long list of problems in Detroit?
Well, it's not water, per se. It's people not paying their water bills. Apparently, the scofflaws have had their water shut off. According to one newspaper account, as many as half of Detroiters don't pay their bills. But, the doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) are already on the march. These include some Hollywood-types (Cher chimed in yesterday.) and some group (Homeroots Nation?) coming in for some sort of convention.
We are hearing claims of "cruel," "inhumane," and even "unconstitutional" to describe the shut-offs of water to homes. Of course, if that was the real story, we could understand. But, as Paul Harvey used to say on his radio show, "Here's the rest of the story."
While 50% of Detroiters pay their water bills, half opting not to pay, 2/3 of Detroiters still pay their cable and/or satellite television bills. And more than that, almost 3/4 continue to pay their cell phone bills. (And why do I think most of these cell phones are not of the most basic variety? Why do I think they have all the bells and whistles? Hmmm......) Isn't water a necessity? Aren't television and cell phones, if not out-and-out luxuries, merely desires? Of course, since water is a necessity, those doo-gooders will argue shutting it off, even though people opt to pay cable and cell phone bills instead of water bills, is inhumane, yet another reason to criticize the fabric of American society. This is a humanitarian crisis, of growing and epic proportions.
I wonder how much money Cher has. I'll bet she can take some of her money and pay the water bills for a lot of those Detroiters, so they can keep their phones and television. Now, wouldn't that be the humanitarian thing to do? In fact, there's nothing to prevent others, in the spirit of humanitarianism, to skip those dinners out, their latest vacations, those bottles of wine, etc. from paying the water bills of the scofflaws.
I suppose that's what comes with the growing idea that people deserve freebies, that things they need, but don't want to pay for, should be paid for by others. Besides, the UN has declared water to be a basic right of people. And, if the UN has spoken......
No doubt, there are some folks genuinely in need, perhaps living below the poverty level. But don't they already get assistance, federal or state money, food stamps, etc.? Why isn't that money used to pay for necessities, like water? For what is that money being spent? Remember, the US and Americans have been the most charitable people in the history of the world. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up."
Someone must pay for the water, pumping it, purifying it, delivering it, maintaining its infrastructure, etc. With so many scofflaws, those who pay their bills must cover the extra costs. That's why there's a double-digit percentage increase in rates in Detroit. And that's why there is talk of as much as a 50% rate increase for suburban water-users. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch (water). Somebody has to pay for it.
Which brings about another troubling thing. From what I understand, the county executives in Oakland and Macomb counties have been muzzled by the federal judge overseeing the Detroit bankruptcy. They've been warning of the 50% increase on suburbanites. Yet, those who support "free water" are allowed to continue to speak their views. Isn't this America?
Gee, I wonder why so many more Detroiters who don't pay, opt to pay their cell phone and cable/satellite television bills. Can it be that the phone and television people actually shut off services if not paid? Besides, it's a lot harder to garner humanitarian sympathy over the loss of cable and cell phones, but that's not too far in coming, I'd guess.
I recall this more and more. Legend has it the British army band, under Cornwallis, who was surrendering to Washington at Yorktown, played "The World Turned Upside Down."
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Il Papa
Unless wrongly reported, the Pope has publicly stated the US should take in the illegal immigrant children for "humanitarian" reasons, should "welcome" them. Now apparently the Pope stuck his foot in his mouth a week or so earlier over pedophilia among priests, claiming that 10% (I think) of priests abused children. But this isn't about that, only that maybe the Pope might want to think before speaking--or at least consult some others.
The Pope would have a little more credibility, at least morally, about "humanitarian" and "welcome" if he ordered or at least urged his Church--officials and members of the Catholic Church--to offer to house and feed the illegals. Why doesn't he take the pulpit and ask Catholics to open the doors to their homes, to "welcome" the illegals for "humanitarian" reasons, to the illegals? I wonder how many Catholics would obey the urgings of their Pope. Hmmm...... Well, consider how many Catholics support abortion, gay marriage, etc. (I'm not stating my positions here, that's not the point. For the record, though, I oppose abortions and do not oppose gay marriages.)
How many Catholic churches have opened their parishes to the illegals? To be sure, I really don't know. It might be quite a few; it might be zero. Still, if Il Papa has opined, infallibility or not.....
And, I'm not sure if accurate, but a least one report is out there that one of the illegals, detained but released awaiting future reporting back, has kidnapped and murdered in Texas (?). In light of the federal threats to border agents, doctors, other personnel dealing with the illegals against revealing any information, is it illogical to wonder if this is not the only trouble, that there is a cover-up?
The Pope would have a little more credibility, at least morally, about "humanitarian" and "welcome" if he ordered or at least urged his Church--officials and members of the Catholic Church--to offer to house and feed the illegals. Why doesn't he take the pulpit and ask Catholics to open the doors to their homes, to "welcome" the illegals for "humanitarian" reasons, to the illegals? I wonder how many Catholics would obey the urgings of their Pope. Hmmm...... Well, consider how many Catholics support abortion, gay marriage, etc. (I'm not stating my positions here, that's not the point. For the record, though, I oppose abortions and do not oppose gay marriages.)
How many Catholic churches have opened their parishes to the illegals? To be sure, I really don't know. It might be quite a few; it might be zero. Still, if Il Papa has opined, infallibility or not.....
And, I'm not sure if accurate, but a least one report is out there that one of the illegals, detained but released awaiting future reporting back, has kidnapped and murdered in Texas (?). In light of the federal threats to border agents, doctors, other personnel dealing with the illegals against revealing any information, is it illogical to wonder if this is not the only trouble, that there is a cover-up?
Monday, July 14, 2014
Monday Moanin'
Twice last week I started to take surveys by pollsters. Both were about the upcoming elections, the primary and the general elections. I was asked questions about candidates. One poll was online and one was on the phone. Each time, after one of my answers, my participation in the survey was ended. I actually have studied both major party candidates for this office and my opinions are made, I think, with knowledge and some reason. Finally I gave an answer that wasn't welcome--and I wasn't asked why this was my answer--and I was cut off. So much for taking a representative sample of the population.
Nolan Finley (Oh-Oh, that guy?) had an interesting op-ed piece in yesterday's newspaper. He wrote that, this time, the powers-that-be should let Israel "finish the job" and get rid of Hamas once and for all. Right now that isn't the point here. He also raised an interesting question, one that is never addressed by the LameStream Media. Why, when the Israelis launch rockets into Gaza, Lebanon, or wherever, is there such outrage among the rest of the world? Why do the condemnations flow almost immediately? The joke called the United Nations quickly rushes into the criticism of Israel. Surely it's tragic that innocent people are killed. We should all lament that. But, I wonder often, when the rockets from Hamas, when the suicide bombers, when school buses and restaurants, etc. are attacked and Israelis are killed, where is a similar outrage? The UN sits arrogantly and says nothing. The US, at least recently, says nothing. The rest of the world says nothing--or worse, seeks legitimacy for the attacking terrorist groups. Hamas and the other terrorist groups launch their attacks from the midst of civilian populations because they know the US government and others throughout the world will react with horror when Israel responds. After all, to stop the attacks, where else would the Israelis send their missiles? And the Israelis are merely responding to terrorist attacks. Wouldn't any or all of the condemning nations do the same, respond to terrorist attacks with violence> (Well, OK, some wouldn't, but we won't mention any names.) Again I think it's a case of selective outrage and people who don't think about things giving moral (if that's the right term) equivalence to acts of terrorism and retaliatory responses to acts of terrorism. How can anyone take this lightweight thinkers seriously? But, alas, a lot of people, maybe most, even here in the US (esp in our government), do.
Nolan Finley (Oh-Oh, that guy?) had an interesting op-ed piece in yesterday's newspaper. He wrote that, this time, the powers-that-be should let Israel "finish the job" and get rid of Hamas once and for all. Right now that isn't the point here. He also raised an interesting question, one that is never addressed by the LameStream Media. Why, when the Israelis launch rockets into Gaza, Lebanon, or wherever, is there such outrage among the rest of the world? Why do the condemnations flow almost immediately? The joke called the United Nations quickly rushes into the criticism of Israel. Surely it's tragic that innocent people are killed. We should all lament that. But, I wonder often, when the rockets from Hamas, when the suicide bombers, when school buses and restaurants, etc. are attacked and Israelis are killed, where is a similar outrage? The UN sits arrogantly and says nothing. The US, at least recently, says nothing. The rest of the world says nothing--or worse, seeks legitimacy for the attacking terrorist groups. Hamas and the other terrorist groups launch their attacks from the midst of civilian populations because they know the US government and others throughout the world will react with horror when Israel responds. After all, to stop the attacks, where else would the Israelis send their missiles? And the Israelis are merely responding to terrorist attacks. Wouldn't any or all of the condemning nations do the same, respond to terrorist attacks with violence> (Well, OK, some wouldn't, but we won't mention any names.) Again I think it's a case of selective outrage and people who don't think about things giving moral (if that's the right term) equivalence to acts of terrorism and retaliatory responses to acts of terrorism. How can anyone take this lightweight thinkers seriously? But, alas, a lot of people, maybe most, even here in the US (esp in our government), do.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Random Thoughts
Here's one, one that's happened for years. Whenever I type "random," initially I almost always type "randome," with the unwanted "e." Another is "numerical," which initially is "numberical." (Don't ask why anyone would be typing "numerical," please.) Hmmm, I wonder why. I suppose the psychologists would have an answer. I wonder if it's interesting.
On the theme of a previous post, on this AM's run, to beat the rain, four deer, in descending order of size, ran right in front of me out on one of the trails of the state park. It was pretty cool. Again, "You can take the boy out of the city, but you can't take the city out of the boy." Yep, I remember playing in Devil's Woods as a kid and all of us guys getting excited to see a rabbit, just one. There weren't many wildlife creatures in "the city."
Cell phones...... One of my friends doesn't understand my aversion to cell phones. Oh, I've tried to explain to her, but apparently not very convincingly. I was reminded twice in recent days why I don't like them. At dinner with three others, two of their cell phones rang ("ring tones?") at the same time, both answering. I'm probably the only one in the US who still thinks so, but I found that to be impolite. Maybe I'm just an old fogey. One of my running buddies runs on the side of the road. I mean the side of the road, not the shoulder. Rarely, very rarely, does he move over for cars. I don't like that habit and, when I see cars, I immediately jump to the shoulder, often to the far left of it (running facing traffic). Now, this isn't my blind buddy, with whom I run about once a week!!!!!! This AM, when I left my running buddy for my last few miles back home, a car came down the road and, with his head down (dialing? texting?), the driver dropped off on the edge of the shoulder, right next to me. See??????
And in today's newspaper are the results of a survey (I don't know whose) that reveals a number of "workplace productivity killers." No doubt technology has improved productivity; I don't argue that it doesn't. But the leading "killer" of productivity is the use of cell phones, for personal calling and for texting. Two other similar disruptions that are hurting productivity, in the top four, are "Internet surfing" and the use of "social media." Also listed among the top seven were personal e-mailing. One might argue that workers shouldn't be doing things like these on company time. Of course they shouldn't. But how might they be stopped? The survey also revealed that "25% of all employers prohibit cell phones and personal calls." They, about 22%, also "try" to monitor Internet usage and e-mails. I wonder how effective those moves are. Hmmm...... Of course technology has helped productivity. I wonder how much it has harmed it. In the same vein, cell phones have likely saved many lives in emergencies. I wonder how many they have helped to take, i.e., through auto accidents.
Two op-ed pieces today focused on the recent headline stories of beatings and murders of Detroiters as "results of our rage." I find nothing to disagree about with either article. We have learned to become too "upset" and too "angry," to cite words of explanation in each piece. But they both stopped short of another reason I think needs to be explored. I wonder if either author has even considered it. Today, in fact over the past few decades, it's all about me--"I, Me, Mine." I've written about this before. What has led people to think just because a sports official has ejected a player that player can assault and murder the official? OK, the player didn't mean to kill the soccer referee, but he did anyway, so...... And so on. What goes into the thinking of such attacks, assaults, etc. that often lead to murders, even of 2-year old girls innocently playing out in her yard? Have we taught people that if they are disrespected ("dissed?", if something they want (such as playing time), etc., they have the right to kill someone over it? If we can't have our way we can attack others we deem responsible for that? Again, think of what our schools have taught over the past thirty or forty years. Everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's opinion. Your opinion can't be wrong. Or, like the tee shirt read, "God don't make no junk." You get the idea. Of course, that's all hokum, complete nonsense. Everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinion, even if it's wrong. This is America (although it seems more and more the federal government is counterposing that!). Wrong? Sure, who in his right mind would say that the opinion of the guy who walked up to the 2-year old and shot her point-blank in the head was right? After all, his opinion was he had the right to make the 2-year old's father suffer by watching it--because of some earlier incident. Would anyone argue that the opinions held by Nazis are right? What about the Taliban's (and other traditional Muslims) views of the role of women? Are those right? I cringe at the thought of a local high school that instituted a course called "Respect and Acceptance," whose them was that "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." What foolhardiness!?!?!? Yes, I spoke out strongly against it, but to no avail with those who obviously know a lot more than I do. Still, when did many people get the notion that when someone has done something to them, whether right or wrong, they have the right to kill them?????? Why don't I see any of our so-called societal leaders addressing this, something that leads to hundreds and thousands of murders and even more assaults annually? Can it be because they are not really leaders, but charlatans taking advantage of others?
Last, but not least, I have been reading the newspaper endorsements of candidates for the August primary. I'm startled, but not surprised. As critical of the newspapers have been of the politicans--laws, policies, etc.--the majority, the vast majority of endorsements are for incumbents or politicians jumping from one elected seat to another. It seems a bit incongruous to me, but that's my my opinions are lonely.
On the theme of a previous post, on this AM's run, to beat the rain, four deer, in descending order of size, ran right in front of me out on one of the trails of the state park. It was pretty cool. Again, "You can take the boy out of the city, but you can't take the city out of the boy." Yep, I remember playing in Devil's Woods as a kid and all of us guys getting excited to see a rabbit, just one. There weren't many wildlife creatures in "the city."
Cell phones...... One of my friends doesn't understand my aversion to cell phones. Oh, I've tried to explain to her, but apparently not very convincingly. I was reminded twice in recent days why I don't like them. At dinner with three others, two of their cell phones rang ("ring tones?") at the same time, both answering. I'm probably the only one in the US who still thinks so, but I found that to be impolite. Maybe I'm just an old fogey. One of my running buddies runs on the side of the road. I mean the side of the road, not the shoulder. Rarely, very rarely, does he move over for cars. I don't like that habit and, when I see cars, I immediately jump to the shoulder, often to the far left of it (running facing traffic). Now, this isn't my blind buddy, with whom I run about once a week!!!!!! This AM, when I left my running buddy for my last few miles back home, a car came down the road and, with his head down (dialing? texting?), the driver dropped off on the edge of the shoulder, right next to me. See??????
And in today's newspaper are the results of a survey (I don't know whose) that reveals a number of "workplace productivity killers." No doubt technology has improved productivity; I don't argue that it doesn't. But the leading "killer" of productivity is the use of cell phones, for personal calling and for texting. Two other similar disruptions that are hurting productivity, in the top four, are "Internet surfing" and the use of "social media." Also listed among the top seven were personal e-mailing. One might argue that workers shouldn't be doing things like these on company time. Of course they shouldn't. But how might they be stopped? The survey also revealed that "25% of all employers prohibit cell phones and personal calls." They, about 22%, also "try" to monitor Internet usage and e-mails. I wonder how effective those moves are. Hmmm...... Of course technology has helped productivity. I wonder how much it has harmed it. In the same vein, cell phones have likely saved many lives in emergencies. I wonder how many they have helped to take, i.e., through auto accidents.
Two op-ed pieces today focused on the recent headline stories of beatings and murders of Detroiters as "results of our rage." I find nothing to disagree about with either article. We have learned to become too "upset" and too "angry," to cite words of explanation in each piece. But they both stopped short of another reason I think needs to be explored. I wonder if either author has even considered it. Today, in fact over the past few decades, it's all about me--"I, Me, Mine." I've written about this before. What has led people to think just because a sports official has ejected a player that player can assault and murder the official? OK, the player didn't mean to kill the soccer referee, but he did anyway, so...... And so on. What goes into the thinking of such attacks, assaults, etc. that often lead to murders, even of 2-year old girls innocently playing out in her yard? Have we taught people that if they are disrespected ("dissed?", if something they want (such as playing time), etc., they have the right to kill someone over it? If we can't have our way we can attack others we deem responsible for that? Again, think of what our schools have taught over the past thirty or forty years. Everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's opinion. Your opinion can't be wrong. Or, like the tee shirt read, "God don't make no junk." You get the idea. Of course, that's all hokum, complete nonsense. Everyone is certainly entitled to his or her opinion, even if it's wrong. This is America (although it seems more and more the federal government is counterposing that!). Wrong? Sure, who in his right mind would say that the opinion of the guy who walked up to the 2-year old and shot her point-blank in the head was right? After all, his opinion was he had the right to make the 2-year old's father suffer by watching it--because of some earlier incident. Would anyone argue that the opinions held by Nazis are right? What about the Taliban's (and other traditional Muslims) views of the role of women? Are those right? I cringe at the thought of a local high school that instituted a course called "Respect and Acceptance," whose them was that "all people and all cultures are deserving of respect and acceptance." What foolhardiness!?!?!? Yes, I spoke out strongly against it, but to no avail with those who obviously know a lot more than I do. Still, when did many people get the notion that when someone has done something to them, whether right or wrong, they have the right to kill them?????? Why don't I see any of our so-called societal leaders addressing this, something that leads to hundreds and thousands of murders and even more assaults annually? Can it be because they are not really leaders, but charlatans taking advantage of others?
Last, but not least, I have been reading the newspaper endorsements of candidates for the August primary. I'm startled, but not surprised. As critical of the newspapers have been of the politicans--laws, policies, etc.--the majority, the vast majority of endorsements are for incumbents or politicians jumping from one elected seat to another. It seems a bit incongruous to me, but that's my my opinions are lonely.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
You can take...
...the boy out of the city, but can't take the city out of the boy. Isn't that how it goes? Something like that, I think.
The other day, out running on a beautiful AM, I ran across a coyote. Well, within about 10-15 yards of one. I saw him (or her?) before he saw me. When he did, he was startled, stopped, jogged backward for a ways, and moved farther away into a yard. After I passed he moved back along his way, heading into a subdivision.
Scrawny, spindly, with a pointy nose and scruffy tail. The long thin legs almost looked as if they shouldn't be able to hold him up.
That's only the second coyote, live one, I've seen while running. The other few I've been in the car. And there have been the roadkill carcasses.
Yep, I was excited and have brought it up more than once since.
Earlier during that run, I was in a zone when awakened by the screech of car brakes. They weren't close to me, at least not very close. I hadn't been paying attention, but immediately looked up and saw a small yellow Fiat that had narrowly missed a rather large deer crossing the road. It was a close call and with the small car and large deer, I don't think the crash would have been a pretty one. It was somewhat comforting to see that the driver of the Fiat was a young girl; she was driving carefully enough to be able to stop to avoid the collision. She did look a bit shaken, though, as I ran by and waved to her and her passengers, who looked perhaps like her parents.
This AM a doe stood and waited for me, at least, until I ran within 15 yards or so of her. And she was looking at me, too! This doe was a pretty brown color, not like a lot of the matted and splotchy coats many of the deer around here seem to have. She ran into the brush as I passed and then, when I did, she followed me a bit down the trail.
One thing not so nice about Mother Nature has been the deer flies out on the trails. Even though I'm out there by 6 AM or so, so are the deer flies. A silver lining, though, is that they have not been out in force like they usually are.
We've had some odd weather the past week or two. Several strong winds have blown down sizable trees. On our block alone, a good-sized maple went down last Monday night along with three or four tall pines a few houses away. Out in the state park, it looked like a wind sheer blasted through, cutting a 30-40' swath among the trees. A lot of the trees, including some big ones, were knocked down, blocking the running paths and even the single road leading back to the dam. The rangers spent a lot of time with their chain saws getting the road open for the kids' day camping classes.
Today, Bopper and I had to go get measured for our tuxedos for Matt's wedding. Going today was a mistake. Traffic lights were down, either from today's earlier storm or an accident. Even the mall, where we were measured, lost power for a while until the emergency generators kicked on after a few minutes. Traffic on one of the adjacent roads leading to the mall was backed up a good 5-6 miles. I negotiated our way home by taking a number of back roads.
The other day, out running on a beautiful AM, I ran across a coyote. Well, within about 10-15 yards of one. I saw him (or her?) before he saw me. When he did, he was startled, stopped, jogged backward for a ways, and moved farther away into a yard. After I passed he moved back along his way, heading into a subdivision.
Scrawny, spindly, with a pointy nose and scruffy tail. The long thin legs almost looked as if they shouldn't be able to hold him up.
That's only the second coyote, live one, I've seen while running. The other few I've been in the car. And there have been the roadkill carcasses.
Yep, I was excited and have brought it up more than once since.
Earlier during that run, I was in a zone when awakened by the screech of car brakes. They weren't close to me, at least not very close. I hadn't been paying attention, but immediately looked up and saw a small yellow Fiat that had narrowly missed a rather large deer crossing the road. It was a close call and with the small car and large deer, I don't think the crash would have been a pretty one. It was somewhat comforting to see that the driver of the Fiat was a young girl; she was driving carefully enough to be able to stop to avoid the collision. She did look a bit shaken, though, as I ran by and waved to her and her passengers, who looked perhaps like her parents.
This AM a doe stood and waited for me, at least, until I ran within 15 yards or so of her. And she was looking at me, too! This doe was a pretty brown color, not like a lot of the matted and splotchy coats many of the deer around here seem to have. She ran into the brush as I passed and then, when I did, she followed me a bit down the trail.
One thing not so nice about Mother Nature has been the deer flies out on the trails. Even though I'm out there by 6 AM or so, so are the deer flies. A silver lining, though, is that they have not been out in force like they usually are.
We've had some odd weather the past week or two. Several strong winds have blown down sizable trees. On our block alone, a good-sized maple went down last Monday night along with three or four tall pines a few houses away. Out in the state park, it looked like a wind sheer blasted through, cutting a 30-40' swath among the trees. A lot of the trees, including some big ones, were knocked down, blocking the running paths and even the single road leading back to the dam. The rangers spent a lot of time with their chain saws getting the road open for the kids' day camping classes.
Today, Bopper and I had to go get measured for our tuxedos for Matt's wedding. Going today was a mistake. Traffic lights were down, either from today's earlier storm or an accident. Even the mall, where we were measured, lost power for a while until the emergency generators kicked on after a few minutes. Traffic on one of the adjacent roads leading to the mall was backed up a good 5-6 miles. I negotiated our way home by taking a number of back roads.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Fireworks!
Before I start, Thanks Pat. It's good to hear from you and even nicer to get the compliments.
I had forgotten how elaborate and beautiful the Lake Sherwood fireworks display is! Now, I wouldn't go so far as to use "breath-taking," as a local broadcaster said about another display, but it was very cool. (I think this is the same woman who said, on the same show, that the state police are in the midst of a crackdown on "drinkers who have had alcoholic beverages." Of course, she meant "drivers." It reminds me of another one of them who said the other day, "They have went....")
I tried to calculate, but I think this is the first Independence Day we've been home in 5 or 6 years. Two or three of those years we were in Las Vegas. One year we were in San Francisco and two others in the UP and on Torch Lake, having just returned from Las Vegas a day or two before.
I don't know what Lake Sherwood Asso members pay for the display, but it is the equivalent of cities' and counties' displays. The only think missing was the whistler fireworks; I was a bit disappointed at that. But it was a wonderful display.
Several airplanes circled the light show. I wonder how it looked from them. And, I always wonder about the animals at the state park across the street. How do they respond to the loud booms!!!!? Are they frightened out of their wits?
It lasted about half an hour and was a lot of fun to watch.
On another note, I read an article last week bemoaning the debt graduating college seniors are often facing. Sometimes it's tens of thousands, or for graduate/med/law students, hundreds of thousands of dollars. I fully agree that's daunting and needs to be addressed, not just "bemoaned." I don't favor, however, "student-debt forgiveness." To quote Herbert Hoover, when asked if the US should "forgive" Allies WW1 debts, "No, they hired the money, didn't they?" Imagine the billions of dollars lenders would have to eat/swallow if Congress did, not what's right, but what's popular? Talk about a banking crisis! We need to look at the reasons for a college education costing so much, almost $20,000 a year at public schools and nearly triple that or more at some elite private colleges, alas, like Amherst. I read this week that several of the state universities have upped tuition by 3-4% for next fall--isn't the cost of college the fastest rising expense the US has faced over the past decades, outpacing petrol? I'm not sure, but it must be close. What to look at to try to reduce costs? First, how about getting the federal government out of the loan business? Every time it gets involved in something, something becomes more expensive. We should look at the amenities provided by the colleges. I sometimes think it's a marketing game rather than a chance at an education, colleges competing for students by providing perks. Many of these dorms provide nicer living facilities than I have here at home. Of course, one might argue that colleges much keep up or risk losing students to other colleges that have wonderful living quarters. Someone must start somewhere. Also, what's the deal with full-time professors often teaching just one or two classes a semester, only two semesters a year? That's six or eight hours of class time. I don't understand why a full-load is considered 12 to 16 hours a term for these full-time professors, although many of the tenured ones teach one or two. Yes, they must grade papers (Hey, don't a lot of them have grad assistants to do that? And aren't more and more of them using Scan-Trons and other electronic things that grade papers for them?) and prepare for classes, at least I hope they are still preparing. But if there's an hour or even two for these for every hour in the classroom, that still leaves only 18-24 (I used my calculator!) hours devoted to teaching. And if they are doing research the rest of the time, if they earn money from that research, shouldn't it, at least part of it, go to the colleges which are still paying them to do it? Most public school teachers, K-12, are in class 25-30 hours a week, with students. Then add in the paper-grading, the preparation, the often-ludicrous paperwork, etc. And many colleges overexpanded in the '80s and '90s, creating bigger campuses, building more dorms, classrooms, gyms, etc. Those mortgages must be paid and guess who's paying them?????? I think there are solutions to the high cost of a college education. Does anyone want to tackle them?
I had forgotten how elaborate and beautiful the Lake Sherwood fireworks display is! Now, I wouldn't go so far as to use "breath-taking," as a local broadcaster said about another display, but it was very cool. (I think this is the same woman who said, on the same show, that the state police are in the midst of a crackdown on "drinkers who have had alcoholic beverages." Of course, she meant "drivers." It reminds me of another one of them who said the other day, "They have went....")
I tried to calculate, but I think this is the first Independence Day we've been home in 5 or 6 years. Two or three of those years we were in Las Vegas. One year we were in San Francisco and two others in the UP and on Torch Lake, having just returned from Las Vegas a day or two before.
I don't know what Lake Sherwood Asso members pay for the display, but it is the equivalent of cities' and counties' displays. The only think missing was the whistler fireworks; I was a bit disappointed at that. But it was a wonderful display.
Several airplanes circled the light show. I wonder how it looked from them. And, I always wonder about the animals at the state park across the street. How do they respond to the loud booms!!!!? Are they frightened out of their wits?
It lasted about half an hour and was a lot of fun to watch.
On another note, I read an article last week bemoaning the debt graduating college seniors are often facing. Sometimes it's tens of thousands, or for graduate/med/law students, hundreds of thousands of dollars. I fully agree that's daunting and needs to be addressed, not just "bemoaned." I don't favor, however, "student-debt forgiveness." To quote Herbert Hoover, when asked if the US should "forgive" Allies WW1 debts, "No, they hired the money, didn't they?" Imagine the billions of dollars lenders would have to eat/swallow if Congress did, not what's right, but what's popular? Talk about a banking crisis! We need to look at the reasons for a college education costing so much, almost $20,000 a year at public schools and nearly triple that or more at some elite private colleges, alas, like Amherst. I read this week that several of the state universities have upped tuition by 3-4% for next fall--isn't the cost of college the fastest rising expense the US has faced over the past decades, outpacing petrol? I'm not sure, but it must be close. What to look at to try to reduce costs? First, how about getting the federal government out of the loan business? Every time it gets involved in something, something becomes more expensive. We should look at the amenities provided by the colleges. I sometimes think it's a marketing game rather than a chance at an education, colleges competing for students by providing perks. Many of these dorms provide nicer living facilities than I have here at home. Of course, one might argue that colleges much keep up or risk losing students to other colleges that have wonderful living quarters. Someone must start somewhere. Also, what's the deal with full-time professors often teaching just one or two classes a semester, only two semesters a year? That's six or eight hours of class time. I don't understand why a full-load is considered 12 to 16 hours a term for these full-time professors, although many of the tenured ones teach one or two. Yes, they must grade papers (Hey, don't a lot of them have grad assistants to do that? And aren't more and more of them using Scan-Trons and other electronic things that grade papers for them?) and prepare for classes, at least I hope they are still preparing. But if there's an hour or even two for these for every hour in the classroom, that still leaves only 18-24 (I used my calculator!) hours devoted to teaching. And if they are doing research the rest of the time, if they earn money from that research, shouldn't it, at least part of it, go to the colleges which are still paying them to do it? Most public school teachers, K-12, are in class 25-30 hours a week, with students. Then add in the paper-grading, the preparation, the often-ludicrous paperwork, etc. And many colleges overexpanded in the '80s and '90s, creating bigger campuses, building more dorms, classrooms, gyms, etc. Those mortgages must be paid and guess who's paying them?????? I think there are solutions to the high cost of a college education. Does anyone want to tackle them?
Thursday, July 3, 2014
July?
July? Already? What happened to June??????
Two stories this week are bothering me a great deal. Apparently, in Metro Detroit, a 2-year old was gunned down deliberately, the murderer leaving a van, walking up to the youngster playing in the yard and putting a bullet in her head. He then turned his gun on two people on the porch and wounded them. A 2-year old??? It's heinous crimes like this that makes a good part of me want to bring back the death penalty--and maybe the rack and the screw, too!
And a soccer referee was assaulted on Sun, dying from the attack. He had thrown out a player who had been playing too rough, in a recreational soccer game.
Is this where we've arrived? It's become OK in some people's minds to behave in this anti-social way? Is this a result of a change in societal values over the past few decades? I've blogged about this many times before and I don't want to rehash it all over again, but somewhere, sometime we have to get it through people's heads that not all ideas, not all desires are equal. Being "dissed" or having something undesirable occur doesn't give one carte blanche to exact revenge any way one wants. I remember seeing a tee shirt a long time ago that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make any junk." Well, in these two instances, and more, even if God didn't make them, these murderers became junk.
Howard Baker died last week and, even if one disagreed with his politics, one had to agree he was an honest man with a lot of class. He is known for many things, perhaps best as the US Senator who, in 1974, asked the questions regarding Watergate, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" That is, in the words of one writer, a statement "piercing in its clarity." We have lauded Senator Baker for this, rightly so. Now, I have a question, perhaps not so clear, but perhaps piercing in its own way. Where is the statesman who will ask similar relevant questions of our current President and members of his administration? No, I'm not holding my breath.
Did you catch Hillary Clinton's statement that she and her philandering husband are not "truly well off." The chutzpah of the woman! The Clintons are said to be worth in excise of $100 million. Gee, in my whole lifetime of work, sometimes holding three and four and even five jobs at a time, about 50 years now, I'll be lucky to have made, in total, about 1-2% of what the Clintons have. I guess, since I mentioned Howard Baker's question above, one might ask how the Clintons "born to the middle class" (her words), became public servants whose salaries were handsome, but not necessarily extravagant, soon became mulit- multi- multi-millionaires. How anyone can even think about voting for her for President is beyond me.
A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that American "voters" think Obama is the worst President since WW2. Hmmm...... Didn't they elect him a second time? Less popular than W. Bush? Still, worse than Carter and Nixon? Wow! That's saying something. Again, I've blogged numerous times about how bad I think Obama is; no need to repeat that here and now. The same poll revealed that the respondents think Reagan was the best and Clinton the second best since 1945. Hmmm...... History books and we history teachers must not be doing a very good job--or perhaps there's a little bias in our books and classrooms? Have we forgotten about Truman and Eisenhower? Apparently we have. I think I can make a pretty good case that they were, not only the best Presidents since WW2, but rank right up there at the top--in the top three or four--since Abraham Lincoln. Still the poll led my brother to suggest an op-ed by Nolan Finley in today's Det News. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140703/OPINION01/307030004/0/OPINION0305/Brightest-aren-t-your-election-ballot
Why aren't our "best and brightest" running for office? (I'll let slide, at least for today, the quality or lack of it, in those now holding public office.) There are a number of reasons. Why would a decent, reasonable, intelligent person want to be associated with the likes of today's politicians? That is, who wants to be labeled "a politician?" Oh, there are some good ones, maybe most are OK. But the really rotten ones, usually those at the top, give the entire group of them bad names. And, with the imprimatur of society to lie and cheat and do all kinds of dishonest things with no repercussions, why would any decent, self-respecting person want to have his/her good name besmirched with lies and other dishonest claims? I guess I liken that to becoming a teacher in today's climate, at least here in Michigan. Not only is the pay lousy and getting worse due to seemingly annual pay cuts (not to mention benefit slashes), but it's open season on teachers. (Remember, I think some, maybe many, teachers deserve the scorn; but certainly not all of them.) Who wants to work hard, only to find they are underappreciated, if at all, and constantly criticized? Who wants to work in an educational system that has become dominated by politicians and corporate-types, who know little if anything about learning and teaching other than they went to school when they were younger? Again, see the Common Core (and, again, follow the money!). We have to find someway to change the culture of politics. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with the same Bozos.
Speaking of education, the Common Core, etc. Here is another very good article in the News today, http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140703/OPINION01/307030006/Why-Pledge-stands-civics-fails I've argued this for years, to no avail. Administrators with no sense of history merely followed the herd toward "social studies," to the detriment of history. Again, I've blogged about my view on the importance of history and how our lack of knowledge of it opens us up to exploitation by politicians. Note the article; it contains much of what I've lamented over the years.
Out to weed......
Two stories this week are bothering me a great deal. Apparently, in Metro Detroit, a 2-year old was gunned down deliberately, the murderer leaving a van, walking up to the youngster playing in the yard and putting a bullet in her head. He then turned his gun on two people on the porch and wounded them. A 2-year old??? It's heinous crimes like this that makes a good part of me want to bring back the death penalty--and maybe the rack and the screw, too!
And a soccer referee was assaulted on Sun, dying from the attack. He had thrown out a player who had been playing too rough, in a recreational soccer game.
Is this where we've arrived? It's become OK in some people's minds to behave in this anti-social way? Is this a result of a change in societal values over the past few decades? I've blogged about this many times before and I don't want to rehash it all over again, but somewhere, sometime we have to get it through people's heads that not all ideas, not all desires are equal. Being "dissed" or having something undesirable occur doesn't give one carte blanche to exact revenge any way one wants. I remember seeing a tee shirt a long time ago that read, "I'm somebody because God didn't make any junk." Well, in these two instances, and more, even if God didn't make them, these murderers became junk.
Howard Baker died last week and, even if one disagreed with his politics, one had to agree he was an honest man with a lot of class. He is known for many things, perhaps best as the US Senator who, in 1974, asked the questions regarding Watergate, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" That is, in the words of one writer, a statement "piercing in its clarity." We have lauded Senator Baker for this, rightly so. Now, I have a question, perhaps not so clear, but perhaps piercing in its own way. Where is the statesman who will ask similar relevant questions of our current President and members of his administration? No, I'm not holding my breath.
Did you catch Hillary Clinton's statement that she and her philandering husband are not "truly well off." The chutzpah of the woman! The Clintons are said to be worth in excise of $100 million. Gee, in my whole lifetime of work, sometimes holding three and four and even five jobs at a time, about 50 years now, I'll be lucky to have made, in total, about 1-2% of what the Clintons have. I guess, since I mentioned Howard Baker's question above, one might ask how the Clintons "born to the middle class" (her words), became public servants whose salaries were handsome, but not necessarily extravagant, soon became mulit- multi- multi-millionaires. How anyone can even think about voting for her for President is beyond me.
A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that American "voters" think Obama is the worst President since WW2. Hmmm...... Didn't they elect him a second time? Less popular than W. Bush? Still, worse than Carter and Nixon? Wow! That's saying something. Again, I've blogged numerous times about how bad I think Obama is; no need to repeat that here and now. The same poll revealed that the respondents think Reagan was the best and Clinton the second best since 1945. Hmmm...... History books and we history teachers must not be doing a very good job--or perhaps there's a little bias in our books and classrooms? Have we forgotten about Truman and Eisenhower? Apparently we have. I think I can make a pretty good case that they were, not only the best Presidents since WW2, but rank right up there at the top--in the top three or four--since Abraham Lincoln. Still the poll led my brother to suggest an op-ed by Nolan Finley in today's Det News. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140703/OPINION01/307030004/0/OPINION0305/Brightest-aren-t-your-election-ballot
Why aren't our "best and brightest" running for office? (I'll let slide, at least for today, the quality or lack of it, in those now holding public office.) There are a number of reasons. Why would a decent, reasonable, intelligent person want to be associated with the likes of today's politicians? That is, who wants to be labeled "a politician?" Oh, there are some good ones, maybe most are OK. But the really rotten ones, usually those at the top, give the entire group of them bad names. And, with the imprimatur of society to lie and cheat and do all kinds of dishonest things with no repercussions, why would any decent, self-respecting person want to have his/her good name besmirched with lies and other dishonest claims? I guess I liken that to becoming a teacher in today's climate, at least here in Michigan. Not only is the pay lousy and getting worse due to seemingly annual pay cuts (not to mention benefit slashes), but it's open season on teachers. (Remember, I think some, maybe many, teachers deserve the scorn; but certainly not all of them.) Who wants to work hard, only to find they are underappreciated, if at all, and constantly criticized? Who wants to work in an educational system that has become dominated by politicians and corporate-types, who know little if anything about learning and teaching other than they went to school when they were younger? Again, see the Common Core (and, again, follow the money!). We have to find someway to change the culture of politics. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with the same Bozos.
Speaking of education, the Common Core, etc. Here is another very good article in the News today, http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140703/OPINION01/307030006/Why-Pledge-stands-civics-fails I've argued this for years, to no avail. Administrators with no sense of history merely followed the herd toward "social studies," to the detriment of history. Again, I've blogged about my view on the importance of history and how our lack of knowledge of it opens us up to exploitation by politicians. Note the article; it contains much of what I've lamented over the years.
Out to weed......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
