Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Fortune

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brrr......

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

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

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

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

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

The Smothers Brothers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sun AM Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Quick Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on us......

Detroit Bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Common Ground?"

Whatever happened to "Elections have consequences?"

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

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

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

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

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

Motown: The Musical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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