The slaughter by the Islamofascists in Paris has led to a couple of thoughts.
The world (note the 40+ world leaders, absent anyone of note from the US) held a mass protest/march in Paris for the dozen or so killed there. This was a proper, a fitting gesture. Now, will this be yet another "We had a protest, what's the next problem to solve?" action? Or, will the world finally wake up to the dangers posed by the radical Islamists? Even if this is "a small fringe" of Islam, how many more people, innocent people, people exercising rights we embrace (regardless of the ugly nature of many of the Muhammad cartoons), people of different faiths must die?
I'm curious as to the outrage, at least of many people including those in the media, over Charlie Hebdo, but the opposite reaction to the film-maker of the Benghazi affair. Freedom of expression must be protected in one case, but the poor guy out in Calif, who made a video nobody saw, had to be locked up by the government? Heh Heh...... If this is what it takes to wake up people...but I don't think it will (see above about "the next problem to solve").
It was tragic that a dozen people died in Paris. But Boko Haram just wiped out an entire village of 2,000! Where is the mas protest/march there? Hmmm...... I would think we know the headquarters, the main camp of Boko Haram. If we do, there seems to be an easy solution to rid the world of these mass murderers.
And it was comical the other day to listen to some of the talking heads on the radio trying to explain away the bombing and murder of several Jews in a Kosher Jewish bakery in Paris. Oh, they were falling all over themselves trying to dismiss the obvious. "There's no evidence that Jews were being targeted." Huh? Oh, I guess many Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and maybe even atheists now frequent kosher bakeries.
I've had several chats with folks in recent days about current Muslim/Middle Eastern (and I suppose all) immigrants. In years past, people came to the US (and I suppose other countries) to seek better lives for themselves and their families, assuming the new places afforded greater opportunities for better lives. These past immigrants assimilated with their new surroundings, keeping some remnants of their past lives. (And this is one of the things that have made the US so great--the international flavor of music, foods, ideas, etc.) But the key was they didn't try to change the US (and other countries) into what the emigrants/immigrants left behind. And, why would they? Weren't they escaping what they thought was bad? Weren't they trying to find something better? Why keep the "bad?" And what country, including the US, wouldn't welcome such people? Now, it seems, when immigrants arrive here (or elsewhere), they seek to change the US to their own pasts. One instance is the insistence of some on enforcing Shari'a law in their adopted countries, including the US, even though Shari'a law flies in the face of, say, American Constitutional jurisprudence. And there are some Americans who support this! That is very befuddling to me. I suppose, in the end, if these supporters of Shari'a law aren't directly affected, they think they are doing some grand thing.
I wonder if all of these apologists, the Ivy-League educated wonks in gov't and on the boob tube and radio, for Islam would have fallen into this category, oh, about 80-some years ago. "Oh, Hitler? He's just trying to regain Germany's place in the family of European nations. He's just a traditional statesman/politician. You know, Versailles was so unfair." Somehow I think many of them would have been apologists for Hitler, at least for a few years. Isn't that frightening?
And I also wonder why so many of these arrogant elitists are so quick to pass value judgments on, say, the Tea Partiers, but are so very reluctant to do the same with the Islamofascists? These include members of both parties. I have some thoughts on that; not many are complimentary.
In that vein, I just finished a series of books on notable black Americans. It was a good series. But I was struck, again and again, how pernicious the US government was in treated blacks in this country. And I wondered how many others who will read the books will pick up on this. For instance, it wasn't just the federal gov't targeting blacks themselves, but it pressured whites to do the same. Federal agents visited white employers, pressuring them not to employ "troublesome" blacks or to withhold contracts from them or to drag them endlessly before this committee and that committee. Yet, I am the one who is paranoid?
And how about that girl, granted a teenager (17?), who has cancer, but doesn't want chemo treatments? The state of Massachusetts, in cahoots with one set of doctors, has ordered the girl to be taken from her parents and put in a state-run facility. (Another set of doctors, at a different hospital, opposes the first.) There, against her will, she received the treatments. Government should be there to do things that we can't do for ourselves. It should not be trying to run our lives.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Oh, the news......
According to today's newspaper, Mitt Romney is "exploring" another candidacy for President. Just great--now we have a field loaded with Establishment Republicans. There are Romney, J Bush, Christie, even Huckabee. Well, none of them will get my vote, if nominated. We don't need more of these Big Government Republicans.
And, we've seen how well the Establishment Republicans have kept their campaign promises from last summer's primaries and November's elections. They've been far more critical of their own party's members who actually tried to follow through on those promises than they have been on Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al. So now we are supposed to trust these guys, along with McConnell, Boehner, etc.? Not this guy.
By the way, "exploring" a run for the Presidency is another way candidates are sneaky, if not dishonest. "Exploring" doesn't require full disclosure of, say, donors. And if and when they finally decide to make a formal declaration of candidacy, it provides another opportunity for free publicity.
Again, and I know I'm beating a dead horse, is there any day we can't pick up a newspaper and not read about another murder in the city or suburbs for that matter? No, we're more worried about whether gays can be legally married.
The President is going to push for free community college tuition. Hmmm...... I guess I should disqualify myself from this, but I won't. I think it's a lousy idea for several reasons. College isn't for everyone and, in fact, might not even be for most people. "Free" might encourage folks who might do far better for themselves in some sort of training or apprenticeship programs. And, of course, who will pay for this? Some preliminary talk is mostly the federal government, but requiring states to also chip in some. All in all, although I think a college education is a great thing--for some people--the President's idea is bad and, methinks, merely another campaign (Yep, he's still campaigning, always campaigning. I know he can't run for another term, but he can try to improve how history views him and his Presidency.) stunt to energize one of his bases, younger folks.
BTW, speaking of college tuition...... I don't remember where I read this, but apparently the national teachers' union (I don't remember which of the two) expressed concern over the rising cost of a college education. I certainly agree the cost is outlandish (and, again, we're more concerned over gay marriage than this). But I wonder if the union(s), which certainly represent a good number of college teachers, have considered their own members. Oh, I think good teachers are worth every penny they get, even more. Bad ones...well, just think the opposite; they get far too much. But how many of those college teachers, esp the tenured ones, teach only one or two classes a term--or even a year? And, how many of them only teach a full-load of 12 or 15 hours a week? K-12 teachers are with students 30 hours or more a week. Oh, all of those papers to grade? Well, more and more college teachers use, not essays, but Scan-trons. The don't grade papers; machines do. And at a lot of the bigger schools, as one of my college classmates who teaches at one noted, there are graduate assistants to grade papers and, in some instances, run seminars or even lectures on occasion. So, teachers's unions, how do you address that in terms of skyrocketing costs?
The new U of M president wants his deans to focus on "diversifying" their departments. I guess that means staff and students? I don't know for certain. Oh, he came up with all of the right phrases and catchwords. I just wonder, though, if he should put his money where his mouth is. What doesn't he resign and let some minority take his place in the interests of "diversifying?" I suppose this is like paying one's fair share of taxes--let the other guy do it, not me.
With Congress, some folks want to fix "the most unproductive" Congress in history. Why were the recent Congressional terms "unproductive?" Can anyone, with a straight face at least, claim that ObamaCare is productive? One article addressed the number of absentees in the Michigan state legislature, in effect, saying the legislators should be at work doing the state's business. Well, in both DC and Lansing, maybe we should take a step back and say, "Whoa!" Maybe it's good, very good, when Congress and the state legislature don't pass so many laws, laws that get in our way, laws that intrude on our lives and privacy. No, "maybe" isn't right. It is good if they don't pass so much junk. I'm still fond of, not "Don't just stand there, do something," but "Just stand there, don't do anything."
How much pain must an individual be in to commit suicide? How tormented must one be? Several recent posts on one of my college list serves have been about one of our professors who was later a president of Amherst. He committed suicide a few years after being forced to resign by an opposing faculty. I'm not at all blaming the faculty; after all, people have differences, big ones. Not every difference leads to suicide. But something did here. He was a terrific teacher and a very friendly and helpful man. (In fact, his son was one of the professors' kids who were bat boys for our baseball team.) Still, it's hard to contemplate the pain, torment, torture......
And, we've seen how well the Establishment Republicans have kept their campaign promises from last summer's primaries and November's elections. They've been far more critical of their own party's members who actually tried to follow through on those promises than they have been on Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al. So now we are supposed to trust these guys, along with McConnell, Boehner, etc.? Not this guy.
By the way, "exploring" a run for the Presidency is another way candidates are sneaky, if not dishonest. "Exploring" doesn't require full disclosure of, say, donors. And if and when they finally decide to make a formal declaration of candidacy, it provides another opportunity for free publicity.
Again, and I know I'm beating a dead horse, is there any day we can't pick up a newspaper and not read about another murder in the city or suburbs for that matter? No, we're more worried about whether gays can be legally married.
The President is going to push for free community college tuition. Hmmm...... I guess I should disqualify myself from this, but I won't. I think it's a lousy idea for several reasons. College isn't for everyone and, in fact, might not even be for most people. "Free" might encourage folks who might do far better for themselves in some sort of training or apprenticeship programs. And, of course, who will pay for this? Some preliminary talk is mostly the federal government, but requiring states to also chip in some. All in all, although I think a college education is a great thing--for some people--the President's idea is bad and, methinks, merely another campaign (Yep, he's still campaigning, always campaigning. I know he can't run for another term, but he can try to improve how history views him and his Presidency.) stunt to energize one of his bases, younger folks.
BTW, speaking of college tuition...... I don't remember where I read this, but apparently the national teachers' union (I don't remember which of the two) expressed concern over the rising cost of a college education. I certainly agree the cost is outlandish (and, again, we're more concerned over gay marriage than this). But I wonder if the union(s), which certainly represent a good number of college teachers, have considered their own members. Oh, I think good teachers are worth every penny they get, even more. Bad ones...well, just think the opposite; they get far too much. But how many of those college teachers, esp the tenured ones, teach only one or two classes a term--or even a year? And, how many of them only teach a full-load of 12 or 15 hours a week? K-12 teachers are with students 30 hours or more a week. Oh, all of those papers to grade? Well, more and more college teachers use, not essays, but Scan-trons. The don't grade papers; machines do. And at a lot of the bigger schools, as one of my college classmates who teaches at one noted, there are graduate assistants to grade papers and, in some instances, run seminars or even lectures on occasion. So, teachers's unions, how do you address that in terms of skyrocketing costs?
The new U of M president wants his deans to focus on "diversifying" their departments. I guess that means staff and students? I don't know for certain. Oh, he came up with all of the right phrases and catchwords. I just wonder, though, if he should put his money where his mouth is. What doesn't he resign and let some minority take his place in the interests of "diversifying?" I suppose this is like paying one's fair share of taxes--let the other guy do it, not me.
With Congress, some folks want to fix "the most unproductive" Congress in history. Why were the recent Congressional terms "unproductive?" Can anyone, with a straight face at least, claim that ObamaCare is productive? One article addressed the number of absentees in the Michigan state legislature, in effect, saying the legislators should be at work doing the state's business. Well, in both DC and Lansing, maybe we should take a step back and say, "Whoa!" Maybe it's good, very good, when Congress and the state legislature don't pass so many laws, laws that get in our way, laws that intrude on our lives and privacy. No, "maybe" isn't right. It is good if they don't pass so much junk. I'm still fond of, not "Don't just stand there, do something," but "Just stand there, don't do anything."
How much pain must an individual be in to commit suicide? How tormented must one be? Several recent posts on one of my college list serves have been about one of our professors who was later a president of Amherst. He committed suicide a few years after being forced to resign by an opposing faculty. I'm not at all blaming the faculty; after all, people have differences, big ones. Not every difference leads to suicide. But something did here. He was a terrific teacher and a very friendly and helpful man. (In fact, his son was one of the professors' kids who were bat boys for our baseball team.) Still, it's hard to contemplate the pain, torment, torture......
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Happy New Year!
Wow! It's 2015 already. Where did 2014--and 2013 and 2012 and...go?
I'm sure glad the "global warming" folks changed it to "global climate change." They'd never get many of us around here to buy into any sort of "warming." Right now, here, it's about 6 degrees. That's up from 2 degrees this AM, when I ran. Yep, I ran in this stuff, as I have all week.
I was out there this AM, think, but only for a brief moment, "Are you an idiot? What are you doing out here, running, at 2 degrees?" But only for a brief moment. I caught myself. That's what almost all non-runners say. No matter how often I try to explain, they don't quite understand. I am not at all cold while running. OK, my thumbs were cold this AM, for about a mile; then they, too, like the rest of me, was comfortably warm. It's just important to layer, which I did, and wear my mask. Nope, I haven't been cold all week.
I got a kick out of several things "Sarah Palin" this week. One was some photo she or one of her family members posted online. It showed her son (the autistic one?) standing on the family dog to reach into the kitchen sink. Oh, the outcry from SPCA and other "animal lovers!" First, the dog looked about three times bigger than the kid. Second, the dog just laid there, never moving to get up, never moving to get the kid off. The dog didn't seem to have the problem others seem to have had. But, an opportunity to bash Palin? Never let one pass, legit or not. And a lady this week just started in on Palin, "Oh, I hate her." I didn't listen to the rest and didn't challenge that. What's the use? Any words I say will fall on deaf ears? Last week, at a social affair, someone laughed at her, "She said she could see Russia from her front porch!" Now, let me go out on a limb and say I don't think she meant it literally. Then, let's look at our geography. No, Russia isn't thousands a miles away, across the Atlantic. Russia, from Palin's Alaska, land mass to land mass, is about 50 miles away. And islands belonging to Russia and some belonging to the US (Attu, etc.) are about 3 miles apart. One a clear day...... And how people forget what she said, say, about Putin/Russia and Ukraine? Gee, that happened. Let's toss in fracking/drilling for oil and oil prices.
And this plays into another thing I've been thinking about, largely because of the Bill Cosby thing. Again, I have no idea of Cosby is guilty or not. It is highly suspicious to me, though, that not one, not two, but half a dozen or a dozen or whatever the number now is, came forth for decades. A few might be explained away, but that many, esp with the increased awareness over rape and sexual assaults/abuse? But, he might well have done all this; I don't claim to know. But I tendered this idea to several folks a couple of weeks ago. Maybe there are some people who want to see Cosby destroyed, at least his image destroyed. Maybe he was striking to close to home, threatening the ensconced positions of others in the black community. Maybe he was criticizing the wrong (or right?) people and putting blame/responsibility in the right places. This all contradicts the "gospel of victimhood," doesn't it? And, with Cosby's image and stature, at least his former ones, maybe he could get somewhere. (I admit he's been on this theme for a number of years, but not really effectively.) This isn't about Cosby, but about a larger theme. It seems to me that when far too many people, that is, their ideas and policies, are threatened or challenged, instead of defending effectively, they seek to destroy the opponent. This isn't new, but it seems to have broadened. And it's not just on a national scale, but can be very local, too. For instance, name-calling is very popular. Instead of trying to defend a position or program, it's far easier to call the challenger, who might well have good points, a name. "Negative" is a common one.
Interesting, isn't it, that when the President came to Detroit to laud the auto industry's comeback he chose a Ford plant to visit? Fords (You can always tell a Detroit native; it's "Fords," not "Ford.") was the one auto maker who didn't accept the federal handout. Hmmm...... And, of the Big Three, isn't Fords' economic picture the rosiest?
Islam has been co-opted again, but the radicals who murdered 12 people in France. No, I don't blame the entire religion for the actions of a few, although "few" seems to be growing. But I remember a phrase the Left used back in the '60s and early '70s, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." So, then, shouldn't we be hearing from the so-called "moderate" Muslims? No, shouldn't their protests and condemnations of the radicals be deafening? C'mon, shooting and killing people because of "offensive cartoons" is the stuff of the Middle Ages, back when heretics were beheaded and burned at the stake. I am waiting for a backlash among those who live in the West. There must be one, there must, or the West is doomed.
Eminent domain is a principal found among the various guarantees in the 5th Amendment. Also known as "takings, " it permits the government to take private property for the public good. A key provision, sometimes overlooked, esp by gov't, is that the former property owner must be justly compensated. The owner, if not happy with the offer made by the gov't, can seek more through the courts; the courts determine what fair compensation should be. In 2005, the Supremes made a horrendous ruling. They decided that gov't can take private citizens' property and then transfer it to other private citizens. The case involved a city of New Haven, CT move to take private property, on the waterfront, and then deed it to private corporations, namely in this case, land developers. Here's one for the Supremes to chew on, almost ten years later. That property, which was taken from some citizens in the name of "eminent domain" and given to other private citizens in the name of "public good," now sits vacant. There is no development--no condos, no shops, no marina, no tax revenues coming in to New Haven. This is yet another instance of government overreach, by the city and by the federal government in the person of the Supreme Court. Little by little, that's what it takes......
I really enjoyed President Obama's comment that low gasoline prices aren't going to be around very long. First, it's not as if he has to worry about them. I wonder what type of car he drives...... And, isn't he one of those guys who wants higher gas prices to promote the as-of-yet still failed electric cars? (Maybe we should all take investment advice from him. After all, he picked winners in Solyndra and......) Higher prices for gas can make it easier for government to control more and more. Does he not at all care that lower prices are good for most Americans. Nope, his environmental concerns (Gee, how has he really done with China and India on those?) outweigh that lower oil prices make it easier for Americans to drive to work, to heat their homes and businesses, Those extra savings allow Americans to spend money on other things--goods and services. I'm pretty in this, and everything else in is agenda, the President doesn't give a rip about you and me.
Hmmm...... Is this "follow the money" redux? I see the state ed dept has switched from using the ACT to using the SAT for the state high school tests. Where to start? I don't know the financial details, but I'll bet they are interesting. The contract with the SAT folks runs three years. Does that mean there's a good chance the ACT will be back then? If schools are wondering about the continuity of test results (Remember teacher and school evaluations are heavily based on test results now.) with this change, what about a possible change back in three years? I did get a chuckle out of some knee-jerk reactions to the change. "But we've been preparing students to take the ACT......" Aha! There, folks, is a major problem (certainly not the only one) with test, test, test. It's not at all about learning, is it? How the politicians and corporate-types can still claim it is with straight faces is beyond me.
I'm sure glad the "global warming" folks changed it to "global climate change." They'd never get many of us around here to buy into any sort of "warming." Right now, here, it's about 6 degrees. That's up from 2 degrees this AM, when I ran. Yep, I ran in this stuff, as I have all week.
I was out there this AM, think, but only for a brief moment, "Are you an idiot? What are you doing out here, running, at 2 degrees?" But only for a brief moment. I caught myself. That's what almost all non-runners say. No matter how often I try to explain, they don't quite understand. I am not at all cold while running. OK, my thumbs were cold this AM, for about a mile; then they, too, like the rest of me, was comfortably warm. It's just important to layer, which I did, and wear my mask. Nope, I haven't been cold all week.
I got a kick out of several things "Sarah Palin" this week. One was some photo she or one of her family members posted online. It showed her son (the autistic one?) standing on the family dog to reach into the kitchen sink. Oh, the outcry from SPCA and other "animal lovers!" First, the dog looked about three times bigger than the kid. Second, the dog just laid there, never moving to get up, never moving to get the kid off. The dog didn't seem to have the problem others seem to have had. But, an opportunity to bash Palin? Never let one pass, legit or not. And a lady this week just started in on Palin, "Oh, I hate her." I didn't listen to the rest and didn't challenge that. What's the use? Any words I say will fall on deaf ears? Last week, at a social affair, someone laughed at her, "She said she could see Russia from her front porch!" Now, let me go out on a limb and say I don't think she meant it literally. Then, let's look at our geography. No, Russia isn't thousands a miles away, across the Atlantic. Russia, from Palin's Alaska, land mass to land mass, is about 50 miles away. And islands belonging to Russia and some belonging to the US (Attu, etc.) are about 3 miles apart. One a clear day...... And how people forget what she said, say, about Putin/Russia and Ukraine? Gee, that happened. Let's toss in fracking/drilling for oil and oil prices.
And this plays into another thing I've been thinking about, largely because of the Bill Cosby thing. Again, I have no idea of Cosby is guilty or not. It is highly suspicious to me, though, that not one, not two, but half a dozen or a dozen or whatever the number now is, came forth for decades. A few might be explained away, but that many, esp with the increased awareness over rape and sexual assaults/abuse? But, he might well have done all this; I don't claim to know. But I tendered this idea to several folks a couple of weeks ago. Maybe there are some people who want to see Cosby destroyed, at least his image destroyed. Maybe he was striking to close to home, threatening the ensconced positions of others in the black community. Maybe he was criticizing the wrong (or right?) people and putting blame/responsibility in the right places. This all contradicts the "gospel of victimhood," doesn't it? And, with Cosby's image and stature, at least his former ones, maybe he could get somewhere. (I admit he's been on this theme for a number of years, but not really effectively.) This isn't about Cosby, but about a larger theme. It seems to me that when far too many people, that is, their ideas and policies, are threatened or challenged, instead of defending effectively, they seek to destroy the opponent. This isn't new, but it seems to have broadened. And it's not just on a national scale, but can be very local, too. For instance, name-calling is very popular. Instead of trying to defend a position or program, it's far easier to call the challenger, who might well have good points, a name. "Negative" is a common one.
Interesting, isn't it, that when the President came to Detroit to laud the auto industry's comeback he chose a Ford plant to visit? Fords (You can always tell a Detroit native; it's "Fords," not "Ford.") was the one auto maker who didn't accept the federal handout. Hmmm...... And, of the Big Three, isn't Fords' economic picture the rosiest?
Islam has been co-opted again, but the radicals who murdered 12 people in France. No, I don't blame the entire religion for the actions of a few, although "few" seems to be growing. But I remember a phrase the Left used back in the '60s and early '70s, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." So, then, shouldn't we be hearing from the so-called "moderate" Muslims? No, shouldn't their protests and condemnations of the radicals be deafening? C'mon, shooting and killing people because of "offensive cartoons" is the stuff of the Middle Ages, back when heretics were beheaded and burned at the stake. I am waiting for a backlash among those who live in the West. There must be one, there must, or the West is doomed.
Eminent domain is a principal found among the various guarantees in the 5th Amendment. Also known as "takings, " it permits the government to take private property for the public good. A key provision, sometimes overlooked, esp by gov't, is that the former property owner must be justly compensated. The owner, if not happy with the offer made by the gov't, can seek more through the courts; the courts determine what fair compensation should be. In 2005, the Supremes made a horrendous ruling. They decided that gov't can take private citizens' property and then transfer it to other private citizens. The case involved a city of New Haven, CT move to take private property, on the waterfront, and then deed it to private corporations, namely in this case, land developers. Here's one for the Supremes to chew on, almost ten years later. That property, which was taken from some citizens in the name of "eminent domain" and given to other private citizens in the name of "public good," now sits vacant. There is no development--no condos, no shops, no marina, no tax revenues coming in to New Haven. This is yet another instance of government overreach, by the city and by the federal government in the person of the Supreme Court. Little by little, that's what it takes......
I really enjoyed President Obama's comment that low gasoline prices aren't going to be around very long. First, it's not as if he has to worry about them. I wonder what type of car he drives...... And, isn't he one of those guys who wants higher gas prices to promote the as-of-yet still failed electric cars? (Maybe we should all take investment advice from him. After all, he picked winners in Solyndra and......) Higher prices for gas can make it easier for government to control more and more. Does he not at all care that lower prices are good for most Americans. Nope, his environmental concerns (Gee, how has he really done with China and India on those?) outweigh that lower oil prices make it easier for Americans to drive to work, to heat their homes and businesses, Those extra savings allow Americans to spend money on other things--goods and services. I'm pretty in this, and everything else in is agenda, the President doesn't give a rip about you and me.
Hmmm...... Is this "follow the money" redux? I see the state ed dept has switched from using the ACT to using the SAT for the state high school tests. Where to start? I don't know the financial details, but I'll bet they are interesting. The contract with the SAT folks runs three years. Does that mean there's a good chance the ACT will be back then? If schools are wondering about the continuity of test results (Remember teacher and school evaluations are heavily based on test results now.) with this change, what about a possible change back in three years? I did get a chuckle out of some knee-jerk reactions to the change. "But we've been preparing students to take the ACT......" Aha! There, folks, is a major problem (certainly not the only one) with test, test, test. It's not at all about learning, is it? How the politicians and corporate-types can still claim it is with straight faces is beyond me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
