I keep hearing that this is "a complex issue" and maybe it's that "complexity" has given me the wrong view.
My understanding is the FCC has ruled that cable companies must provide the same service speeds for all customers. That is, they cannot charge more for faster speeds. Currently, nobody is forced to pay more; they can still get, say, the Internet. But some folks who want the faster speeds can pay for it. No longer.
"Fairness" dictates that everyone should have access to the Internet with the same speeds. Charging for faster access is "not fair."
Hmmm...... By that same token, shouldn't I have access to all of the cable channels that other people are now paying for, but for which I choose not to pay extra? After all, it's not fair that they get all those premium movie channels just because they can afford it or, at least, want to afford it. For that matter, due to unfortunate circumstances, I had to get a new car. (My old one was totaled by a woman who rear-ended me while using her cell phone. Grrr......) Now, I have minimal extras on the car. Part of it is, well, my aversion to such distractions while driving. (I wish that cell-phone driving woman had that same aversion!) Another part is the extra cost for options. But hey, wait a minute! Why should others, esp those who can afford them, get options on a car that I don't have? Shouldn't the car companies provide those to me (like faster Internet service?) at no extra cost? Of course, the list goes on...bigger houses, more vacations, etc.
I know, I know...... "C'mon, that's not the same." Really? In the name of "fairness" I'm going to sit by my phone (or faster speed Internet?) and wait for the Major Leagues to call and offer a roster spot to an old, even slower, me.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
"Is Love of Learning...
...no longer enough?" I have long forgotten where I first read that line, but it has resonated with me ever since. And I have written about it, here and in publications.
An op-ed in the newspaper this week touched upon this subject. It had a different angle, but the same gist. The author called it "a warped view of education." And I think that's accurate, much so. It is the core of the Common Core.
Listen to both Democrats and Republicans when they talk about education, particularly higher education, but really all of it. Do any of them talk about the intrinsic value of education or education's sake? Do any of them talk about the absolute need for an enlightened people in a self-governing state? Do any of them talk about the enhancement and enrichment of life itself?
Nope. Their words always include "jobs," "workforce," etc. It's the major selling point, for some maybe the only one, for reforms in education. (If "reform" implies "improvement," I think it's a misnomer.) It's a major reason why, up and down curricula, Technology has become God. (Go ahead, even to the education establishment, try to downplay the importance of Technology. You will be immediately dismissed as a Luddite or perhaps even a Neanderthal.)
Schools have also bought into this. In order to procure more money, for one thing, not to mention compete for students, it's "job preparation." How early are students asked what they want to do as adults, that is, what job(s) they want? When are those aptitude tests given, what early grade(s)? Isn't that an anomaly? Schools themselves get away from stressing the intrinsic value of education?
I'm not saying preparing students for "jobs" or "the workforce" isn't important. Of course it is. An education is certainly required in our increasingly complex world. I sometimes think, though, that many jobs that "require" a college degree really don't. Still, that's not to say those holding such jobs should forgo going to college. Not in my view. There's immense value in a college education. We just seem to emphasize the lesser value.
More than 200 years ago, Hamilton and Jefferson certainly disagreed on the path the young United States should have taken. (There he goes on that history stuff again......) Hamilton, along with many of the Founders, didn't trust the common people. They couldn't rule themselves. History had proven that, right? Even Plato, in the birthplace of "democracy," opposed self-rule. He would have agreed with Hamilton that the mob couldn't govern itself. Hamilton preferred an aristocracy of sorts, where the wealthy, well-educated, and well-bred called the shots. After all, he would pose, since this upper crust had the most to lose (their wealth, their standing), wouldn't they be apt to make better (and smarter) decisions? I don't know if Jefferson saw the opening Hamilton had left him, but my guess, as intelligent as Jefferson was, he did. "Well-educated." Jefferson thought that, although it might take some time, we common folks could and would be educated enough so that we could govern ourselves, that we would cease being "the mob." Further, an uneducated people, he held, were far more susceptible to tyranny by elites, demagogues, etc.
Perhaps my views have been tainted by my own experience(s). I had some very good high school teachers (And, irony of ironies, back then and there, my high school sent far, far more graduates to the auto plants and auto suppliers than to college) who taught, not just job-training, but broader matters. And, especially, I was very fortunate to have gone to college at Amherst, for its excellent teachers, for the demands they made upon us, for the educational experience(s).
"Is love of learning no longer enough?"
An op-ed in the newspaper this week touched upon this subject. It had a different angle, but the same gist. The author called it "a warped view of education." And I think that's accurate, much so. It is the core of the Common Core.
Listen to both Democrats and Republicans when they talk about education, particularly higher education, but really all of it. Do any of them talk about the intrinsic value of education or education's sake? Do any of them talk about the absolute need for an enlightened people in a self-governing state? Do any of them talk about the enhancement and enrichment of life itself?
Nope. Their words always include "jobs," "workforce," etc. It's the major selling point, for some maybe the only one, for reforms in education. (If "reform" implies "improvement," I think it's a misnomer.) It's a major reason why, up and down curricula, Technology has become God. (Go ahead, even to the education establishment, try to downplay the importance of Technology. You will be immediately dismissed as a Luddite or perhaps even a Neanderthal.)
Schools have also bought into this. In order to procure more money, for one thing, not to mention compete for students, it's "job preparation." How early are students asked what they want to do as adults, that is, what job(s) they want? When are those aptitude tests given, what early grade(s)? Isn't that an anomaly? Schools themselves get away from stressing the intrinsic value of education?
I'm not saying preparing students for "jobs" or "the workforce" isn't important. Of course it is. An education is certainly required in our increasingly complex world. I sometimes think, though, that many jobs that "require" a college degree really don't. Still, that's not to say those holding such jobs should forgo going to college. Not in my view. There's immense value in a college education. We just seem to emphasize the lesser value.
More than 200 years ago, Hamilton and Jefferson certainly disagreed on the path the young United States should have taken. (There he goes on that history stuff again......) Hamilton, along with many of the Founders, didn't trust the common people. They couldn't rule themselves. History had proven that, right? Even Plato, in the birthplace of "democracy," opposed self-rule. He would have agreed with Hamilton that the mob couldn't govern itself. Hamilton preferred an aristocracy of sorts, where the wealthy, well-educated, and well-bred called the shots. After all, he would pose, since this upper crust had the most to lose (their wealth, their standing), wouldn't they be apt to make better (and smarter) decisions? I don't know if Jefferson saw the opening Hamilton had left him, but my guess, as intelligent as Jefferson was, he did. "Well-educated." Jefferson thought that, although it might take some time, we common folks could and would be educated enough so that we could govern ourselves, that we would cease being "the mob." Further, an uneducated people, he held, were far more susceptible to tyranny by elites, demagogues, etc.
Perhaps my views have been tainted by my own experience(s). I had some very good high school teachers (And, irony of ironies, back then and there, my high school sent far, far more graduates to the auto plants and auto suppliers than to college) who taught, not just job-training, but broader matters. And, especially, I was very fortunate to have gone to college at Amherst, for its excellent teachers, for the demands they made upon us, for the educational experience(s).
"Is love of learning no longer enough?"
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Chilly!
It was worth a chuckle to see in the newspaper a local meteorologist say, "The current cold spell in the Detroit area is not unusual." Is he from another planet? The past three weeks keep getting low temperatures I've never seen in 66 years.
Last Sun and Mon, I ran in temps of at least 11 below zero, actual temps, not wind chills. Not quite my record-cold run, but close. Relating that to some folks, the responses were what I expected. "You are crazy" or "nut" or "stupid......" I guess I've been called worse. Folks still don't accept that I'm never cold when I run. I bundle well, with four or five layers. I have a mask, well, last week two masks, as well as my hat and two pairs of insulated gloves. There's a slit for my eyes. I guess I see their point, if they have never been out there like that.
Fri AM temps here were 24 below. In Highland, a buddy sent a photo of the thermometer outside his house--30 degrees below zero! OK, yep, I ran. I had to run. Karen knew that. I admit that I ran shorter than usual, about five miles on Fri. But the brevity was due to two factors other than the direct cold. I wasn't at all cold, ever. But my eyelashes kept freezing together, impairing my vision a bit. That complicated the second factor, the footing. Traffic packed down the fallen snow and, with the brutally cold temperatures, that had the streets like ice rinks in places. (The shoulders of the main roads are either packed snow or filled with frozen ruts. Ouch!) Yep, 24 below zero is my new personal low record.
"Innocent until proven guilty?" I thought only the IRS violated that basic principle of American jurisprudence. Nope, silly me. Apparently a man was served with a court summons to answer charges he fathered a woman's child. He didn't answer the summons. I don't know why, perhaps because he knew he wasn't the father. After 30 days, the courts issued a default judgment against the man and he was ordered to pay $30,000 (back pay?). Subsequently, a DNA test proved the man wasn't the father and, with that, the mother provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the man's innocence. Those weren't good enough for the court and the gov't agency. He's still on the ropes for $30,000 and, as of the end of last week, he faces jail time to pay for something he didn't do, something tests and testimony prove he didn't do.
"First they came after the communists, but I wasn't a communist so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I said nothing......"
I received a newsletter from my Congressman, Dave Trott. In it he states he's interested in "reducing the size of government," in "getting Washington out of the way [since] the top-down, Washington-first approach has hurt families in Michigan." Now, if he only follows through on his words......
Last Sun and Mon, I ran in temps of at least 11 below zero, actual temps, not wind chills. Not quite my record-cold run, but close. Relating that to some folks, the responses were what I expected. "You are crazy" or "nut" or "stupid......" I guess I've been called worse. Folks still don't accept that I'm never cold when I run. I bundle well, with four or five layers. I have a mask, well, last week two masks, as well as my hat and two pairs of insulated gloves. There's a slit for my eyes. I guess I see their point, if they have never been out there like that.
Fri AM temps here were 24 below. In Highland, a buddy sent a photo of the thermometer outside his house--30 degrees below zero! OK, yep, I ran. I had to run. Karen knew that. I admit that I ran shorter than usual, about five miles on Fri. But the brevity was due to two factors other than the direct cold. I wasn't at all cold, ever. But my eyelashes kept freezing together, impairing my vision a bit. That complicated the second factor, the footing. Traffic packed down the fallen snow and, with the brutally cold temperatures, that had the streets like ice rinks in places. (The shoulders of the main roads are either packed snow or filled with frozen ruts. Ouch!) Yep, 24 below zero is my new personal low record.
"Innocent until proven guilty?" I thought only the IRS violated that basic principle of American jurisprudence. Nope, silly me. Apparently a man was served with a court summons to answer charges he fathered a woman's child. He didn't answer the summons. I don't know why, perhaps because he knew he wasn't the father. After 30 days, the courts issued a default judgment against the man and he was ordered to pay $30,000 (back pay?). Subsequently, a DNA test proved the man wasn't the father and, with that, the mother provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the man's innocence. Those weren't good enough for the court and the gov't agency. He's still on the ropes for $30,000 and, as of the end of last week, he faces jail time to pay for something he didn't do, something tests and testimony prove he didn't do.
"First they came after the communists, but I wasn't a communist so I said nothing. Then they came after the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I said nothing......"
I received a newsletter from my Congressman, Dave Trott. In it he states he's interested in "reducing the size of government," in "getting Washington out of the way [since] the top-down, Washington-first approach has hurt families in Michigan." Now, if he only follows through on his words......
Monday, February 16, 2015
Monday Moanin'
I think gov't is far too big, particularly on the national and state levels. Here's some evidence that we need less of these arrogantly elitist legislators.
In Michigan, it is illegal to operate a barge with the owner's contact information it. There must have been, at some point, a reason for that law. I can't imagine what it is. An automobile, new or used, can't be purchased on a weekend. And one is violating the law if one transports a Chris tree without having a bill of sale. One guy was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 9 months in prison for disposing used tires at a facility he didn't know wasn't duly licensed. Instead of the facility's owners facing the fine and time, this unwitting guy was in violation. How about that woman, from somewhere around here (maybe Brighton?), who was charged for illegally operating a child care service although all she did was to agree to help out her neighbor. The neighbor had to leave for work before the school bus picked up her kids. The woman said she'd watch and make sure the kids got on the bus. I think I remember that one. I don't know the final result. But just that she was charged under an existing law tells us a lot.
There are well over 3,000 criminal offenses in Michigan alone! And dozens are added to that number each year. Criticism of the overcriminalization of Michigan residents comes from the liberal ACLU and conservative Mackinac Center--and other organizations from all over the political spectrum. Granted, most people who are such criminals don't know it and won't face penalties. But it only takes one zealot, in the name of the law, to exploit such things.
Now these are different from the very silly ones, such as tying one's alligator to a fire hydrant in Detroit. Yes, these are far more serious.
Just one example on the federal level, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. First, the legislation that created the CFPB explicitly exempted auto dealers from its oversight. The CFPB, though, found a back door in which to oversee auto dealers by going after the financial companies that work with the auto dealers. One such company was recently ordered to pay a $100 million fine for alleged racial discrimination. Now, how was "racial discrimination" proved, in light of the fact that racial and ethnic identification are prohibited from lender date? Perhaps the CFPB merely extrapolated (that is, guessed) as to appliants' race based on names or addresses. And an independent study found that CFPB's charges of "racial discrimination" are not at all supported by data; of course not--proof came from guesswork. Oh, the CFPB gets to keep the fines it forces on companies. Hey, isn't that a conflict of interest? Where is the gov't watchdog which watches the gov't??????
If this is what our elected officials have time to do, then maybe legislators aren't needed full-time. "That government is best which governs least." (That's often attributed to Jefferson, but sometimes Thoreau.) The problem with such massive gov't is that it feels like it must do something, as if to justify its existence. "Something" doesn't have to be good or worthwhile or beneficial. In fact, "something" is often bad, harmful, etc. I still like the WSJ's take on "Don't just stand there; do something." Instead it suggested that members of Congress "Don't do something; just stand there."
Of course, many people might like being told what kind of light bulbs, toilets, televisions, etc. they must use. They might like being told they can have only one large soda or French fries cooked with the oil that makes them virtually tasteless. Maybe many do. Then why don't they do that stuff on their own and leave the rest of us alone? I know why......
ISIS now beheading more and more people--Muslims and Christians. Boko Haram enslaving and/or murdering thousands of young girls. Other extremists throwing gay men off of buildings. And US Muslims protest the murders of three of there own in North Carolina. Of course, the murders of those three young people in Raleigh (?) is/was hideous. Whoever committed those killings should be punished to the fullest extent of the law--and, yes, maybe even receive the death penalty. (I'm still conflicted over capital punishment.) Yet, where are those US Muslims in criticizing ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc.? OK, maybe they are criticized such groups. But, if they are, it's very muted. It certainly doesn't make my newspapers. (Of course, maybe that's the newspapers' fault if they aren't covering such protests. But, in light of their other coverage, one would think they certainly would.) Where are there demonstrations? After all, it's their religion that is being perverted by the Islamofascists. C'mon--beheading, enslavement, etc. in the 21st Century!?!?!
There is danger in fundamentalist Christians citing the Bible to oppose gay marriage. Oh, they can quote the exact Scripture in their opposition. But do they know we can also find Scripture to keep women in their place? Ephesians, Corinthians, Colossians, and more books talk about women's need to be "submissive" to men, their husbands. There are other such terms, too, such as "subject."
Wives should submit to husbands as, onne passage from Ephesians reads, "for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the Church." ,Now, of course, we can cherry pick our phrases throughout the Bible, but if some verses can be used in such manner, so can others. If Christian churches, or some of them, want to oppose gay marriage and not recognize it in their own churches, that's fine--and their right. But to try to force their own religious beliefs on all people is not their right.
In Michigan, it is illegal to operate a barge with the owner's contact information it. There must have been, at some point, a reason for that law. I can't imagine what it is. An automobile, new or used, can't be purchased on a weekend. And one is violating the law if one transports a Chris tree without having a bill of sale. One guy was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 9 months in prison for disposing used tires at a facility he didn't know wasn't duly licensed. Instead of the facility's owners facing the fine and time, this unwitting guy was in violation. How about that woman, from somewhere around here (maybe Brighton?), who was charged for illegally operating a child care service although all she did was to agree to help out her neighbor. The neighbor had to leave for work before the school bus picked up her kids. The woman said she'd watch and make sure the kids got on the bus. I think I remember that one. I don't know the final result. But just that she was charged under an existing law tells us a lot.
There are well over 3,000 criminal offenses in Michigan alone! And dozens are added to that number each year. Criticism of the overcriminalization of Michigan residents comes from the liberal ACLU and conservative Mackinac Center--and other organizations from all over the political spectrum. Granted, most people who are such criminals don't know it and won't face penalties. But it only takes one zealot, in the name of the law, to exploit such things.
Now these are different from the very silly ones, such as tying one's alligator to a fire hydrant in Detroit. Yes, these are far more serious.
Just one example on the federal level, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. First, the legislation that created the CFPB explicitly exempted auto dealers from its oversight. The CFPB, though, found a back door in which to oversee auto dealers by going after the financial companies that work with the auto dealers. One such company was recently ordered to pay a $100 million fine for alleged racial discrimination. Now, how was "racial discrimination" proved, in light of the fact that racial and ethnic identification are prohibited from lender date? Perhaps the CFPB merely extrapolated (that is, guessed) as to appliants' race based on names or addresses. And an independent study found that CFPB's charges of "racial discrimination" are not at all supported by data; of course not--proof came from guesswork. Oh, the CFPB gets to keep the fines it forces on companies. Hey, isn't that a conflict of interest? Where is the gov't watchdog which watches the gov't??????
If this is what our elected officials have time to do, then maybe legislators aren't needed full-time. "That government is best which governs least." (That's often attributed to Jefferson, but sometimes Thoreau.) The problem with such massive gov't is that it feels like it must do something, as if to justify its existence. "Something" doesn't have to be good or worthwhile or beneficial. In fact, "something" is often bad, harmful, etc. I still like the WSJ's take on "Don't just stand there; do something." Instead it suggested that members of Congress "Don't do something; just stand there."
Of course, many people might like being told what kind of light bulbs, toilets, televisions, etc. they must use. They might like being told they can have only one large soda or French fries cooked with the oil that makes them virtually tasteless. Maybe many do. Then why don't they do that stuff on their own and leave the rest of us alone? I know why......
ISIS now beheading more and more people--Muslims and Christians. Boko Haram enslaving and/or murdering thousands of young girls. Other extremists throwing gay men off of buildings. And US Muslims protest the murders of three of there own in North Carolina. Of course, the murders of those three young people in Raleigh (?) is/was hideous. Whoever committed those killings should be punished to the fullest extent of the law--and, yes, maybe even receive the death penalty. (I'm still conflicted over capital punishment.) Yet, where are those US Muslims in criticizing ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc.? OK, maybe they are criticized such groups. But, if they are, it's very muted. It certainly doesn't make my newspapers. (Of course, maybe that's the newspapers' fault if they aren't covering such protests. But, in light of their other coverage, one would think they certainly would.) Where are there demonstrations? After all, it's their religion that is being perverted by the Islamofascists. C'mon--beheading, enslavement, etc. in the 21st Century!?!?!
There is danger in fundamentalist Christians citing the Bible to oppose gay marriage. Oh, they can quote the exact Scripture in their opposition. But do they know we can also find Scripture to keep women in their place? Ephesians, Corinthians, Colossians, and more books talk about women's need to be "submissive" to men, their husbands. There are other such terms, too, such as "subject."
Wives should submit to husbands as, onne passage from Ephesians reads, "for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is also the head of the Church." ,Now, of course, we can cherry pick our phrases throughout the Bible, but if some verses can be used in such manner, so can others. If Christian churches, or some of them, want to oppose gay marriage and not recognize it in their own churches, that's fine--and their right. But to try to force their own religious beliefs on all people is not their right.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Greetings!
Yes, finally......
It snowing again, a couple of inches already. I'm anxious to get out there to shovel "my perfect driveway," as my neighbor said a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure if she was being complimentary or facetious. Temperatures are going to plummet, I guess, if what we've had hasn't been low enough. According to the forecasts, 8 of the next 10 nights will be in the single digits or below zero. But, isn't that what we've had over the past month or more?
I know I've been running in this, although not as many miles. Some of the decrease has been due to the weather, some to scheduling and circumstances. But I think this winter has been harder on running than last year. Although there hasn't been as much snow, what has fallen seems to be harder for running. It freezes up on the roads more. There are a lot more icy spots. And the ruts, now frozen, are turning my ankles into hamburger.
The cold never bothers me. I was out yesterday AM at 3 below zero. And, at the end of the run, the last few miles, the wind picked up quite a bit. That dreaded windchill had to be in the below teens (Is that how it's said?) or maybe twenty-below. What is a bit bothersome is dressing appropriately. I wear a mask, which I suppose means I can't enter any party store. But I also have on layers. Maybe I'm a wimp/whimp, but I usual wear 5 or 6 layers when it's near or below zero. It seems to take forever to get dressed! And after a few miles, the clothes get bulky, even the new-fangled fabric stuff. But, with the condition of the road surfaces, I'm down to 40 miles a week and I've cut my daily runs a bit, too. I've even cut my standard for a run; I must go at least 3 miles (instead of my old 5 miles) to consider it a run. (That's just me, not anyone else.)
Lots of thinking, since I haven't been here in a while. This supposedly "retired" guy is pretty busy all of the time. One thought that has me considering quite a bit came from an essay I found (cleaning my junk in the loft) from Professor Henry Commager. Professor Commager taught US History at Amherst when I was there. He wrote about teaching history, specifically to my interest, teaching history without opinions or, I suppose, bias/prejudice. He argued that teachers should just present the facts, what happened, without any of their own interpretation. Hmmm...... First, I thought, what fun is that? Second, is a teacher who is neutral, that is doesn't "take sides" in horrific episodes of history, actually becoming an accomplice to the horrors? Does remaining "neutral" mean "not taking sides" or merely "presenting all sides?" Third, what if students have already been introduced to "opinions" or "bias" and that has led to either the wrong or at least skewed conclusions of what really happened? For example, I still read the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was "merely," not my word certainly, a wartime exigency. It didn't free any slave nor have any real effect on the abolition of slavery. The EP was just a wartime measure to help prevent Britain and France from entering the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Yes, I still read that. It's in textbooks, in blogs, and the opinion of many (most?) teachers. I heartily disagree. There are a number of books which put that idea to rest. (The idea that the EP didn't free a single slave, that it "freed" slave only in areas where the Union army couldn't "free" them seems to have originated or at least popularized by the great historian Richard Hofstadter. Since it was the view of the great Hofstadter, who could disagree?) One such book by Richard Striner is Father Abraham. Yes, there was a reason blacks called Lincoln "Father Abraham," Biblical in its connotation surely. And the number of emancipated slaves is in the 10s of 1000s, maybe as many as 70,000. And how many ran away upon hearing of the EP? How many ended up joining the Union army? But I, in my enthusiasm/exuberance, digress. The point is how to get students to at least consider the alternative view. Now Professor Commager was a lion of American History. Nothing he wrote or said should be easily dismissed. He asked teachers to assume that, if they present the facts, students are intelligent enough to form their own proper conclusions. Maybe...... But first impressions (e.g., the view of the EP) die hard, don't they? Still, I've been happy to think about this. Again, let me express my appreciation for my college teachers.
I was in an accident a week or so ago. Some lady, fiddling with her cell phone (Grrrrrr!) rear-ended my car and it was totaled. That, along with the headache of rescheduling and rearranging so two people can get three or more people around with one car, led me to thinking. What is it with cell phones and all this gadgetry, esp while driving? Is it "all about me?," that the safety of others can be so cavalierly disregarded so "I" can use my cell phone? (I know, I know--I've considered that, too, and although this is an indictment, it's not a blanket indictment, I think.) But that seems to be the growing case, doesn't it? I'm reminded of the health care debate and something Hillary Clinton said about ObamaCare. She said, and so did others closer to home, something like "Why should I have to work at a job, esp if it's one I don't like or not my dream job, just to provide health care for my family?" OK, I've simplified that somewhat, but it seems to be the argument. And talk about being "greedy!" How juvenile a view! Why should people have to work then at all? For that matter, why should other people have to pay for yet other people's families? (No, don't go there. You don't know my charitable practices.) Such self-centeredness (Is that a real word?), self-absorption? Hey, it's your family! If you didn't/don't want to take care of it, don't have one...... And silly me, back when we needed money (Teachers haven't always made the big bucks, you know.), esp thinking ahead to paying for college for the boys, I had five jobs at one time, at least I was drawing pay checks from five different sources.
The Brian/Bryan Williams (I don't think I ever heard of the guy before his lies were exposed a week or so ago; I don't watch much television.) story is also deeper. Oh, it has to do with more than this, well, self-centered, self-absorbed guy. I wonder how many other people make up things about themselves, to shine themselves in better light? And why do they do that, lie to impress other people? Why do they say they could have played professional ball, "except that......" or could have gone to such and such a prestigious college "except that.....?" A lot of people do a lot of really good and impressive things without having to embellish/lie. (Muhammad Ali one infamously said, "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'.") And so many of the lies are so easily spotted. I guess, with the culture we have created, everyone is pressured to be somebody. It's not enough, as one of my college professors so wisely suggested, that "a conscientious life of raising a family and assisting in the local community," I guess. To me, this is a fitting and honorable way to live, to borrow another Amherst phrase, "a life of consequence."
Out to shovel......
It snowing again, a couple of inches already. I'm anxious to get out there to shovel "my perfect driveway," as my neighbor said a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure if she was being complimentary or facetious. Temperatures are going to plummet, I guess, if what we've had hasn't been low enough. According to the forecasts, 8 of the next 10 nights will be in the single digits or below zero. But, isn't that what we've had over the past month or more?
I know I've been running in this, although not as many miles. Some of the decrease has been due to the weather, some to scheduling and circumstances. But I think this winter has been harder on running than last year. Although there hasn't been as much snow, what has fallen seems to be harder for running. It freezes up on the roads more. There are a lot more icy spots. And the ruts, now frozen, are turning my ankles into hamburger.
The cold never bothers me. I was out yesterday AM at 3 below zero. And, at the end of the run, the last few miles, the wind picked up quite a bit. That dreaded windchill had to be in the below teens (Is that how it's said?) or maybe twenty-below. What is a bit bothersome is dressing appropriately. I wear a mask, which I suppose means I can't enter any party store. But I also have on layers. Maybe I'm a wimp/whimp, but I usual wear 5 or 6 layers when it's near or below zero. It seems to take forever to get dressed! And after a few miles, the clothes get bulky, even the new-fangled fabric stuff. But, with the condition of the road surfaces, I'm down to 40 miles a week and I've cut my daily runs a bit, too. I've even cut my standard for a run; I must go at least 3 miles (instead of my old 5 miles) to consider it a run. (That's just me, not anyone else.)
Lots of thinking, since I haven't been here in a while. This supposedly "retired" guy is pretty busy all of the time. One thought that has me considering quite a bit came from an essay I found (cleaning my junk in the loft) from Professor Henry Commager. Professor Commager taught US History at Amherst when I was there. He wrote about teaching history, specifically to my interest, teaching history without opinions or, I suppose, bias/prejudice. He argued that teachers should just present the facts, what happened, without any of their own interpretation. Hmmm...... First, I thought, what fun is that? Second, is a teacher who is neutral, that is doesn't "take sides" in horrific episodes of history, actually becoming an accomplice to the horrors? Does remaining "neutral" mean "not taking sides" or merely "presenting all sides?" Third, what if students have already been introduced to "opinions" or "bias" and that has led to either the wrong or at least skewed conclusions of what really happened? For example, I still read the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was "merely," not my word certainly, a wartime exigency. It didn't free any slave nor have any real effect on the abolition of slavery. The EP was just a wartime measure to help prevent Britain and France from entering the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Yes, I still read that. It's in textbooks, in blogs, and the opinion of many (most?) teachers. I heartily disagree. There are a number of books which put that idea to rest. (The idea that the EP didn't free a single slave, that it "freed" slave only in areas where the Union army couldn't "free" them seems to have originated or at least popularized by the great historian Richard Hofstadter. Since it was the view of the great Hofstadter, who could disagree?) One such book by Richard Striner is Father Abraham. Yes, there was a reason blacks called Lincoln "Father Abraham," Biblical in its connotation surely. And the number of emancipated slaves is in the 10s of 1000s, maybe as many as 70,000. And how many ran away upon hearing of the EP? How many ended up joining the Union army? But I, in my enthusiasm/exuberance, digress. The point is how to get students to at least consider the alternative view. Now Professor Commager was a lion of American History. Nothing he wrote or said should be easily dismissed. He asked teachers to assume that, if they present the facts, students are intelligent enough to form their own proper conclusions. Maybe...... But first impressions (e.g., the view of the EP) die hard, don't they? Still, I've been happy to think about this. Again, let me express my appreciation for my college teachers.
I was in an accident a week or so ago. Some lady, fiddling with her cell phone (Grrrrrr!) rear-ended my car and it was totaled. That, along with the headache of rescheduling and rearranging so two people can get three or more people around with one car, led me to thinking. What is it with cell phones and all this gadgetry, esp while driving? Is it "all about me?," that the safety of others can be so cavalierly disregarded so "I" can use my cell phone? (I know, I know--I've considered that, too, and although this is an indictment, it's not a blanket indictment, I think.) But that seems to be the growing case, doesn't it? I'm reminded of the health care debate and something Hillary Clinton said about ObamaCare. She said, and so did others closer to home, something like "Why should I have to work at a job, esp if it's one I don't like or not my dream job, just to provide health care for my family?" OK, I've simplified that somewhat, but it seems to be the argument. And talk about being "greedy!" How juvenile a view! Why should people have to work then at all? For that matter, why should other people have to pay for yet other people's families? (No, don't go there. You don't know my charitable practices.) Such self-centeredness (Is that a real word?), self-absorption? Hey, it's your family! If you didn't/don't want to take care of it, don't have one...... And silly me, back when we needed money (Teachers haven't always made the big bucks, you know.), esp thinking ahead to paying for college for the boys, I had five jobs at one time, at least I was drawing pay checks from five different sources.
The Brian/Bryan Williams (I don't think I ever heard of the guy before his lies were exposed a week or so ago; I don't watch much television.) story is also deeper. Oh, it has to do with more than this, well, self-centered, self-absorbed guy. I wonder how many other people make up things about themselves, to shine themselves in better light? And why do they do that, lie to impress other people? Why do they say they could have played professional ball, "except that......" or could have gone to such and such a prestigious college "except that.....?" A lot of people do a lot of really good and impressive things without having to embellish/lie. (Muhammad Ali one infamously said, "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'.") And so many of the lies are so easily spotted. I guess, with the culture we have created, everyone is pressured to be somebody. It's not enough, as one of my college professors so wisely suggested, that "a conscientious life of raising a family and assisting in the local community," I guess. To me, this is a fitting and honorable way to live, to borrow another Amherst phrase, "a life of consequence."
Out to shovel......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
