A Few Thoughts

With so much money invested in their players, why do Major League teams insist on playing games in such cold weather?  I think the Tigers played the last few games when it was in the low- or mid-30s, with quite a bit of wind.  At least one of the games was in swirling snow!  How easy it would be for a pitcher to hurt his arm or a batter or fielder to get a bone bruise.  I would think owners would want to be more careful with their investments.

For that matter, why do high school teams now play so many games in cold weather, too?  I know their refrain, "We have to get in the games."  But why do the coaches insist on now playing 30 or more games in the season?  The little leagues are the same way.  There's no good reason for starting so soon, when it's so cold, when the season could be started a month later and extended until mid-July.  Professional, college, high school, little league--take my word for it, playing in the cold and snow is not fun.

Maybe I'm the only one not particularly happy with the Red Wings' new arena plan being approved.  That's sacrilege, I know, but...... I guess I'll never understand why taxpayers (or rather the politicians who agree to it) should pay, at least in part, for a billionaire to build a stadium.  I know why the billionaire wants the taxpayers to do so, but not why taxpayers always seem to agree to it.  The argument goes that more jobs, more business traffic, etc. from the new stadium will generate more revenue for the city and surrounding businesses.  I think several studies have shown, after the construction is completed, there's no financial benefit.  Revenues are flat.  I suppose the argument might hold water in that some blighted areas are improved, but......  Such taxpayer-funded arenas will never disappear; Americans love their sports too much.

I read an interesting article on the value of community colleges.  Among several good points, community colleges allow students who might not be sure they want college to experiment, to try out the college academics without paying the outrages costs of four-year schools.  They can then decide if college is for them or not.  But the article also lauded President Obama's recent call for free community college.  The author fell into the same old trap:  it wouldn't really be "free."  Someone somewhere is paying for it.  As Milton Friedman once said, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."  I suppose this falls into our generational mindset that also holds, "Why should I have to work at a job I don't like just to provide [health care] for my family."  This came from H. Clinton in one of her "follow your dreams" speeches.  How typical!  Let others pay for what we want.  And we call "the 1%" greedy??????

Just throwing around a few figures, maybe I am in favor of those fast-food workers' quest for $15 an hour.  At one of the colleges, using the ObamaCare formula to determine weekly hours, I am now working (that is, teaching college history) for about $13.50 an hour.  I would like a raise, too!

I see the IRS didn't respond to more than eight million calls for assistance.  The agency, according to its director, is undermanned.  (Can I say "underpersoned" or "underpeopled?")  Its customer service has never been top flight.  Of those who did get through to the IRS, only 40% talked to a real person.  The excuse is the cost of ObamaCare, how the IRS had to divert funds to handle the mandates ObamaCare placed on it.  Gee, I wonder if we paid our taxes with the same concern and efficiency we get from the federal government......

I got a kick out of the recent U of M (and I think EMU?) reactions to showings of the film, American Sniper.  Student protests/petitions initially led to cancellation of the showings, apparently because the film depicts Islamic terrorists in a bad light.  I'm still trying to imagine how to portray them in a good light or at least a better one.  But there are other concerns, too.  First, it appears the new administration at U of M is governing by student petition.  Maybe not, but it seems so.  Second, aren't the colleges/universities supposed to be institutions where a diverse number of viewpoints are presented?  Yes, I said it, "diversity!"  Perhaps my definition or at least understanding of it is different from the colleges' defs.  And OK, students can and should protest; it's part of the educational process.  But, unless the local media didn't cover it, I never ever saw a college protest over the beheading of Christians, throwing of gays off of buildings, etc.  Maybe such protests would portray the beheaders in a bad light??????

"A Mystery...

...never fully explained."  That line, of course, is from the opening scene of The Phantom of the Opera, a favorite play of mine.

I thought of it several times last week.

My GPS watch sometimes, for no apparent reason, just stops working.  It's plugged and recharging, just like usual.  I take it off the dock and it doesn't turn on--no nothing.  I've learned, though, to just replug it into the dock and a few days later, never much sooner than that, it is working just fine again.  Perhaps it just needs a rest......

And my new laptop also seems to have a mind of its own.  I will be typing an e-mail/letter or an article/column and suddenly find myself in the middle of a paragraph earlier on the page.  My previous computer never did that.  Hmmm......

In my office at work, from out of nowhere, my printer and computer couldn't find each other.  This had never been a problem before, in almost ten years.  I finally, after doing everything I could think of (well, that as a nonadministrator I am allowed to do), I called IT.  "Hmmm," said the techie who answered.  A ticket was issued and someone came over the next work day to check it out with me.  He admitted, "I did nothing, really," but it began to print, like normal.  "What did you do?" I asked.  He repeated, "Nothing, really."  Why did that happened?  Somewhat non-techie, he replied, "Sometimes it just does."  Hmmm......

This week, early, I ran in 32 degrees.  Three days later, at the same time of day, I ran in 54 degrees.  Another day brought flow snurries and this AM the wind was extremely blustery.  Yesterday, there were thunderstorms and raindrops as big as marbles or golfballs.  All in a week, the same week. What's up with that?

Whew!

I sometimes think now logging in to this site isn't worth the effort of doing so.  I know some folks have said to me that it's difficult to add comments, but sometimes it's even difficult for me to sign in.

I hope this Iran deal is a real deal, but I am skeptical.  Both sides are somewhat cryptic about the terms.  What is known seems to have come from leaks.  But it appears Iran won a lot and conceded very little, if anything.  Of course, all depends on honesty.  Will Iran keep any word it gives?  Will the US have the guts to identify any violations of the terms?  The current administration doesn't exactly lead to any confidence it will.

The Iranians, according to the leaks, won't have to dismantle their heavy water reactor, can keep hundreds of centrifuges, maintains its underground facility, all with an American promise of lifting the sanctions (soon?).  This seems like a one-sided negotiations result, as if the US was negotiating from a position of weakness, of capitulation.

The whole deal seems like the Iranians are laughing, knowing that they can continue to sneak their way to nuclear weapons because the US and its diplomats will be far too busy patting themselves on their backs over their agreement.

The Indiana religious freedom episode is troubling.  I fully understand the concern with possible discrimination against gays.  But I think the problem is far deeper than this.  In this instance, I think those whose religious beliefs oppose gay marriages are the ones facing discrimination.  Were I a baker or a florist or a DJ or a......whatever I would take the money to serve a gay marriage.  Sure I what, no doubt.

But if one's religion is opposed to gay marriages, why can't one refuse to endorse such marriages by actively engaging in it?  I can see a prohibition against no serving an individual gay because of sexual orientation, yes.  But there, I think, is a difference between the individual and the institution of marriage.

Could this, then, lead to the arrest of a minister or priest who is asked to marry a gay couple, but refuses to do it?  What about, taking this to the extreme, could a doctor whose religion opposes abortions be penalized/punished for refusing to perform abortions?

I think I saw, too, online an article where some Detroit media personality posed as a gay man who wanted a Dearborn Muslim bakery to cater his wedding, but was refused.  There were multiple accounts of it, so I assume it's true.  Where is the equal outrage, other than there is no such law in Michigan?  But isn't the principle the same?

I don't know, but the world is getting to complicated for me......