So, if a Muslim drives a delivery truck and it carries beer and he refuses to make deliveries, he can't be fired? And, if he is, he gets his job back and $125,000 in compensation? But, if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it offends his Christian religious sensibilities, he can be sued, go to jail, etc.? Hmmm...... Either it has to be one way or the other, doesn't it? How can we, under the guise of "religious freedom," cherry-pick like this? Both the Muslim and the Christian (a private baker) were financially injured. Both claimed religious objections. And did government, I forgot if both federal or one federal and one state, defend one and prosecute (or threaten to prosecute) the other?
Doesn't the Supreme Court open each session with a prayer, "God save these United States and this Supreme Court?" Yet, some football coach in Oregon (?) was either suspended or fired because he led his team in a prayer after football games? OK, his principal (who seems like a dimwit, at best) ordered him not to do so because of a single community complaint. But why did the principal give such an order?
For the fourth AM this week, the local news broadcast broke in with "breaking news." Each of them involved somebody being shot with a gun; each victim, I think, died. And, I also believe each was a black person, killed by another black person or persons. Hmmm...... Do those "black lives matter?" Or do "black lives matter" only when there's political advantage to be gained? I don't know what is more disheartening, that so many people are being killed or that this has become a political football, whose rules only count in certain situations.
On brighter note, I didn't watch the debates last night, but heard some excerpts. Hooray for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (or is it an Irish guy, Mark O'Rubio?)!!!!!! Cruz, in responding to a question or questions, didn't respond. He said, "This is why Americans no longer trust the media......" (Or is was something like that; it was several hours ago I heard it and I can't even remember where I put my keys when I got home half an hour ago.) He pointed out some of the questions being asked, with so little substance, for instance, about how what cartoon super-heroes candidates resemble?????? ...if the federal gov't should regulate fantasy sports?????? Yep and I'll bet, in their own self-righteous, elitist arrogance, the moderators shrugged this off as the rantings of some conservative Neanderthal. Rubio stated, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC. It's called the mainstream media." Great, Great, Great. I think he was referring to last week's Benghazi testimony by Clinton in front of a Congressional panel. Regardless if one thinks this is a witch hunt (yes, I mean "witch!"), Clinton was shown to be an outright liar, lying to the families of those slain at Benghazi and to the American people. Yet, what do the LameStreams report? Clinton hit a high note in her testimony, showing why she is of Presidential timbre/timber. Does that mean being an effective liar is a desirable trait for a Presidential candidate?
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Capitalism and "Fools"
Last week I read an article about capitalism, more specifically, the free market and consumers, who are identified as fools. Consumers are "fools" because they fall for the allures, the tricks, the deceptions, etc. of producers, that is, the companies/corporations.
It seems to me that the author is a pessimist, a big-time pessimist. I think that is characteristic of those of his end of the political spectrum. The fault of capitalism lies not with consumers, who often make irrational, even stupid decisions, but with the system itself, that is, the free market/invisible hand.
How condescending, that people are now so stupid that they can't make choices for themselves. You can see where this is leading, can't you? There's "a catalog of errors on the parts of consumers and investors." And the only solution is for the all-knowing, benevolent government to come in and save them from themselves. And worse, such pessimism derides those with optimism, seemingly sealing the future for doom.
There's a place for government in this "free market." It should protect consumers from nefarious practices, preventing producers from inflicting deliberate and deceitful harm through things such as pollution, defrauding people, making false claims, etc. Outside of that, well, maybe it should be "hands off." Government's record isn't exactly spotless when it steps outside of those boundaries.
I agree, people make some ill-informed, irrational, and even stupid decisions. After all, why do people still smoke, abuse alcohol, and eat to the point of gluttony and obesity? Perhaps less detrimental, why, for instance, do some people buy monthly or annual health club memberships when paying by individual visits would be cheaper? Is that economic stupidity or convenience or overly optimistic goal-setting?
Do the use of Face Book (esp by the young) and drugs(dependence on prescriptions and otherwise), conspicuous consumption to the point of economic detriment, etc. reflect stupidity? I don't know. But such actions are based on individual choices. Should government step in and limit such individual choices, that is, our freedom?
People, of course, are manipulated by producers. Advertising exploits human weaknesses at times. So what? If consumers don't have enough cash, resort to credit, and overextend themselves to buy the come-on products, whose fault is that? Companies that advertise? How about the consumers themselves?
In the past few decades, American society's definition of "needs" has changed. People have bought into the notion that they need the latest cell phones, high-def televisions, and other things that are hardly necessities. And that notion has been endorsed not only by the perpetrators, the companies selling such products, but also by government. Is it the fault of the free market--or of gullible people? More so, have we created a society of envy, of greed, that demands we have such frills as basic necessities?
And if government is the solution, to save us from ourselves, where was it during the economic recession of the past 11-12 years? Was it the fault of the free market or of government failure to monitor derivatives, the increasingly complex security transactions, as well as the too cozy relationship between credit reporting agencies, investment banks, and government agencies themselves?
I suppose, if this pessimistic view of economic consumers is valid, what might be said then of voters, of popular participation in politics? If we are manipulated in our economic and financial decisions, are we also in our political decisions? If we increasingly make harmful, even stupid economic choices, might we do the same with our political choices? If consumers are merely the pawn in the hands of manipulating producers in the free market, what are voters in the hands of deceitful, even dishonest politicians and political parties?
As much as I dislike this pessimistic view, I find myself fighting not to agree with it. But where I differ is that I don't blame the producers/advertisers. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
It seems to me that the author is a pessimist, a big-time pessimist. I think that is characteristic of those of his end of the political spectrum. The fault of capitalism lies not with consumers, who often make irrational, even stupid decisions, but with the system itself, that is, the free market/invisible hand.
How condescending, that people are now so stupid that they can't make choices for themselves. You can see where this is leading, can't you? There's "a catalog of errors on the parts of consumers and investors." And the only solution is for the all-knowing, benevolent government to come in and save them from themselves. And worse, such pessimism derides those with optimism, seemingly sealing the future for doom.
There's a place for government in this "free market." It should protect consumers from nefarious practices, preventing producers from inflicting deliberate and deceitful harm through things such as pollution, defrauding people, making false claims, etc. Outside of that, well, maybe it should be "hands off." Government's record isn't exactly spotless when it steps outside of those boundaries.
I agree, people make some ill-informed, irrational, and even stupid decisions. After all, why do people still smoke, abuse alcohol, and eat to the point of gluttony and obesity? Perhaps less detrimental, why, for instance, do some people buy monthly or annual health club memberships when paying by individual visits would be cheaper? Is that economic stupidity or convenience or overly optimistic goal-setting?
Do the use of Face Book (esp by the young) and drugs(dependence on prescriptions and otherwise), conspicuous consumption to the point of economic detriment, etc. reflect stupidity? I don't know. But such actions are based on individual choices. Should government step in and limit such individual choices, that is, our freedom?
People, of course, are manipulated by producers. Advertising exploits human weaknesses at times. So what? If consumers don't have enough cash, resort to credit, and overextend themselves to buy the come-on products, whose fault is that? Companies that advertise? How about the consumers themselves?
In the past few decades, American society's definition of "needs" has changed. People have bought into the notion that they need the latest cell phones, high-def televisions, and other things that are hardly necessities. And that notion has been endorsed not only by the perpetrators, the companies selling such products, but also by government. Is it the fault of the free market--or of gullible people? More so, have we created a society of envy, of greed, that demands we have such frills as basic necessities?
And if government is the solution, to save us from ourselves, where was it during the economic recession of the past 11-12 years? Was it the fault of the free market or of government failure to monitor derivatives, the increasingly complex security transactions, as well as the too cozy relationship between credit reporting agencies, investment banks, and government agencies themselves?
I suppose, if this pessimistic view of economic consumers is valid, what might be said then of voters, of popular participation in politics? If we are manipulated in our economic and financial decisions, are we also in our political decisions? If we increasingly make harmful, even stupid economic choices, might we do the same with our political choices? If consumers are merely the pawn in the hands of manipulating producers in the free market, what are voters in the hands of deceitful, even dishonest politicians and political parties?
As much as I dislike this pessimistic view, I find myself fighting not to agree with it. But where I differ is that I don't blame the producers/advertisers. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Sat AM
Yesterday AM was a really great view of the "planetary trio" of Venus, Jupiter, and Mars. The sky was very clear and the moon had not yet risen (?). Such trios, esp of the third and fourth brightest objects in the sky, occur only ever few years. For a few weeks, the trio has given us a good light show. And Sirius, the Dog Star, was so very bright just south of Orion, the Hunter. With clouds and light drizzle right now (and for the past couple of hours--I get up early!) there's not much to see out there. I think yesterday, though, made up for missing the Orionids on Thur AM.
I just finished reading an essay about the relationship between A. Lincoln and McClellan. I was reminded of a few assessments about McC and learned a new one. Of course, due to his dilatory tactics, if that's what they were, tactics, Lincoln said of McC that "he had a case of the slows" and asked at one time, "if you're not going to use it, might I borrow the army." I know a book came out a few years ago, maybe a dozen or more (I have forgotten the title) which tried to defend McC, but it seems hard to do when he constantly found excuses not to engage the enemy. For instance, when he saw Joe Johnston's army across the Potomac, he insisted there were about 150,000 Confederates ready; the reality was Johnston had maybe 40,000 and McC outnumbered him about 2:1. I was reminded of these two in particular, that McC "is the only man who can strut while sitting down" and, from Lincoln, McC "is an admirable engineer, but with a special talent for a stationary engine." But here's a new one, esp for me, McC was "a self-made man who worshipped his creator." That came from a Brit and is pretty funny, but true.
I just noticed that "worshipped" above is highlighted as being misspelled. If I remove a "p," the highlight disappears. Hmmm...... I'm pretty sure I spelled it correctly.
It seems to me that too many of our politicians, esp from the left, are more concerned with stoking envy among the citizens than with actual empathy for them. How does an obsession with others' greater wealth help anyone? It assumes that doing worse, that is, having less money, involves doing badly. As I think I've noted more than once here, what do I care if Bill Gates is worth billions and billions? Good for him as long as he's gained his money legally and ethically. Him having all that money doesn't at all detract from my situation or, for that matter, those of almost all of the people I know. "Greed" isn't the sole or even the major cause of the so-called "income inequality." There are lots of factors and, if greed is one of them, it's far down the list. I suppose this might be the time I bring up certain "envy-stokers" who make speeches for hundred of thousands and maybe even millions of dollars, but I won't--not this AM.
Last week, I listened to a local radio talk show host throw the usual softball questions at a political guest. Now when the guest(s) is(are) not on, the host is very opinionated, talking tough, but doesn't take the same tack when he gets those same people on the show. But, and perhaps this struck very close to home, I became agitated when he and a like-minded guest started hurling darts at education and teacher. It's well-known that I have dim views of much that goes on in education, including many teachers. But here were two guys, who obviously know all about education--teaching and learning--because, after all, they went to school, didn't they? And what really galled me was that both, no doubt, earn salaries well into the six-figures, if not more. No, I'm not envious, not in the least. What do you think these guys would say about raising teacher pay to attempt to attract more of our "best and brightest?" And I would also submit, neither guy is worth what he is getting paid--not in the least. They both must know someone.
I received some good news late yesterday. One of my editors informed me that I'll have another article published in Michigan History Magazine. Hooray! I wonder if this makes me a real historian.
Ha Ha. This is my second one in MHM and I am putting together an idea for a third. But I have time to think since an author is allowed only one article each year. I was trying to put together numbers in my head the other day while running. I'm guessing, including reviews, my online column (not this blog), and other articles, I'll bet I am approaching or maybe have passed 2,000 (yes, that many!) published pieces. What that means is this--I'm old! I think my first one came almost 40 years ago; that's a long time. Adding to the total was the weekly running column I did for the Detroit-area daily newspaper for almost ten years. Sometimes I almost dread deadlines, but the actual writing I really enjoy. And, I rarely read my own stuff. I think I know what's in it!
I am not running today. Nope, it's a planned day off. I'm (along with Michael) having pizza for dinner with my blind running buddy and the other guide runners, so I'm not running with him. And I'm not running with Carrie this AM since she is out of town. I was curious so I consulted my running log. This will end 56 consecutive days of running. Without doubt, it's my longest string. I always have built in a rest day. Usually it has been Saturdays, but with my and others' (namely Michael H. and Carrie) schedules, I've run on that day, often twice adding up to 11 or 12 Saturday miles. It's now raining a bit, but that had no role in my rest day. I may, if it dries up, get out on my bike later, after I grade some mid-term exams. With winter quickly approaching, biking days are near their end.
I'm not a big fan of coffee. I don't like the bitter taste; at least to me it's bitter. This AM I had a cup of tea, with honey added. It was very good and I think I'll have a second cup.
I just finished reading an essay about the relationship between A. Lincoln and McClellan. I was reminded of a few assessments about McC and learned a new one. Of course, due to his dilatory tactics, if that's what they were, tactics, Lincoln said of McC that "he had a case of the slows" and asked at one time, "if you're not going to use it, might I borrow the army." I know a book came out a few years ago, maybe a dozen or more (I have forgotten the title) which tried to defend McC, but it seems hard to do when he constantly found excuses not to engage the enemy. For instance, when he saw Joe Johnston's army across the Potomac, he insisted there were about 150,000 Confederates ready; the reality was Johnston had maybe 40,000 and McC outnumbered him about 2:1. I was reminded of these two in particular, that McC "is the only man who can strut while sitting down" and, from Lincoln, McC "is an admirable engineer, but with a special talent for a stationary engine." But here's a new one, esp for me, McC was "a self-made man who worshipped his creator." That came from a Brit and is pretty funny, but true.
I just noticed that "worshipped" above is highlighted as being misspelled. If I remove a "p," the highlight disappears. Hmmm...... I'm pretty sure I spelled it correctly.
It seems to me that too many of our politicians, esp from the left, are more concerned with stoking envy among the citizens than with actual empathy for them. How does an obsession with others' greater wealth help anyone? It assumes that doing worse, that is, having less money, involves doing badly. As I think I've noted more than once here, what do I care if Bill Gates is worth billions and billions? Good for him as long as he's gained his money legally and ethically. Him having all that money doesn't at all detract from my situation or, for that matter, those of almost all of the people I know. "Greed" isn't the sole or even the major cause of the so-called "income inequality." There are lots of factors and, if greed is one of them, it's far down the list. I suppose this might be the time I bring up certain "envy-stokers" who make speeches for hundred of thousands and maybe even millions of dollars, but I won't--not this AM.
Last week, I listened to a local radio talk show host throw the usual softball questions at a political guest. Now when the guest(s) is(are) not on, the host is very opinionated, talking tough, but doesn't take the same tack when he gets those same people on the show. But, and perhaps this struck very close to home, I became agitated when he and a like-minded guest started hurling darts at education and teacher. It's well-known that I have dim views of much that goes on in education, including many teachers. But here were two guys, who obviously know all about education--teaching and learning--because, after all, they went to school, didn't they? And what really galled me was that both, no doubt, earn salaries well into the six-figures, if not more. No, I'm not envious, not in the least. What do you think these guys would say about raising teacher pay to attempt to attract more of our "best and brightest?" And I would also submit, neither guy is worth what he is getting paid--not in the least. They both must know someone.
I received some good news late yesterday. One of my editors informed me that I'll have another article published in Michigan History Magazine. Hooray! I wonder if this makes me a real historian.
Ha Ha. This is my second one in MHM and I am putting together an idea for a third. But I have time to think since an author is allowed only one article each year. I was trying to put together numbers in my head the other day while running. I'm guessing, including reviews, my online column (not this blog), and other articles, I'll bet I am approaching or maybe have passed 2,000 (yes, that many!) published pieces. What that means is this--I'm old! I think my first one came almost 40 years ago; that's a long time. Adding to the total was the weekly running column I did for the Detroit-area daily newspaper for almost ten years. Sometimes I almost dread deadlines, but the actual writing I really enjoy. And, I rarely read my own stuff. I think I know what's in it!
I am not running today. Nope, it's a planned day off. I'm (along with Michael) having pizza for dinner with my blind running buddy and the other guide runners, so I'm not running with him. And I'm not running with Carrie this AM since she is out of town. I was curious so I consulted my running log. This will end 56 consecutive days of running. Without doubt, it's my longest string. I always have built in a rest day. Usually it has been Saturdays, but with my and others' (namely Michael H. and Carrie) schedules, I've run on that day, often twice adding up to 11 or 12 Saturday miles. It's now raining a bit, but that had no role in my rest day. I may, if it dries up, get out on my bike later, after I grade some mid-term exams. With winter quickly approaching, biking days are near their end.
I'm not a big fan of coffee. I don't like the bitter taste; at least to me it's bitter. This AM I had a cup of tea, with honey added. It was very good and I think I'll have a second cup.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Light Show--Missed
I didn't see any meteors from the Orionid Meteor Shower this AM. The light show was from fallout from Halley's Comet (pronounced as rhyming with valleys). The sky was cloudy and hazy. Even after it cleared a bit, I never really found any near Orion, "The Hunter." Yes, I was disappointed. I get excited by "falling stars."
And last night we had a bit of a thunderstorm. There were several loud thunderclaps, followed by a little bit of rain--not much.
Last weekend, Sat or Sun I don't remember which, I was out running at dawn and, Whoa! Did I run myself into some sort of Civil War Re-enactment? There were gunshots all over the place, small game and, I think, muzzle loaders hunters. It's time to stay on the roads and off the trails in the woods.
I listened to an interview with Ben Carson on the radio the other day. Boy, he sure is soft-spoken. I certainly haven't made up my mind on a candidate (although I have eliminated quite a few of them!). It's far too soon. The election is still a year and more away. But Carson was impressive, although he does have some flaws. (Well, A. Lincoln had some flaws, too, I guess.) When he was questioned, sometimes he hesitated for quite a while, almost as if the questions perplexed him. "Aha," I thought, "he doesn't have much of an idea......" Then out came these good, if not great, answers. I did like some of the questions, though. "Who is our most underrated President?" "Who was our worst President?" were among them.
Hmmm...... Carson noted John Adams as the "most underrated." Maybe; it's a good answer. I was thinking Eisenhower, a favorite of mine. But a strong case can be made for Adams, too. The recent biogs of Adams, by Jos. Ellis and David McCulloch, have offered much evidence that Adams was much better than our textbooks/teachers often portray. "Worst President?" Carson opted not to answer, although it seemed clear he was thinking Obama. Maybe he wasn't, but it sure seemed like he was. I think I'd go for Buchanan or A. Johnson. "Worst" might or might not have been entirely their own faults, but, still, they weren't very good at all.
People likely know I think the US is not doing very well right now. I don't believe a lot of the statistics thrown at us by the government ("Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" said Mark Twain.) about, say the economy and crime. I am not at all encouraged by our current state of morality (or should it be immorality?). Education is in a shambles, with too many people who shouldn't be making decisions making decisions. These include politicians and corporate-types. (Of course, that's how we got into this mess, with pols and corp-types make decisions. Too many others, so-called educators, were making decisions and they shouldn't have been allowed to make decisions. And, too, far too many teachers/educators just sat on their hands, letting bad things happen or not making good things happen.) Aren't we at the lowest percentage of Americans in the work force in 40+ years? I'm not sure if that's by choice (retirement), outsourcing, the lousy economy, or frustration with the job market. I haven't checked the CPI, but it sure seems to me that, other than gasoline, prices are going up, fast! My groceries cost a lot more than they did last year. (I was trying to remember the last time I bought hamburger/ground chunk--yes, chunk!--since it goes on sale at $3.50 a pound around here.) The country is as divided as ever, well, at least in the past 100 or so years it seems. I understand the polarization, which I think stems from frustration, esp from politicians and a government that don't work very well.
But how do we turn things around? I'm not sure we can. How do we reverse the sense of entitlement, in individuals and in corporations? How do we restore a sense of dignity for life? We cavalierly kill our babies or shoot others (drive-bys, road rage, for someone's clothes, because of "dissing," etc.). How do we restore respect for authority? Those at the top, including our political "leaders," seemingly routinely act illegally (How's that? Three "ly" words out of four!). The police are under siege. We glorify the shootings of thugs (certainly not their lives, I hope!), yet abortions are "ho-hum." How do we fix education/learning? With the current god, "Technology," and myriad companies making a lot of money off "reforms," can it be fixed? (I have used this before, but esp in light of "Technology," how much easier can we make it before it can't be called a college degree any longer?)
I just finished reading an article about "How and Why to Teach History," but that's enough for now. My comments on it will come later this weekend maybe. Or maybe I'll just stay outside and look for the Orionid meteors.
And last night we had a bit of a thunderstorm. There were several loud thunderclaps, followed by a little bit of rain--not much.
Last weekend, Sat or Sun I don't remember which, I was out running at dawn and, Whoa! Did I run myself into some sort of Civil War Re-enactment? There were gunshots all over the place, small game and, I think, muzzle loaders hunters. It's time to stay on the roads and off the trails in the woods.
I listened to an interview with Ben Carson on the radio the other day. Boy, he sure is soft-spoken. I certainly haven't made up my mind on a candidate (although I have eliminated quite a few of them!). It's far too soon. The election is still a year and more away. But Carson was impressive, although he does have some flaws. (Well, A. Lincoln had some flaws, too, I guess.) When he was questioned, sometimes he hesitated for quite a while, almost as if the questions perplexed him. "Aha," I thought, "he doesn't have much of an idea......" Then out came these good, if not great, answers. I did like some of the questions, though. "Who is our most underrated President?" "Who was our worst President?" were among them.
Hmmm...... Carson noted John Adams as the "most underrated." Maybe; it's a good answer. I was thinking Eisenhower, a favorite of mine. But a strong case can be made for Adams, too. The recent biogs of Adams, by Jos. Ellis and David McCulloch, have offered much evidence that Adams was much better than our textbooks/teachers often portray. "Worst President?" Carson opted not to answer, although it seemed clear he was thinking Obama. Maybe he wasn't, but it sure seemed like he was. I think I'd go for Buchanan or A. Johnson. "Worst" might or might not have been entirely their own faults, but, still, they weren't very good at all.
People likely know I think the US is not doing very well right now. I don't believe a lot of the statistics thrown at us by the government ("Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" said Mark Twain.) about, say the economy and crime. I am not at all encouraged by our current state of morality (or should it be immorality?). Education is in a shambles, with too many people who shouldn't be making decisions making decisions. These include politicians and corporate-types. (Of course, that's how we got into this mess, with pols and corp-types make decisions. Too many others, so-called educators, were making decisions and they shouldn't have been allowed to make decisions. And, too, far too many teachers/educators just sat on their hands, letting bad things happen or not making good things happen.) Aren't we at the lowest percentage of Americans in the work force in 40+ years? I'm not sure if that's by choice (retirement), outsourcing, the lousy economy, or frustration with the job market. I haven't checked the CPI, but it sure seems to me that, other than gasoline, prices are going up, fast! My groceries cost a lot more than they did last year. (I was trying to remember the last time I bought hamburger/ground chunk--yes, chunk!--since it goes on sale at $3.50 a pound around here.) The country is as divided as ever, well, at least in the past 100 or so years it seems. I understand the polarization, which I think stems from frustration, esp from politicians and a government that don't work very well.
But how do we turn things around? I'm not sure we can. How do we reverse the sense of entitlement, in individuals and in corporations? How do we restore a sense of dignity for life? We cavalierly kill our babies or shoot others (drive-bys, road rage, for someone's clothes, because of "dissing," etc.). How do we restore respect for authority? Those at the top, including our political "leaders," seemingly routinely act illegally (How's that? Three "ly" words out of four!). The police are under siege. We glorify the shootings of thugs (certainly not their lives, I hope!), yet abortions are "ho-hum." How do we fix education/learning? With the current god, "Technology," and myriad companies making a lot of money off "reforms," can it be fixed? (I have used this before, but esp in light of "Technology," how much easier can we make it before it can't be called a college degree any longer?)
I just finished reading an article about "How and Why to Teach History," but that's enough for now. My comments on it will come later this weekend maybe. Or maybe I'll just stay outside and look for the Orionid meteors.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Several Quick Musings
The headline on the Web page, "Legendary Actress Dies." It was Joan Leslie. Who? The "legendary actress." Sometimes I don't quite understand our use of words.
On my drive home from running with my blind buddy, I found that radio station that carries "Joshua's Highway," with two or three black ministers as hosts. Today, in the short time I listened, they questioned black Americans' "obsession" with being African American. "What do they know about Africa and being African?," one asked. I have this aversion to hyphenated-Americans. I am, plain and simple, an American, not an Italian-American or a German-American or an Austrian-American. I guess I don't like the implied division of the term(s). I do enjoy and relish our ethnic differences, within the realm of assimilation of American culture.
These ministers also asked, "Why, if the United States is so racist, so bigoted, so prejudiced, why do these people come over here, legally and illegally?" One continued, "I'd like to ask one of them, 'Why do you come to America?'"
In a fit of nostalgia, I remembered as a kid taking "drives" in the car with my family on Sunday afternoons. The drives weren't every week, but every so often. I don't remember disliking them, but looking forward to them, esp when we'd stop for a Dairy Queen cone. Occasionally my dad would let me get my cone dipped; I always got the red dipping (cherry?). We didn't get ice cream very often, rarely from the grocery store. If my dad was paid cash for one of the basketball or baseball games he officiated, once in a blue moon he'd stop and get us milkshakes from a dairy called "Westwoods." Ooh, they were good! Sometimes, on our bikes, we guys would find construction sites and, for the empty/returnable bottles (deposits), we'd go to the store for the workers. With the leftover deposit money, we'd get a nickel bar from the Good Humor man/truck. No complaints. We didn't know we didn't have much money. None of my buddies did. We just lived and had fun, a great childhood to have.
It was always fun to play football in the street. When a car would come by, someone would yell, "Times, car!" Because there was a Detroit Times daily newspaper, someone would jokingly add, "News, car! Free Press, car! Polish Daily......" OK, I guess one had to be there. And it was great to be a receiver and run the defender down the street, doing an out in front of a parked car. The defender couldn't cover, not unless he ran into and through the car. If the QB could throw an accurate pass and the receiver could catch it, it was an easy gain. Of course, much depended on how many cars were parked on the street. And, if Mrs. Soviak and Mrs. Rembecki were out there yelling and threatening to call the police on us! Oh, we were juvenile delinquents......
OK, out to get some of these papers/essays graded.
On my drive home from running with my blind buddy, I found that radio station that carries "Joshua's Highway," with two or three black ministers as hosts. Today, in the short time I listened, they questioned black Americans' "obsession" with being African American. "What do they know about Africa and being African?," one asked. I have this aversion to hyphenated-Americans. I am, plain and simple, an American, not an Italian-American or a German-American or an Austrian-American. I guess I don't like the implied division of the term(s). I do enjoy and relish our ethnic differences, within the realm of assimilation of American culture.
These ministers also asked, "Why, if the United States is so racist, so bigoted, so prejudiced, why do these people come over here, legally and illegally?" One continued, "I'd like to ask one of them, 'Why do you come to America?'"
In a fit of nostalgia, I remembered as a kid taking "drives" in the car with my family on Sunday afternoons. The drives weren't every week, but every so often. I don't remember disliking them, but looking forward to them, esp when we'd stop for a Dairy Queen cone. Occasionally my dad would let me get my cone dipped; I always got the red dipping (cherry?). We didn't get ice cream very often, rarely from the grocery store. If my dad was paid cash for one of the basketball or baseball games he officiated, once in a blue moon he'd stop and get us milkshakes from a dairy called "Westwoods." Ooh, they were good! Sometimes, on our bikes, we guys would find construction sites and, for the empty/returnable bottles (deposits), we'd go to the store for the workers. With the leftover deposit money, we'd get a nickel bar from the Good Humor man/truck. No complaints. We didn't know we didn't have much money. None of my buddies did. We just lived and had fun, a great childhood to have.
It was always fun to play football in the street. When a car would come by, someone would yell, "Times, car!" Because there was a Detroit Times daily newspaper, someone would jokingly add, "News, car! Free Press, car! Polish Daily......" OK, I guess one had to be there. And it was great to be a receiver and run the defender down the street, doing an out in front of a parked car. The defender couldn't cover, not unless he ran into and through the car. If the QB could throw an accurate pass and the receiver could catch it, it was an easy gain. Of course, much depended on how many cars were parked on the street. And, if Mrs. Soviak and Mrs. Rembecki were out there yelling and threatening to call the police on us! Oh, we were juvenile delinquents......
OK, out to get some of these papers/essays graded.
Friday, October 16, 2015
The Skies
This AM was pretty cool out there and not just due to the mid-30s temperatures. Venus and Jupiter were hovering near each other, pretty brightly. And, almost like dotting an i, the Angry Red Planet, Mars, was just above Jupiter. It was pretty cool to see so early in the AM.
We've had a fox or foxes around here the past few months. After 25 years or more of seeing nary a one, now I've had half a dozen sightings. I don't know if it's one or a family or where the den is. One ran between our houses, right in the open, in midafternoon about a month or so ago. Another (or the same one?), casually trotted down the adjacent street, turning right on our street, away from our house. I saw one leisurely sunning him/herself in a culvert a couple of blocks away. And, last Sunday, as Karen and I were out to bike, a fox was chowing down on a deer carcass on the main drag, two-tenths of a mile from the house. Yes, it was, as Karen noted, "Gross!" But the fox didn't run away as we passed, none too closely, though.
I'm just wondering why Congressional conservatives are referred to as "radicals," as in "one radical group of Republicans is being devoured by a more extreme radical group of Republicans." (My emphasis.) I read that somewhere recently, maybe the NY Review of Books? I'm not sure. I find it odd that Democrats are never referred to as "radicals" or "extremists," not even Bernie Sanders. And this despite the Democrat calls for free college education, free day care, free medicine, free everything. (I know and I hope everyone knows that they really aren't "free.")
I'm reading a book of essays, Exploring Lincoln, that is reinforcing my views of him. I find it reassuring, after all these years of being in a distinct minority in several views of Lincoln, to discover others reassessing. Mostly, the relevant essays focus on Lincoln and his alleged (but not true) racism, his stance on abolition, and, esp, his brilliance as a politician. I've been teaching these things for years in my classes, often running afoul of what students were taught in high school or even the same college(s) and even in some of the textbooks. Perhaps I'll expand on that over the weekend.
In class last night, I brought up this great quotation from Joseph Ellis (His Excellency) about George Washington and Washington's greatness. "Ben Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet, each and all of these prominent figures [Hey, they are all superstars and belong in the American Pantheon!] acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior...the Foundingest Father of them all." Yep......
We've had a fox or foxes around here the past few months. After 25 years or more of seeing nary a one, now I've had half a dozen sightings. I don't know if it's one or a family or where the den is. One ran between our houses, right in the open, in midafternoon about a month or so ago. Another (or the same one?), casually trotted down the adjacent street, turning right on our street, away from our house. I saw one leisurely sunning him/herself in a culvert a couple of blocks away. And, last Sunday, as Karen and I were out to bike, a fox was chowing down on a deer carcass on the main drag, two-tenths of a mile from the house. Yes, it was, as Karen noted, "Gross!" But the fox didn't run away as we passed, none too closely, though.
I'm just wondering why Congressional conservatives are referred to as "radicals," as in "one radical group of Republicans is being devoured by a more extreme radical group of Republicans." (My emphasis.) I read that somewhere recently, maybe the NY Review of Books? I'm not sure. I find it odd that Democrats are never referred to as "radicals" or "extremists," not even Bernie Sanders. And this despite the Democrat calls for free college education, free day care, free medicine, free everything. (I know and I hope everyone knows that they really aren't "free.")
I'm reading a book of essays, Exploring Lincoln, that is reinforcing my views of him. I find it reassuring, after all these years of being in a distinct minority in several views of Lincoln, to discover others reassessing. Mostly, the relevant essays focus on Lincoln and his alleged (but not true) racism, his stance on abolition, and, esp, his brilliance as a politician. I've been teaching these things for years in my classes, often running afoul of what students were taught in high school or even the same college(s) and even in some of the textbooks. Perhaps I'll expand on that over the weekend.
In class last night, I brought up this great quotation from Joseph Ellis (His Excellency) about George Washington and Washington's greatness. "Ben Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet, each and all of these prominent figures [Hey, they are all superstars and belong in the American Pantheon!] acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior...the Foundingest Father of them all." Yep......
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Wee Hours, Sun AM
And my newspaper isn't here yet!
Wes sent me along a piece that questioned, with all of these shootings going on, if drugs weren't a large part of the problem. Hmmm...... The drugs were both of the prescribed and illegal varieties. No, doubt some/many of the murders in the US are illegal drug-related. But the article suggested that perhaps society is overmedicated with prescription drugs. The solution seems to be, "Give him/her a pill!" If a kid is "smart and jumpy," he's labeled "ADD" or "AD/HD" or whatever the designations are. Are pills the answer? Is everything a "chemical imbalance" with the solution found in some prescription? I don't know, but it's worth thinking about.
And, esp for adults, are the meds used for "depression" really used for depression? That is, are some folks just unhappy because they don't have what they want or because life hasn't turned out exactly like they planned? It is reminiscent of the Rolling Stones' song of 45 or 50 years ago, "Mother's Little Helper."
My wife informed me that, again this year starting in Sept, we are paying $200 more a month for our health insurance. It isn't increased coverage, just the increased cost of the same insurance, for the same doctors, Well, actually, it's not the same insurance. We have the same coverage, but with higher co-pays and a much higher deductible. And, due to some unusual circumstances, we've had to dig into that much higher deductible. Again I ask, what happened to "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan." And, "It won't cost you a dime more." I wonder if the two US Senators from Michigan who voted for ObamaCare would like to hear about this. Nah, they surely won't. And again I ask, "Would anyone who favors this monstrosity be willing to fork over the now more than $3000 extra dollars (since 2012) we've paid to "keep your health plan?" I suppose I should feel lucky. There were folks on the radio who were claiming to be paying far, far more than we do.
I watched parts of three college football games yesterday, a rarity for me. Other than the Amherst-Middlebury game (a Webcast on the computer), I didn't really enjoy the others. I know, I know. I'll lose my membership in the Man's Club for writing that. But I was struck by one thing, how the crowd(s) really seemed to get into the games(s). I think that can be a nice release for a lot of people who might well need a release. I have noted, though, that one of the reasons that I don't care much for big-time college football (I don't like professional football either, but for somewhat different reasons.) is that the student part of "student-athlete" has all but been eliminated. And I know the number is a small, small percentage, but it seems a lot of the "student-athletes" seem to get into trouble with the law and often get bailed out because they are "student-athletes." Yep, because they are in the limelight the incidents get mega-coverage, still...... If the big-time colleges ever went back to making the big-time athletes go to class, do the work, etc., I might fall back in line. Maybe......
I have a friend who often uses the phrase, "Just askin'......" I wasn't sure what it meant, so I looked it up. Hmmm...... It's probably a good phrase, one that can introduce a controversial topic without the onus of personal criticism. Anything, well almost anything, that helps create dialogue is good.
I sent around a mass e-mail the other day dealing with Wile E. Coyote, the old nemesis of the Road Runner ("Beep! Beep!"). It seems Wile E. wasn't able to outrun the Acme truck one day last week. Out on my bike one afternoon, I came across a coyote carcass on the side of the road. He didn't make it. Coyotes? Yes, I know they are around here--I've seen several. But seeing the carcass was a bit disconcerting.
Again pursuant to a discussion I had on the run last week, Lincoln on education: "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Those in gov't today surely reflect the changes in education of the late '70s and '80s. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Has the "values clarification" movement (There were books and lessons and all......) of that earlier generation translated to the moral relativism of today--in all of society, not just politics and government? It's worth discussing morals and ethics and ideas about them. And it's sometimes good to recognize changes, that past morals and ethics were not good. But are there some standards that shouldn't be changed?
Wes sent me along a piece that questioned, with all of these shootings going on, if drugs weren't a large part of the problem. Hmmm...... The drugs were both of the prescribed and illegal varieties. No, doubt some/many of the murders in the US are illegal drug-related. But the article suggested that perhaps society is overmedicated with prescription drugs. The solution seems to be, "Give him/her a pill!" If a kid is "smart and jumpy," he's labeled "ADD" or "AD/HD" or whatever the designations are. Are pills the answer? Is everything a "chemical imbalance" with the solution found in some prescription? I don't know, but it's worth thinking about.
And, esp for adults, are the meds used for "depression" really used for depression? That is, are some folks just unhappy because they don't have what they want or because life hasn't turned out exactly like they planned? It is reminiscent of the Rolling Stones' song of 45 or 50 years ago, "Mother's Little Helper."
My wife informed me that, again this year starting in Sept, we are paying $200 more a month for our health insurance. It isn't increased coverage, just the increased cost of the same insurance, for the same doctors, Well, actually, it's not the same insurance. We have the same coverage, but with higher co-pays and a much higher deductible. And, due to some unusual circumstances, we've had to dig into that much higher deductible. Again I ask, what happened to "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan." And, "It won't cost you a dime more." I wonder if the two US Senators from Michigan who voted for ObamaCare would like to hear about this. Nah, they surely won't. And again I ask, "Would anyone who favors this monstrosity be willing to fork over the now more than $3000 extra dollars (since 2012) we've paid to "keep your health plan?" I suppose I should feel lucky. There were folks on the radio who were claiming to be paying far, far more than we do.
I watched parts of three college football games yesterday, a rarity for me. Other than the Amherst-Middlebury game (a Webcast on the computer), I didn't really enjoy the others. I know, I know. I'll lose my membership in the Man's Club for writing that. But I was struck by one thing, how the crowd(s) really seemed to get into the games(s). I think that can be a nice release for a lot of people who might well need a release. I have noted, though, that one of the reasons that I don't care much for big-time college football (I don't like professional football either, but for somewhat different reasons.) is that the student part of "student-athlete" has all but been eliminated. And I know the number is a small, small percentage, but it seems a lot of the "student-athletes" seem to get into trouble with the law and often get bailed out because they are "student-athletes." Yep, because they are in the limelight the incidents get mega-coverage, still...... If the big-time colleges ever went back to making the big-time athletes go to class, do the work, etc., I might fall back in line. Maybe......
I have a friend who often uses the phrase, "Just askin'......" I wasn't sure what it meant, so I looked it up. Hmmm...... It's probably a good phrase, one that can introduce a controversial topic without the onus of personal criticism. Anything, well almost anything, that helps create dialogue is good.
I sent around a mass e-mail the other day dealing with Wile E. Coyote, the old nemesis of the Road Runner ("Beep! Beep!"). It seems Wile E. wasn't able to outrun the Acme truck one day last week. Out on my bike one afternoon, I came across a coyote carcass on the side of the road. He didn't make it. Coyotes? Yes, I know they are around here--I've seen several. But seeing the carcass was a bit disconcerting.
Again pursuant to a discussion I had on the run last week, Lincoln on education: "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." Those in gov't today surely reflect the changes in education of the late '70s and '80s. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Has the "values clarification" movement (There were books and lessons and all......) of that earlier generation translated to the moral relativism of today--in all of society, not just politics and government? It's worth discussing morals and ethics and ideas about them. And it's sometimes good to recognize changes, that past morals and ethics were not good. But are there some standards that shouldn't be changed?
Friday, October 9, 2015
The Latest Shooting Massacre
Let me preface today's blog with a comment, that I hope Grant sees. I appreciate his comments, all of them. Thanks, Grant. I know you are out there keeping me on my toes! One of the things about Lincoln that I admire is that he was willing to listen to others and, if necessary, to change his mind or, at least (as you well put it) "to clarify my thinking......" And, the older I get, the more I realize what I don't know!
If I heard correctly, Hillary Clinton sounded off on the Oregon community college shooting. (Yes, the shootings at any of the schools, esp, are close to home.) All people, politicians included (And wasn't that nice of me to include politicians among people?), should be alarmed, outraged, etc. So, that Clinton sounds off, good for her.
I think, though, that she is off base. First, again if I heard correctly, Oregon has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US. No, I don't own a gun and, in fact, haven't fired one in maybe 45 years. I just wonder what stricter laws are going to do to protect us. Maybe they will, but somehow I doubt it. Perhaps Clinton and others calling for them can explain to us.
I believe, too, she wants to hold gun manufacturers more accountable. Huh? So, someone goes on a rampage or just one shoots another (In Detroit, this AM, two more murders were reported, including one of a man found just shot dead in the middle of the street on the West Side, not too far from where I grew up.), the gun manufacturer is to be held accountable? What if the gun that was used was stolen from another person, who legally owned it? And I may be off base myself here, but I can't help but thinking video games (and to a lesser extent television and movies) are also culpable. I wonder
If I heard correctly, Hillary Clinton sounded off on the Oregon community college shooting. (Yes, the shootings at any of the schools, esp, are close to home.) All people, politicians included (And wasn't that nice of me to include politicians among people?), should be alarmed, outraged, etc. So, that Clinton sounds off, good for her.
I think, though, that she is off base. First, again if I heard correctly, Oregon has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the US. No, I don't own a gun and, in fact, haven't fired one in maybe 45 years. I just wonder what stricter laws are going to do to protect us. Maybe they will, but somehow I doubt it. Perhaps Clinton and others calling for them can explain to us.
I believe, too, she wants to hold gun manufacturers more accountable. Huh? So, someone goes on a rampage or just one shoots another (In Detroit, this AM, two more murders were reported, including one of a man found just shot dead in the middle of the street on the West Side, not too far from where I grew up.), the gun manufacturer is to be held accountable? What if the gun that was used was stolen from another person, who legally owned it? And I may be off base myself here, but I can't help but thinking video games (and to a lesser extent television and movies) are also culpable. I wonder
Fri Musings
I have a few minutes before picking up the kids from school--add "School Bus Driver" to my resume!
I laughed, but not too hard, the other day listening to a local radio talk show host berate a called for "not even knowing the history of your own city!" Of course, the caller's "own city" is Detroit. The host proceeded to name a litany of significant names, including "Richard Gabriel, the Catholic priest." I almost drove off the road! Of course, it's "Gabriel Richard," the French priest. But here this host was critical of his caller and then blurted out "Richard Gabriel," English pronunciation and all.
A week or so ago a Detroit News editorial hoped that "voters will come to their senses." The writer was citing Trump's lead in the polls. I also hope "voters will come to their senses," but far differently than this editor. I hope voters will stop voting for what Lee Iacocca called "Bozos" for political office. This includes Democrats and Establishment Republicans alike. Of course, the News has endorsed numerous "Bozos," Democrats (Yes, it has. Gary Peters for one?!?!?!) and Establishment Republicans alike. This places the News firmly in the ranks of the Establishment, of course. Who was it who first said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?"
If this is remotely true, talk about big government, about bureaucracy run amok! I read that the US Dept of Education has more than 4600 employees who make (Whew! I almost wrote "earn!") average salaries of almost $140,000! Can that be so? Since the Dept of Ed was created, hasn't education in this country seriously declined? (Again, recall, I'm not a big fan of the education establishment, including many teachers and administrators.) Still...... By the way, in seeking to confirm those numbers, I discovered that there are "more than 2000" US federal agencies. There is no actual figure and US gov't sources have different numbers. How's that for saying, "Hey, do you think government is a bit too big?"
It was, in a large sense, distressing to hear some Iowa reporters quizzing Iowa caucus voters about Ben Carson. I'm not endorsing (Ha, as if anyone wants my endorsement; it might be the kiss of death!) him; it's far too early, 13 months before the Presidential election. But the simple aim of the questions seemed to be, "Is Ben Carson too smart to be President?" "Is he too nice to be President?" and the like. And isn't that telling? Are the jerks and worse in politics so bad that being "too nice" is a detriment, a quality that would disqualify a candidate?
BTW, any Trump supporters who think he's out there representing the little guy, might want to do some research on, say, his view and his history on eminent domain. Just do the research......
I laughed, but not too hard, the other day listening to a local radio talk show host berate a called for "not even knowing the history of your own city!" Of course, the caller's "own city" is Detroit. The host proceeded to name a litany of significant names, including "Richard Gabriel, the Catholic priest." I almost drove off the road! Of course, it's "Gabriel Richard," the French priest. But here this host was critical of his caller and then blurted out "Richard Gabriel," English pronunciation and all.
A week or so ago a Detroit News editorial hoped that "voters will come to their senses." The writer was citing Trump's lead in the polls. I also hope "voters will come to their senses," but far differently than this editor. I hope voters will stop voting for what Lee Iacocca called "Bozos" for political office. This includes Democrats and Establishment Republicans alike. Of course, the News has endorsed numerous "Bozos," Democrats (Yes, it has. Gary Peters for one?!?!?!) and Establishment Republicans alike. This places the News firmly in the ranks of the Establishment, of course. Who was it who first said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?"
If this is remotely true, talk about big government, about bureaucracy run amok! I read that the US Dept of Education has more than 4600 employees who make (Whew! I almost wrote "earn!") average salaries of almost $140,000! Can that be so? Since the Dept of Ed was created, hasn't education in this country seriously declined? (Again, recall, I'm not a big fan of the education establishment, including many teachers and administrators.) Still...... By the way, in seeking to confirm those numbers, I discovered that there are "more than 2000" US federal agencies. There is no actual figure and US gov't sources have different numbers. How's that for saying, "Hey, do you think government is a bit too big?"
It was, in a large sense, distressing to hear some Iowa reporters quizzing Iowa caucus voters about Ben Carson. I'm not endorsing (Ha, as if anyone wants my endorsement; it might be the kiss of death!) him; it's far too early, 13 months before the Presidential election. But the simple aim of the questions seemed to be, "Is Ben Carson too smart to be President?" "Is he too nice to be President?" and the like. And isn't that telling? Are the jerks and worse in politics so bad that being "too nice" is a detriment, a quality that would disqualify a candidate?
BTW, any Trump supporters who think he's out there representing the little guy, might want to do some research on, say, his view and his history on eminent domain. Just do the research......
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Interesting......
On my ride home from running with my blind buddy, I happened upon a radio talk show called, "Joshua's Highway." (I think that was it.) It identified itself as coming from "the black conservative perspective."
I was shocked to hear one of the hosts refer to Obama as "that Muslim imam." As if to emphasize that, the other host added, "I can't disagree with that." Wow! I don't believe Obama is a Muslim, although he is quite familiar with the faith. But, in a sense, so am I. That doesn't make me a Muslim nor does knowing a lot about Hitler and his followers make me a Nazi. Still, that this came from the hosts on this radio show was a shocker.
There was also, a bit later (It's a long ride from my blind buddy's, about an hour.), a pretty good debate with a caller about religion's place in the US, namely in the gov't. Both "debaters" were knowledgeable about Scripture and history (to an extent), they were hampered, I think, by their ideological positions. But it was worth listening, esp in comparison to the nasty music (supposedly "music," although I thought music is supposed to be mellifluous) that was being blared on other stations. Noise, incongruent noise, is what it sounded like to me.
A while back, I heard a female talk show host, whose name I don't know, gave a scathing rendition (and evaluation?) of the music of the '90s, perhaps the rave scene. She was hilarious in her mockery and mimicking of it. And, I think it was right on the money. I still find/found a lot of that incongruent noise to be depressive, if not outright depressing. I continue to wonder if that and even some of the current music contributes to teen suicides.
The debate over the Orville Hubbard statue continues, too. It has been removed from the site of the old city hall in Dearborn. But its future home is up in the air: the new city hall? not likely. the Dearborn Historical Museum? much more likely. buried somewhere? who knows? I'm not going to argue the merits of the Hubbard administration--he was mayor of the city for, what, 36 years? He certainly did a lot of good things for the city, of course, aided by Ford Motor Company tax dollars, He was also, just as certainly, a segregationist, if not a racist--both might well have reflected the white citizens' of Dearborn views at the time.
What this does is bring up an important reason why we study history. Of course we study it to discover the good things. Obama is wrong and shows an incredible ignorance of American history when he insists the United States isn't "exceptional." There are many reasons why it is and I've shown how a number of times. But we shouldn't gloss over the bad. We should study that, too. This important part of history forces us to confront our values, past and present. We have to countenance the, shall we say, challenging aspects of American history. That, like the Confederate battle flag controversy, is why the Hubbard statue issue is important. It forces us to ask some uncomfortable questions. For instance, if we are now going to bury Hubbard, what do we do with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others? They, after all, owned slaves. There is a movement now to take Andrew Jackson's portrait off the $20 bill, in part due to his ownership of slave and in part because of his treatment of the Indians. Are Washington and Jefferson next? It's a debate worth having, at least until we eliminate all the flawed people until we get to Mother Teresa.
I was shocked to hear one of the hosts refer to Obama as "that Muslim imam." As if to emphasize that, the other host added, "I can't disagree with that." Wow! I don't believe Obama is a Muslim, although he is quite familiar with the faith. But, in a sense, so am I. That doesn't make me a Muslim nor does knowing a lot about Hitler and his followers make me a Nazi. Still, that this came from the hosts on this radio show was a shocker.
There was also, a bit later (It's a long ride from my blind buddy's, about an hour.), a pretty good debate with a caller about religion's place in the US, namely in the gov't. Both "debaters" were knowledgeable about Scripture and history (to an extent), they were hampered, I think, by their ideological positions. But it was worth listening, esp in comparison to the nasty music (supposedly "music," although I thought music is supposed to be mellifluous) that was being blared on other stations. Noise, incongruent noise, is what it sounded like to me.
A while back, I heard a female talk show host, whose name I don't know, gave a scathing rendition (and evaluation?) of the music of the '90s, perhaps the rave scene. She was hilarious in her mockery and mimicking of it. And, I think it was right on the money. I still find/found a lot of that incongruent noise to be depressive, if not outright depressing. I continue to wonder if that and even some of the current music contributes to teen suicides.
The debate over the Orville Hubbard statue continues, too. It has been removed from the site of the old city hall in Dearborn. But its future home is up in the air: the new city hall? not likely. the Dearborn Historical Museum? much more likely. buried somewhere? who knows? I'm not going to argue the merits of the Hubbard administration--he was mayor of the city for, what, 36 years? He certainly did a lot of good things for the city, of course, aided by Ford Motor Company tax dollars, He was also, just as certainly, a segregationist, if not a racist--both might well have reflected the white citizens' of Dearborn views at the time.
What this does is bring up an important reason why we study history. Of course we study it to discover the good things. Obama is wrong and shows an incredible ignorance of American history when he insists the United States isn't "exceptional." There are many reasons why it is and I've shown how a number of times. But we shouldn't gloss over the bad. We should study that, too. This important part of history forces us to confront our values, past and present. We have to countenance the, shall we say, challenging aspects of American history. That, like the Confederate battle flag controversy, is why the Hubbard statue issue is important. It forces us to ask some uncomfortable questions. For instance, if we are now going to bury Hubbard, what do we do with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others? They, after all, owned slaves. There is a movement now to take Andrew Jackson's portrait off the $20 bill, in part due to his ownership of slave and in part because of his treatment of the Indians. Are Washington and Jefferson next? It's a debate worth having, at least until we eliminate all the flawed people until we get to Mother Teresa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
