I wrote earlier this week about Flint residents still being forced to pay for the poison that was once called water. Here's another. In Washington, DC, where the weekend snow storm dropped about two and a half feet of the white stuff, drivers were ticketed and fine for being unable to move their cars. I'd imagine, with so much snow, lots of people were stuck and, with the lousy snow removal in DC, couldn't get their cars to places where they wouldn't receive tickets. Rather than cut some slack, the city began issuing tickets, more than $1 million worth of them, not to mention other "fines," whatever they could be. These don't include drivers having to pay towing costs, impoundment fees, and more. So, instead of helping the DC residents dig out, the city government decided to make money off of people's woes. Great, just great. And these are the guys, that is, government, so many of us look to in solving problems, helping us out. When will we realize that, for the most part, government doesn't care about us.
Speaking of Flint, I see another $30 million or so is being tendered to help up there. Yes, the people need all the help they can get. But the bill? So far, more than $100 million is being sent to "fix it up," as the governor said this AM on the radio. And how much was that Emergency Manager trying to save when he and other government bureaucrats switched the water system??????
What a nightmare!
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
College Mascots
OK, it seems a trivial matter, only hardly worth a big brouhaha, at least an intellectual one. But earlier this week, the Amherst College board of trustees voted to rid the college of its mascot/nickname, "Lord Jeffs." In a way, it's quite comical. The board felt compelled to officially banish what has always been an unofficial mascot/nickname.
But I think it has a bit more meaning than that, more than one of my classmates insinuated, "a diversion" from confronting more significant issues. It seems as if the student body (and the faculty) have reflected a growing sense, almost a requirement, that people have to "do something." If we are not "doing something," we are part of the problem.
That's misguided. I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial, some years back, in the midst of the ObamaCare debate in Congress. Critical of some ObamaCare supporters claiming, "We have to do something," the editorial turned around an old saying, urging Congress to "Just stand there; don't do something." It seems to me that, "just standing there.....," would have been a wiser and more prudent thing to do than what Congress did.
It reminds me of the old joke about a drowning man. Hearing his pleas for help, a doo-gooder (and I do mean "doo") who wanted to "do something," found a life ring and rope. The doo-gooder tossed them to the foundering (as opposed to floundering) man. When certain the non-swimmer had the life ring, the doo-gooder let go of his end of the rope and moved on to doo another good deed (that is, to "do something.")
I wrote about this some months back, when the "Lord Jeff" controversy broke. OK, I'm an old fogy and nostalgically look back at my experiences as a "Lord Jeff." I admit it. But I really think there's been a misguided (I hope I'm not overusing that word.) reading of history. Again I ask, what if there was a letter from Lord Jeffery Amherst that proposed using cannons and muskets against the Indians in the war against them? Would that letter have been better than the one found where he approved of giving smallpox-infected blankets to them? Could we have kept the mascot/nickname then? And how do these professors, esp in history, and students feel about Abraham Lincoln? After all, he approved and encouraged the total war, even against the civilian population in the South, tactics and strategies of US Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Oh, those tactics/strategies won the Civil War, in fact, shortened it. And we could go on and on.
The argument that Jeffery Amherst and "Lord Jeffs" are "ours" rings hollow. Is Amherst College a bigger item than, say, the United States of America? Isn't the US "ours," too? Then, where are the "83%" who are demanding we rename, eliminate, etc. much of the US which reflects people who they don't like or whose activities they don't like? Yes, I can, but won't, list a good number of current personalities.
I think "doing something" has taken precedence over more reasoned thought and reactions. After all, one student, likely reflecting most of the 83% who voted to have the trustees remove "Lord Jeffs," said, "If the mascot makes any of us feel uncomfortable, then let's just do away with it." There we go again, feeling "uncomfortable." All these "microaggressions." No "safe spaces." What's a college education coming to these days?
Of the "outrage" some students and faculty have expressed, at the racism of the "Lord Jeff" mascot and nickname, I find it very selective outrage. No doubt, there have been some heavy donors to the college who have sordid background and activities, too. Now, are the students and faculty going to demand that those monies donated be returned? That buildings constructed with those monies also be torn down?
Do these students feel "entitled" to dictate to the college, that is, through its board of trustees and a compliant administration? After all, is Amherst College theirs, theirs any more than it is mine (and the other alumni)? And if they can dictate this, what's next? Is demanding to pick the college's teachers (other than choosing them by choosing this course or that) out of the realm of the future?
But I think it has a bit more meaning than that, more than one of my classmates insinuated, "a diversion" from confronting more significant issues. It seems as if the student body (and the faculty) have reflected a growing sense, almost a requirement, that people have to "do something." If we are not "doing something," we are part of the problem.
That's misguided. I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial, some years back, in the midst of the ObamaCare debate in Congress. Critical of some ObamaCare supporters claiming, "We have to do something," the editorial turned around an old saying, urging Congress to "Just stand there; don't do something." It seems to me that, "just standing there.....," would have been a wiser and more prudent thing to do than what Congress did.
It reminds me of the old joke about a drowning man. Hearing his pleas for help, a doo-gooder (and I do mean "doo") who wanted to "do something," found a life ring and rope. The doo-gooder tossed them to the foundering (as opposed to floundering) man. When certain the non-swimmer had the life ring, the doo-gooder let go of his end of the rope and moved on to doo another good deed (that is, to "do something.")
I wrote about this some months back, when the "Lord Jeff" controversy broke. OK, I'm an old fogy and nostalgically look back at my experiences as a "Lord Jeff." I admit it. But I really think there's been a misguided (I hope I'm not overusing that word.) reading of history. Again I ask, what if there was a letter from Lord Jeffery Amherst that proposed using cannons and muskets against the Indians in the war against them? Would that letter have been better than the one found where he approved of giving smallpox-infected blankets to them? Could we have kept the mascot/nickname then? And how do these professors, esp in history, and students feel about Abraham Lincoln? After all, he approved and encouraged the total war, even against the civilian population in the South, tactics and strategies of US Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Oh, those tactics/strategies won the Civil War, in fact, shortened it. And we could go on and on.
The argument that Jeffery Amherst and "Lord Jeffs" are "ours" rings hollow. Is Amherst College a bigger item than, say, the United States of America? Isn't the US "ours," too? Then, where are the "83%" who are demanding we rename, eliminate, etc. much of the US which reflects people who they don't like or whose activities they don't like? Yes, I can, but won't, list a good number of current personalities.
I think "doing something" has taken precedence over more reasoned thought and reactions. After all, one student, likely reflecting most of the 83% who voted to have the trustees remove "Lord Jeffs," said, "If the mascot makes any of us feel uncomfortable, then let's just do away with it." There we go again, feeling "uncomfortable." All these "microaggressions." No "safe spaces." What's a college education coming to these days?
Of the "outrage" some students and faculty have expressed, at the racism of the "Lord Jeff" mascot and nickname, I find it very selective outrage. No doubt, there have been some heavy donors to the college who have sordid background and activities, too. Now, are the students and faculty going to demand that those monies donated be returned? That buildings constructed with those monies also be torn down?
Do these students feel "entitled" to dictate to the college, that is, through its board of trustees and a compliant administration? After all, is Amherst College theirs, theirs any more than it is mine (and the other alumni)? And if they can dictate this, what's next? Is demanding to pick the college's teachers (other than choosing them by choosing this course or that) out of the realm of the future?
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Let's Make Them Continue to Pay for Poison!
Talk about arrogance and a lack of responsiveness to the citizens it's supposed to serve! You no doubt have heard that Flint residents were (and maybe still are?) billed for the nasty water they were given. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be hilarious. "Here. Pay for the poison we've been serving you!"
I keep hearing from the politicians and their lackeys in the LameStream media how the economy has bounced back. Maybe it is. Maybe because gasoline is so low in price people believe it. I don't. First, government has been built on a foundation of lies and deceit for a long time. Second, other than gas, are any other prices lowering? Check strawberries? milk? eggs? meat? Third, a major dept store chain just announced layoffs numbering in the thousands and the other day Sprint did the same. No doubt some folks, many folks, are doing better. But my guess is we aren't hearing about those who aren't doing so well--working fewer hours, if back at work at all, and for less pay. Toss in those who might be treading water as far as pay goes, but are paying more in taxes (and I include the ObamaCare increases in health insurance premiums as taxes). Does anybody really believe the gov'ts statistics on employment/unemployment, with its manipulation of the figures?
I remember, coming home from Amherst one summer, having a discussion with one of my high school teachers. It was a civil, although contentious, talk. It had to do with government, specifically trust in government. I had written, from Massachusetts, an op-ed that was published in the local newspaper. It was critical of our role in Vietnam. My teacher had read it and wanted to talk to me about it. He insisted that the government, that is, the President, (and I have forgotten if it was with Johnson or Nixon, but it applies to both) knew more than we did and we should trust it/him because it/he knew more. I guessed that he never ever thought that our government leaders would lie to us, brazenly lie to us--as both Johnson, Nixon, their Cabinet members, and our military leaders did again and again. I think that is the attraction of Trump. People, at least a growing number of them, don't trust our government and its leaders. They sense the deceit, deception, and lying. They are frustrated, angry, and fed up. Again, I don't think it's trump, not at all. History repeating itself?
Some interesting letters and op-eds in the newspaper yesterday, unusual for a Monday. One, rightly, criticized the state lawmakers and governor, as well as the Detroit News, for calling for the heads of the teachers in Detroit who staged the sick-outs. Oh, the governor and legislators are so concerned for the education of the kids in Detroit--but they weren't so concerned, before the sick-outs, with mice and rats, with black mold, with floors and ceiling falling apart, with assaults happening daily, etc. Nope, those things have no negative impact on learning. Shall we toss in the emergency managers who drove up the schools' deficit to record levels? Selective concern or outrage once again.
Another letter-writer said he was so proud of Obama and the auto bailouts. First, the bailouts began under W Bush--and I opposed them then. Second, once again it shows how easy it is to spend other people's money. That is, W Bush and Obama had no trouble giving our money to the auto companies and their unions. Third, the letter writer noted how profitable the auto companies now are. But I don't recall that they paid off the entire loan/bailout. In fact, don't they still owe about $16 billion? Yep, I'm so proud, too.
A third noted that maybe an emergency manager should be appointed to run the state gov't, that is, because Snyder is so fond of them. He and the state gov't have shown a great deal of ineptness--the roads, the schools, the Flint crisis, Detroit schools, and the list grows. Maybe this emergency manager could employ "best practices?"
I keep hearing from the politicians and their lackeys in the LameStream media how the economy has bounced back. Maybe it is. Maybe because gasoline is so low in price people believe it. I don't. First, government has been built on a foundation of lies and deceit for a long time. Second, other than gas, are any other prices lowering? Check strawberries? milk? eggs? meat? Third, a major dept store chain just announced layoffs numbering in the thousands and the other day Sprint did the same. No doubt some folks, many folks, are doing better. But my guess is we aren't hearing about those who aren't doing so well--working fewer hours, if back at work at all, and for less pay. Toss in those who might be treading water as far as pay goes, but are paying more in taxes (and I include the ObamaCare increases in health insurance premiums as taxes). Does anybody really believe the gov'ts statistics on employment/unemployment, with its manipulation of the figures?
I remember, coming home from Amherst one summer, having a discussion with one of my high school teachers. It was a civil, although contentious, talk. It had to do with government, specifically trust in government. I had written, from Massachusetts, an op-ed that was published in the local newspaper. It was critical of our role in Vietnam. My teacher had read it and wanted to talk to me about it. He insisted that the government, that is, the President, (and I have forgotten if it was with Johnson or Nixon, but it applies to both) knew more than we did and we should trust it/him because it/he knew more. I guessed that he never ever thought that our government leaders would lie to us, brazenly lie to us--as both Johnson, Nixon, their Cabinet members, and our military leaders did again and again. I think that is the attraction of Trump. People, at least a growing number of them, don't trust our government and its leaders. They sense the deceit, deception, and lying. They are frustrated, angry, and fed up. Again, I don't think it's trump, not at all. History repeating itself?
Some interesting letters and op-eds in the newspaper yesterday, unusual for a Monday. One, rightly, criticized the state lawmakers and governor, as well as the Detroit News, for calling for the heads of the teachers in Detroit who staged the sick-outs. Oh, the governor and legislators are so concerned for the education of the kids in Detroit--but they weren't so concerned, before the sick-outs, with mice and rats, with black mold, with floors and ceiling falling apart, with assaults happening daily, etc. Nope, those things have no negative impact on learning. Shall we toss in the emergency managers who drove up the schools' deficit to record levels? Selective concern or outrage once again.
Another letter-writer said he was so proud of Obama and the auto bailouts. First, the bailouts began under W Bush--and I opposed them then. Second, once again it shows how easy it is to spend other people's money. That is, W Bush and Obama had no trouble giving our money to the auto companies and their unions. Third, the letter writer noted how profitable the auto companies now are. But I don't recall that they paid off the entire loan/bailout. In fact, don't they still owe about $16 billion? Yep, I'm so proud, too.
A third noted that maybe an emergency manager should be appointed to run the state gov't, that is, because Snyder is so fond of them. He and the state gov't have shown a great deal of ineptness--the roads, the schools, the Flint crisis, Detroit schools, and the list grows. Maybe this emergency manager could employ "best practices?"
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Getting It Right
I certainly don't expect everybody to know this, not even residents of Flint. And, it's a reasonable mistake to make. Today's Free Press, in a caption on the front page, reads, "...Flint, called Vehicle City for its historic ties to General Motors." WRONG! Flint was called "Vehicle City" long before Billy Durant started GM. Again, I don't expect many outside of Flint, and some inside, to realized this. But the Free Press should be able to get it right. I know it's a little thing, I suppose, but it's also symbolic of the current state of our LameStream media--they get a lot of things wrong, willfully or through ignorance.
BTW, Flint was so-called because of it's 19th Century thriving carriage/buggy and wagon industries. It was also nationally known for cigar box manufacturing.
A really good letter-to-the-editor in the Detroit News yesterday. The writer nailed who the real losers in the college tuition/student loan debacle are. They are the hard-working middle class students. He did note how many of the college administrators and gov't bureaucrats have referred to those middle class students as "privileged." Let's see, because the federal gov't is now the prime lender in student loans, colleges just jack up the tuition/room and board. The wealthy don't have to really worry about those increases; they have enough to pay. The lower classes don't have to worry about them either; they get the need-based scholarships. The "privileged" students of middle class parents get soaked and socked, in multiple way. First, they don't qualify for the scholarships because their parents make too much money. Yeah, right. Who are these ding-a-lings who think that paying $30,000 or more for a year of college out of middle class annual earnings of say, $64,000 doesn't qualify as "need?" (OK, I picked that salary because that's the most I ever earned as a teacher.) How many middle class families make less than that? If I recall correctly, the "middle class" is identified by incomes ranging from about $35,000 to $100,000. Now, subtract $30,000 from those incomes. Second, already cranking up tuition and room and board (not to mention the ubiquitous "fees"), the colleges also must cover the "need-based" scholarship monies. So, up goes the tuition, etc. again. And, guess who pays? Yep, those "privileged" students. Oh, they don't really pay, at least not up front. They go get the loans, now monopolized by the federal gov't. Offhand, there appears to be something wrong with this. (Yes, I'm being very sarcastic!) Again, it's the people who've done all the right things who get the raw deals. And we wonder what appeal Donald Trump has??????
Boy, an op-ed in the FP the News this AM doesn't know how to play by the rules, not at all. It's title is "Assigning blame in Flint." Doesn't this editor know that we don't assign blame any longer; we don't hold people responsible or accountable, not even when things go horribly wrong. We "just move on," "get over it," "don't point fingers," etc. Yep, how great it is that the EM appointed by the governor who led to this Flint water disaster then was appointed by the governor to be the EM of the Detroit Public Schools.
I see several state legislators have intro'd bills to punish teachers taking "sick-outs." Yep, I'm sure they are really, really concerned about the education Detroit students are receiving--or not receiving due to the sick-outs. Again I ask, where were these concerned legislators when the rats were running rampant, the black mold was growing, students and teachers were getting mugged and raped and robbed by gunpoint? Maybe we should let loose a few hundred rats in the state capitol and let these legislators work under the same conditions? And, if they miss days, punish them the same way they seek to punish the teachers engaging in sick-outs? Right. There are rules for us and rules for them.
I enjoy my weekend newspapers mostly for the crossword puzzles. I like the Sunday NY Times Crossword a lot, although it seems to have become quite a bit easier the past few years. But the Saturday Stumper is my favorite. It's harder, very difficult. Often, it includes tricky clues and answers. Sometimes I have to resort to the computer to find answers. No, that's not "cheating," not like Bill Clinton allegedly used to do. (Gee, imagine Clinton actually cheating? I know; it's hard to believe.) I look up the answers I can't get so I can learn as well as complete the puzzle. And, along the way, I learn other things, too. Clinton supposedly called the NY Times 900 number to get the answers (not researching himself) and then bragging to reporters how he finished the puzzle.
In that same Presidential vein, I read last week that Obama has told Cabinet members that "I can do your jobs [as Cabinet secretaries] better than any of you," or some variation of that. The article cited only one Cabinet/former Cabinet member for direct quotes. The others were anonymous, but confirmed and corroborated what former Sec Def Robert Gates said. Among other things, and he was being interviewed to promote his new book not what he branched off about, he said Obama always "thinks he's the smartest man in the room." I've read, over the years, the same claim. And, I wonder, "Is Obama delusional?" Would that be "self-delusional?" I know he's a narcissist, a very big one. But I have some experience with an Ivy League education and I can't for the life of me figure out how he supposedly has degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
One of my AC teammates asked last week, something I had thought after seeing the scores, how the Amherst basketball team could whup Wesleyan by 27 points in Amherst on Sat and then lose by 26 two days later on Mon in Middletown (CT). Strange indeed.
BTW, Flint was so-called because of it's 19th Century thriving carriage/buggy and wagon industries. It was also nationally known for cigar box manufacturing.
A really good letter-to-the-editor in the Detroit News yesterday. The writer nailed who the real losers in the college tuition/student loan debacle are. They are the hard-working middle class students. He did note how many of the college administrators and gov't bureaucrats have referred to those middle class students as "privileged." Let's see, because the federal gov't is now the prime lender in student loans, colleges just jack up the tuition/room and board. The wealthy don't have to really worry about those increases; they have enough to pay. The lower classes don't have to worry about them either; they get the need-based scholarships. The "privileged" students of middle class parents get soaked and socked, in multiple way. First, they don't qualify for the scholarships because their parents make too much money. Yeah, right. Who are these ding-a-lings who think that paying $30,000 or more for a year of college out of middle class annual earnings of say, $64,000 doesn't qualify as "need?" (OK, I picked that salary because that's the most I ever earned as a teacher.) How many middle class families make less than that? If I recall correctly, the "middle class" is identified by incomes ranging from about $35,000 to $100,000. Now, subtract $30,000 from those incomes. Second, already cranking up tuition and room and board (not to mention the ubiquitous "fees"), the colleges also must cover the "need-based" scholarship monies. So, up goes the tuition, etc. again. And, guess who pays? Yep, those "privileged" students. Oh, they don't really pay, at least not up front. They go get the loans, now monopolized by the federal gov't. Offhand, there appears to be something wrong with this. (Yes, I'm being very sarcastic!) Again, it's the people who've done all the right things who get the raw deals. And we wonder what appeal Donald Trump has??????
Boy, an op-ed in the FP the News this AM doesn't know how to play by the rules, not at all. It's title is "Assigning blame in Flint." Doesn't this editor know that we don't assign blame any longer; we don't hold people responsible or accountable, not even when things go horribly wrong. We "just move on," "get over it," "don't point fingers," etc. Yep, how great it is that the EM appointed by the governor who led to this Flint water disaster then was appointed by the governor to be the EM of the Detroit Public Schools.
I see several state legislators have intro'd bills to punish teachers taking "sick-outs." Yep, I'm sure they are really, really concerned about the education Detroit students are receiving--or not receiving due to the sick-outs. Again I ask, where were these concerned legislators when the rats were running rampant, the black mold was growing, students and teachers were getting mugged and raped and robbed by gunpoint? Maybe we should let loose a few hundred rats in the state capitol and let these legislators work under the same conditions? And, if they miss days, punish them the same way they seek to punish the teachers engaging in sick-outs? Right. There are rules for us and rules for them.
I enjoy my weekend newspapers mostly for the crossword puzzles. I like the Sunday NY Times Crossword a lot, although it seems to have become quite a bit easier the past few years. But the Saturday Stumper is my favorite. It's harder, very difficult. Often, it includes tricky clues and answers. Sometimes I have to resort to the computer to find answers. No, that's not "cheating," not like Bill Clinton allegedly used to do. (Gee, imagine Clinton actually cheating? I know; it's hard to believe.) I look up the answers I can't get so I can learn as well as complete the puzzle. And, along the way, I learn other things, too. Clinton supposedly called the NY Times 900 number to get the answers (not researching himself) and then bragging to reporters how he finished the puzzle.
In that same Presidential vein, I read last week that Obama has told Cabinet members that "I can do your jobs [as Cabinet secretaries] better than any of you," or some variation of that. The article cited only one Cabinet/former Cabinet member for direct quotes. The others were anonymous, but confirmed and corroborated what former Sec Def Robert Gates said. Among other things, and he was being interviewed to promote his new book not what he branched off about, he said Obama always "thinks he's the smartest man in the room." I've read, over the years, the same claim. And, I wonder, "Is Obama delusional?" Would that be "self-delusional?" I know he's a narcissist, a very big one. But I have some experience with an Ivy League education and I can't for the life of me figure out how he supposedly has degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
One of my AC teammates asked last week, something I had thought after seeing the scores, how the Amherst basketball team could whup Wesleyan by 27 points in Amherst on Sat and then lose by 26 two days later on Mon in Middletown (CT). Strange indeed.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Boycott
I, too, think I will boycott the Academy Awards. Of course, I boycott them every year. In fact, I don't do movies. I think, say in the last five years, I've seen four movies at the theater(s). I really liked Lincoln, the movie. American Sniper was worth watching. I can't remember the other two, although one had to do with Wall Street (?). I remember, after one of the two, walking out, hearing Karen tell a friend who went with us, "I'll never get him to go see another movie." And, so far, she's been right.
Out last night, some folks were talking about some black stars who will boycott the Awards because of some lack of minority nominees. That seems amiss to me.
If the Academy, that is, the members who vote on what movies to nominate and eventually win (if that's how it works), is lacking minority/black members, that's one thing. Of course, the Academy is under no legal obligation to set quotas on the make-up of its membership. At the same time, people are entitled (Ooh, I almost hesitated to use that word!) to protest, boycott, speak up, etc. to try to get the Academy to change.
On the other hand, to insist that nominees include minorities (if that's what the protest is about) is quite condescending--to the minorities. Perhaps the lack of minority nominees is a reflection of the Academy composition. I don't know, esp since I don't do movies. I heard it said that letting the actors, directors, etc. choose the Academy board is akin to letting students choose the teachers. Maybe so.
But if a boycott can bring about effective change for the better, good.
The Detroit teachers' sick-out is still in the newspapers. It's a boycott, in effect. And a lot of critics are missing the point, a big point. The teachers aren't protesting for more pay or any benefits. They are trying to draw attention to deplorable conditions that inhibit both teaching and learning. I wonder if the critics would have taken the same position back in the '50s and '60s with Martin Luther King's nonviolent protests. Maybe the analogy isn't quite the same, but maybe it is. How else to attract attention? It's obvious people weren't aware of the rotten conditions--or were they? But, if they were aware, then they weren't very concerned. Hmmm...... Where was their concern for the quality education they claim students are now missing from the sick-outs?
I'm still thinking about Prof Kateb's book, Lincoln's Political Thought. I really enjoyed it, but found it difficult to read. It wasn't that it is poorly written; it's not. There are just so many ideas to digest, often with new perspectives, that it takes some time to wade through and mull them. I'm not sure what to make of one thing, though. I disagree with Prof Kateb?????? He writes, "[Oliver Wendell] Holmes's analogy between antiwar speech in wartime and shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater is very poor and not persuasive at all; it is amazing that he ever got away with it." I don't think Holmes was making a direct analogy. His intent was merely to show that freedom of speech is not absolute, that guarantees of freedom of speech don't mean that anything and everything is protected. I don't know what to make of my disagreement. In a sense, I've thought and thought, esp since I have great respect for Prof Kateb and his views. On the other hand, I can't help but thinking I am reading Holmes right on this, more so than Prof Kateb. And, it's daunting to say the least, doubting or disagreeing with one of my former professors. I think I'm still intimidated, at least intellectually, by them. But, at the same time, perhaps it's a passage of sorts--at my age, too! Ha Ha Ha......
Out last night, some folks were talking about some black stars who will boycott the Awards because of some lack of minority nominees. That seems amiss to me.
If the Academy, that is, the members who vote on what movies to nominate and eventually win (if that's how it works), is lacking minority/black members, that's one thing. Of course, the Academy is under no legal obligation to set quotas on the make-up of its membership. At the same time, people are entitled (Ooh, I almost hesitated to use that word!) to protest, boycott, speak up, etc. to try to get the Academy to change.
On the other hand, to insist that nominees include minorities (if that's what the protest is about) is quite condescending--to the minorities. Perhaps the lack of minority nominees is a reflection of the Academy composition. I don't know, esp since I don't do movies. I heard it said that letting the actors, directors, etc. choose the Academy board is akin to letting students choose the teachers. Maybe so.
But if a boycott can bring about effective change for the better, good.
The Detroit teachers' sick-out is still in the newspapers. It's a boycott, in effect. And a lot of critics are missing the point, a big point. The teachers aren't protesting for more pay or any benefits. They are trying to draw attention to deplorable conditions that inhibit both teaching and learning. I wonder if the critics would have taken the same position back in the '50s and '60s with Martin Luther King's nonviolent protests. Maybe the analogy isn't quite the same, but maybe it is. How else to attract attention? It's obvious people weren't aware of the rotten conditions--or were they? But, if they were aware, then they weren't very concerned. Hmmm...... Where was their concern for the quality education they claim students are now missing from the sick-outs?
I'm still thinking about Prof Kateb's book, Lincoln's Political Thought. I really enjoyed it, but found it difficult to read. It wasn't that it is poorly written; it's not. There are just so many ideas to digest, often with new perspectives, that it takes some time to wade through and mull them. I'm not sure what to make of one thing, though. I disagree with Prof Kateb?????? He writes, "[Oliver Wendell] Holmes's analogy between antiwar speech in wartime and shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater is very poor and not persuasive at all; it is amazing that he ever got away with it." I don't think Holmes was making a direct analogy. His intent was merely to show that freedom of speech is not absolute, that guarantees of freedom of speech don't mean that anything and everything is protected. I don't know what to make of my disagreement. In a sense, I've thought and thought, esp since I have great respect for Prof Kateb and his views. On the other hand, I can't help but thinking I am reading Holmes right on this, more so than Prof Kateb. And, it's daunting to say the least, doubting or disagreeing with one of my former professors. I think I'm still intimidated, at least intellectually, by them. But, at the same time, perhaps it's a passage of sorts--at my age, too! Ha Ha Ha......
Friday, January 22, 2016
Playing by the Rules
I can't find the article and I don't remember if it was online, in the newspaper, or in a magazine--or even, if those, what mag or what newspaper. But it told the story of a Carolina (North or South? I don't remember that either!) who did everything the right way, the way he was taught and told to everything. He worked hard in school, earned a degree and more, picked up a good job, bought a house the right way (that is, without gov't assistance or insistence), paid for his kids' college educations, etc. Then, in the economic downturn of ten years ago, he lost his job, unable to find another one. Of course, he was also a victim of the housing fiasco, losing it, too. And, he struggles today. It's not a happy story, not one with a happy ending, at least not so far.
What struck me was that he didn't get a bailout. He got no government help. Nobody was there to give him "a safety net." He played by the rules and then was left out to hang when things went topsy turvy.
The auto companies were bailed out even though it was pretty well known in Detroit that they were making lousy products. The UAW and its members were bailed out even though they were a large part of the problem with GM, Chrysler, and even Fords. (Note their demands for ridiculously high wages and perks, including work rules. Remember, though, they didn't unilaterally get these things. Management agreed--and was bailed out.) The banks were bailed out, regardless of the sub-prime catastrophe (Let's not let government off the hook, not with its demands to give mortgages to far too many people who didn't deserve them. I know, I know... "Everybody deserves everything.") Wall Street, with all its underhanded shenanigans, was bailed out.
Obama was in town the other day at the auto show bragging about how the auto companies have rebounded, that it was the government bailouts that led the way. He omitted something. How about those on whose backs the bailouts came? How about those who paid for the bailouts? How about those who weren't bailed out? I wonder how the many suppliers who went out of business feel. I wonder how many of the bondholders who saw their investments wiped out feel. I wonder how the dealers and all of their former employees feel. I do know how this taxpayer feels, in that GM and FCA have made record sales and profits over the past year or so, but still didn't pay more than $16 billion in federal bailout loans (that is, our tax money), which have been wiped off the books.
It's like so much in this society. Good behavior goes unrewarded or even punished while bad behavior is rewarded. It's very disheartening.
The newspaper was filled yesterday and today with editorials, op-eds, and letters from readers demanding punishment for the teachers who've staged the sick-outs. Oh, they want fines and criminal charges and decertification and...... I guess these guys never read my blog. Hey, folks, these teachers aren't striking, er, sick-outing, for more pay, more benefits, nothing for themselves. They are trying to draw attention to despicable conditions in the schools in Detroit, conditions that these same editors, op-ed writers, and letter writers have apparently ignored. Maybe, though, they think trying to learn and teach with rats running around is pretty easy. Hey, maybe that's how they learned, if they did. But my guess is that's not the case, not at all. I ask, where were all these folks before the rotten conditions were exposed by the sick-outing teachers? I know where, so do you--and so do they. Gee, I wonder what they would have thought had water dept workers staged sick-outs to draw attention to the water in Flint?????? It's not as if anyone paid much attention to that at first. Ah, but I forget. It's so easy to be a teacher. (Well, it is easy to be a teacher. What's hard is to be a good teacher."
OK, I know gas prices are incredibly low. I never thought we'd see the day again when they hit $1.50 a gallon. (Of course, I remember the price wars on Telegraph Rd in the '60s, when gas could be bought for 18 or 19 cents a gallon!) But everything else seem remarkably high. I just returned from grocery shopping and prices are way up there. This is esp so with meats and much produce. I just stop buying them. Even tea bags--more than $6 for a box of Lipton tea bags and that's pretty much the same price at two different stores.
What struck me was that he didn't get a bailout. He got no government help. Nobody was there to give him "a safety net." He played by the rules and then was left out to hang when things went topsy turvy.
The auto companies were bailed out even though it was pretty well known in Detroit that they were making lousy products. The UAW and its members were bailed out even though they were a large part of the problem with GM, Chrysler, and even Fords. (Note their demands for ridiculously high wages and perks, including work rules. Remember, though, they didn't unilaterally get these things. Management agreed--and was bailed out.) The banks were bailed out, regardless of the sub-prime catastrophe (Let's not let government off the hook, not with its demands to give mortgages to far too many people who didn't deserve them. I know, I know... "Everybody deserves everything.") Wall Street, with all its underhanded shenanigans, was bailed out.
Obama was in town the other day at the auto show bragging about how the auto companies have rebounded, that it was the government bailouts that led the way. He omitted something. How about those on whose backs the bailouts came? How about those who paid for the bailouts? How about those who weren't bailed out? I wonder how the many suppliers who went out of business feel. I wonder how many of the bondholders who saw their investments wiped out feel. I wonder how the dealers and all of their former employees feel. I do know how this taxpayer feels, in that GM and FCA have made record sales and profits over the past year or so, but still didn't pay more than $16 billion in federal bailout loans (that is, our tax money), which have been wiped off the books.
It's like so much in this society. Good behavior goes unrewarded or even punished while bad behavior is rewarded. It's very disheartening.
The newspaper was filled yesterday and today with editorials, op-eds, and letters from readers demanding punishment for the teachers who've staged the sick-outs. Oh, they want fines and criminal charges and decertification and...... I guess these guys never read my blog. Hey, folks, these teachers aren't striking, er, sick-outing, for more pay, more benefits, nothing for themselves. They are trying to draw attention to despicable conditions in the schools in Detroit, conditions that these same editors, op-ed writers, and letter writers have apparently ignored. Maybe, though, they think trying to learn and teach with rats running around is pretty easy. Hey, maybe that's how they learned, if they did. But my guess is that's not the case, not at all. I ask, where were all these folks before the rotten conditions were exposed by the sick-outing teachers? I know where, so do you--and so do they. Gee, I wonder what they would have thought had water dept workers staged sick-outs to draw attention to the water in Flint?????? It's not as if anyone paid much attention to that at first. Ah, but I forget. It's so easy to be a teacher. (Well, it is easy to be a teacher. What's hard is to be a good teacher."
OK, I know gas prices are incredibly low. I never thought we'd see the day again when they hit $1.50 a gallon. (Of course, I remember the price wars on Telegraph Rd in the '60s, when gas could be bought for 18 or 19 cents a gallon!) But everything else seem remarkably high. I just returned from grocery shopping and prices are way up there. This is esp so with meats and much produce. I just stop buying them. Even tea bags--more than $6 for a box of Lipton tea bags and that's pretty much the same price at two different stores.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Lessons
There are lessons all around us, every day, if we just look for them.
For instance, take the two political parties and at least the perceptions people have of their philosophies and policies. The Democrats want to be nice, to give away things to people they deem to be the downtrodden. The Republicans want to cut spending, cutting corners if necessary. Today, we can see how both of these approaches fail.
What is it, almost 50% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance, not including Social Security, Medicare, etc? That's half of the population! And that's ridiculous. There are some people out there who need help and should get it. But half of Americans don't need it. I won't go into the many ways we can see every day where people game the system. What I am saying here is that doesn't work. People become dependent. Poverty hasn't at all been eliminated. In fact, I guess we have greater percentages of people living in poverty today than the '60s, when LBJ's vaunted Great Society started many of the give-aways. Cutting government dependence isn't hard- or cold-hearted, not at all. Guess whose policy this is??????
This is the same political side represented by some CT school administrators who want to get rid of special honors cords on student high school graduation gowns. These kooks are concerned that the students who haven't won/earned honors/honor cords will feel bad. So, instead of telling these kids to work harder, let's just take away recognition from students who have worked hard. It's another example of people who do everything right--work and study hard in school, go to college (like they've always been told), work hard at their jobs, and then get hosed to pay for programs that let those who haven't done everything right off the hook. So, as usual, we reward bad behavior and punish or at least ignore good behavior.
Look at the other side, cutting corners. To save money, balance the books, whatever it is called, the health of the citizens of Flint were sacrificed. I'm sure the pols in charge were following "best practices." And look what happened. Now, more money will have to be spent to take care of the disaster than was saved by creating it in the first place. Government isn't like a business, big or small. For politicians and bureaucrats under orders from politicians to pretend or even really believe it is is folly. There's a lot to be said for fiscal responsibility and I've ranted and railed about the waste politicians have spent for years and years. Yet, for government, unlike most businesses, the bottom line shouldn't be the only consideration.
We can't keep giving away other people's money (by extorted it from them in the name of taxes) to those we identify as needy and to pay for programs some politicians like. On the other hand, we have to recognize there are legitimate expenses government has that perhaps businesses don't have.
I have got a big kick out of some of the politicians and LameStream media-types in recent weeks and their comments about the Flint crisis. Oh, they favored this and they favored that--until this and that resulted in the crisis. Now, "Where's the accountability?" "Head must roll!" Where were these folks when cost-cutting measures led to this mess? Right...... While we're at it, let's get rid of this "best practices" garbage. Like so many trendy things, this caught on for whatever reason (It sounded good?). People just blindly followed "best practices." What the heck are "best practices?" Well, our governor who introduced "best practices" here sure showed how well it worked in Flint. (Oh, I know I am being too hard on him. After all, he did say he was "sorry" about the disaster in Flint."
This lesson comes from decades ago, the '30s. It was the time of Munich and the Panay Incident. I am reminded of this frequently with what I think is very misguided policy toward Iran. It's as if Obama, Kerry, and Clinton before him have no sense of history, not even any knowledge of it. Like Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference at the end of September 1938, they think that they alone can talk sense into a belligerent Iran, that they alone can convince it to be reasonable. After all, shortly after Munich, Chamberlain said of Hitler, "He's a reasonable man." Right. Chamberlain was an extremely arrogant man, elitist in his attitudes. He could handle Hitler and make him see the right path. Yep, that worked out just fine, didn't it? Obama, Kerry, and Clinton are just as arrogant--and I think misguided and ignorant. I guess that comes with the elitist attitudes.
And the Panay Incident saw the Japanese in 1937 attack a US naval vessel, the USS Panay, which was anchored in the Yangtze River. It flew a US flag, in daylight, but was torpedoed by Japanese fighter planes. The ship, of course, was damaged and there were casualties, wounded and dead. It was a Japanese test of US will power. How would Americans react? I'm being only somewhat facetious in saying the US pretty much accepted an apology and some money for damages. And Congress considered a Constitutional amendment that would have made it very difficult, at least much more so, to declare war. Obviously, we failed the test and we know the result--Pearl Harbor four years later. The Iranians, after we have become buddy-buddy with them, after they continue to work toward building a nuclear weapon (I know, I know, they passed their first compliance test, conducted not by independent international observers, but by the Iranians themselves. "Can I grade my own paper, please?"), after they fired a missile in the direction of one of our aircraft carriers, after they kidnapped a dozen or so US sailors (Hey, if they are our "buddies," why didn't they just turn the sailors' boats around and point them in the right direction??????), Obama and Kerry still apologize for them. Aren't the Iranians still one of the biggest sponsors of world-wide terrorism? Oh, first we get lies, from Kerry and Biden, but then videos released (which apparently show the Iranians violating the Geneva Convention?) prove the lies. And Kerry tells the world that the US "thanks" Iran for the outcome. And this isn't something new. When the sanctions (and isn't it nice that we've freed up or would free up about $150 billion for the Iranians to use for.....?) were first before the US Senate about 9 or 10 years ago, the bill failed to pass by four votes. Guess who voted against sanctions then? Good guess! Yep, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Biden.
We don't learn from history.
I heard some substitute radio host this AM; I don't know who the guy is, where he's from, etc. But he made some statements that were ignorant. Either he's ignorant of the specific situation, ignorant of the bigger picture, ignorant of teaching/learning, or just plain stupid. He was critical of the spate of teacher sick-outs in the Detroit Public Schools. Things kept coming in and out on the radio, breaking up, but it seemed he thought the sick-outs were in protest of charter schools. He was critical of teachers for not being in the classroom because, he claimed, "only 8% of eighth grade students can read at grade level." I don't know if that's true, but it's not particularly relevant, as his own argument showed. Several callers to the show adamantly agreed with him. First, the sick-outs are by teachers drawing attention to deplorable working--that is, teaching and learning--condition. He never once mentioned anything about that. Teachers aren't calling in sick to protest low pay or poor benefits and certainly not charter schools. Teachers are protesting the working--teaching and learning--conditions. They are protesting because they care about teaching and learning. I would love to ask this guy on the radio how he'd like to do his broadcast with rats running past his microphone in the studio. After all, with the photos and videos going around here in the newspapers, etc., there are plenty of rat, not mouse, but rat traps. That seems to suggest rats are aplenty, doesn't it? With the situation in Flint, how about all the photos and videos of open black mold in the schools? Does he know of the violence being perpetrated in the schools against teachers and students, with security people being cut? So, maybe learning ("only 8%") and teaching aren't so easy? Maybe he should see how easy broadcasting is with rats running all over, with black mold staring him in the face, with the good chance that someone was going to rush into his studio to commit violence?????? I guess he has never considered how many of these kids live with people other than their mothers and fathers or with just mothers. Likely, too, he's never thought about these kids who often wonder where dinner is going to come from and know that a walk to school is a lot more complicated than a simple walk to school. There are times for people to be critics. There are reasons for people to be critical. But being critical in a position of ignorance doesn't cut it, although to many of the listeners it must sound good.
For instance, take the two political parties and at least the perceptions people have of their philosophies and policies. The Democrats want to be nice, to give away things to people they deem to be the downtrodden. The Republicans want to cut spending, cutting corners if necessary. Today, we can see how both of these approaches fail.
What is it, almost 50% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance, not including Social Security, Medicare, etc? That's half of the population! And that's ridiculous. There are some people out there who need help and should get it. But half of Americans don't need it. I won't go into the many ways we can see every day where people game the system. What I am saying here is that doesn't work. People become dependent. Poverty hasn't at all been eliminated. In fact, I guess we have greater percentages of people living in poverty today than the '60s, when LBJ's vaunted Great Society started many of the give-aways. Cutting government dependence isn't hard- or cold-hearted, not at all. Guess whose policy this is??????
This is the same political side represented by some CT school administrators who want to get rid of special honors cords on student high school graduation gowns. These kooks are concerned that the students who haven't won/earned honors/honor cords will feel bad. So, instead of telling these kids to work harder, let's just take away recognition from students who have worked hard. It's another example of people who do everything right--work and study hard in school, go to college (like they've always been told), work hard at their jobs, and then get hosed to pay for programs that let those who haven't done everything right off the hook. So, as usual, we reward bad behavior and punish or at least ignore good behavior.
Look at the other side, cutting corners. To save money, balance the books, whatever it is called, the health of the citizens of Flint were sacrificed. I'm sure the pols in charge were following "best practices." And look what happened. Now, more money will have to be spent to take care of the disaster than was saved by creating it in the first place. Government isn't like a business, big or small. For politicians and bureaucrats under orders from politicians to pretend or even really believe it is is folly. There's a lot to be said for fiscal responsibility and I've ranted and railed about the waste politicians have spent for years and years. Yet, for government, unlike most businesses, the bottom line shouldn't be the only consideration.
We can't keep giving away other people's money (by extorted it from them in the name of taxes) to those we identify as needy and to pay for programs some politicians like. On the other hand, we have to recognize there are legitimate expenses government has that perhaps businesses don't have.
I have got a big kick out of some of the politicians and LameStream media-types in recent weeks and their comments about the Flint crisis. Oh, they favored this and they favored that--until this and that resulted in the crisis. Now, "Where's the accountability?" "Head must roll!" Where were these folks when cost-cutting measures led to this mess? Right...... While we're at it, let's get rid of this "best practices" garbage. Like so many trendy things, this caught on for whatever reason (It sounded good?). People just blindly followed "best practices." What the heck are "best practices?" Well, our governor who introduced "best practices" here sure showed how well it worked in Flint. (Oh, I know I am being too hard on him. After all, he did say he was "sorry" about the disaster in Flint."
This lesson comes from decades ago, the '30s. It was the time of Munich and the Panay Incident. I am reminded of this frequently with what I think is very misguided policy toward Iran. It's as if Obama, Kerry, and Clinton before him have no sense of history, not even any knowledge of it. Like Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference at the end of September 1938, they think that they alone can talk sense into a belligerent Iran, that they alone can convince it to be reasonable. After all, shortly after Munich, Chamberlain said of Hitler, "He's a reasonable man." Right. Chamberlain was an extremely arrogant man, elitist in his attitudes. He could handle Hitler and make him see the right path. Yep, that worked out just fine, didn't it? Obama, Kerry, and Clinton are just as arrogant--and I think misguided and ignorant. I guess that comes with the elitist attitudes.
And the Panay Incident saw the Japanese in 1937 attack a US naval vessel, the USS Panay, which was anchored in the Yangtze River. It flew a US flag, in daylight, but was torpedoed by Japanese fighter planes. The ship, of course, was damaged and there were casualties, wounded and dead. It was a Japanese test of US will power. How would Americans react? I'm being only somewhat facetious in saying the US pretty much accepted an apology and some money for damages. And Congress considered a Constitutional amendment that would have made it very difficult, at least much more so, to declare war. Obviously, we failed the test and we know the result--Pearl Harbor four years later. The Iranians, after we have become buddy-buddy with them, after they continue to work toward building a nuclear weapon (I know, I know, they passed their first compliance test, conducted not by independent international observers, but by the Iranians themselves. "Can I grade my own paper, please?"), after they fired a missile in the direction of one of our aircraft carriers, after they kidnapped a dozen or so US sailors (Hey, if they are our "buddies," why didn't they just turn the sailors' boats around and point them in the right direction??????), Obama and Kerry still apologize for them. Aren't the Iranians still one of the biggest sponsors of world-wide terrorism? Oh, first we get lies, from Kerry and Biden, but then videos released (which apparently show the Iranians violating the Geneva Convention?) prove the lies. And Kerry tells the world that the US "thanks" Iran for the outcome. And this isn't something new. When the sanctions (and isn't it nice that we've freed up or would free up about $150 billion for the Iranians to use for.....?) were first before the US Senate about 9 or 10 years ago, the bill failed to pass by four votes. Guess who voted against sanctions then? Good guess! Yep, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Biden.
We don't learn from history.
I heard some substitute radio host this AM; I don't know who the guy is, where he's from, etc. But he made some statements that were ignorant. Either he's ignorant of the specific situation, ignorant of the bigger picture, ignorant of teaching/learning, or just plain stupid. He was critical of the spate of teacher sick-outs in the Detroit Public Schools. Things kept coming in and out on the radio, breaking up, but it seemed he thought the sick-outs were in protest of charter schools. He was critical of teachers for not being in the classroom because, he claimed, "only 8% of eighth grade students can read at grade level." I don't know if that's true, but it's not particularly relevant, as his own argument showed. Several callers to the show adamantly agreed with him. First, the sick-outs are by teachers drawing attention to deplorable working--that is, teaching and learning--condition. He never once mentioned anything about that. Teachers aren't calling in sick to protest low pay or poor benefits and certainly not charter schools. Teachers are protesting the working--teaching and learning--conditions. They are protesting because they care about teaching and learning. I would love to ask this guy on the radio how he'd like to do his broadcast with rats running past his microphone in the studio. After all, with the photos and videos going around here in the newspapers, etc., there are plenty of rat, not mouse, but rat traps. That seems to suggest rats are aplenty, doesn't it? With the situation in Flint, how about all the photos and videos of open black mold in the schools? Does he know of the violence being perpetrated in the schools against teachers and students, with security people being cut? So, maybe learning ("only 8%") and teaching aren't so easy? Maybe he should see how easy broadcasting is with rats running all over, with black mold staring him in the face, with the good chance that someone was going to rush into his studio to commit violence?????? I guess he has never considered how many of these kids live with people other than their mothers and fathers or with just mothers. Likely, too, he's never thought about these kids who often wonder where dinner is going to come from and know that a walk to school is a lot more complicated than a simple walk to school. There are times for people to be critics. There are reasons for people to be critical. But being critical in a position of ignorance doesn't cut it, although to many of the listeners it must sound good.
A Pardon?
I've heard rumors of it before, but an article I read this AM really drove home the possibility. If Clinton is indicted over the e-mail scandal, as more and more seems likely (although I'll believe it when I see it; will the Democrats really eat one of their own?), will Obama grant her a pardon? Of course, he's well within his Presidential powers to do so. There's the precedent of President Ford pardoning Nixon. But, the prospect of an Obama pardon for Clinton is distressing.
The e-mail scandal may or may not be anything big; I'm not sure. Clinton has gotten away with other things in her past. I have no doubts that had you or I done what she has done we'd have spent time in the slammer. So she lost her license to practice law for lying under oath? Big deal! What has that cost her? Who brings it up? Who ever remembers it? And, I suppose, I could offer a laundairy [sic] list of other things, but I won't. Again, maybe it's no big deal.
I think the comparison with Nixon is different. We were coming off of a turbulent '60s, a disastrous Viet Nam War, more and more exposure to lies that had come out of not just the Nixon administration, but Johnson's, too, and more. The country was reeling. Did we really need an impeachment trial or, worse, a criminal trial of a former President? I know President Ford was roundly criticized for the pardon. I thought it was wrong. It likely cost him the election in '76. But, knowing what I know now and rethinking, I was wrong. President Ford, a good man, did the right thing. He realized it and I didn't.
More important, what effect will this have on an increasing percentage of the citizenry already disillusioned with the government (esp at the federal and state levels) and politicians in general? How will people who have clung to the candidacy of Donald Trump react? Many people, including me, firmly believe we now have a system that is soundly based on a foundation of deceit, dishonesty, and outright lying. We think there is little help coming, too, not from either political party, opposition or otherwise, not from the supposed watchdog, the LameStream media, who have become Establishment lapdogs. The thought of a pardon, if an indictment is even forthcoming, is very distressing, esp in light of the current workings.
I heard a state gov't official yesterday say something that was also distressing. In discussing the Flint water crisis, I'm pretty sure he said, "Let's just move on and get this thing fixed." Yes, "get this thing fixed." I've blogged about this before, esp the travesty of the appointment of unelected emergency managers. But this time it wasn't just the Flint water crisis. It was the "let's just move on......" That's become a code phrase, one to avoid responsibility and/or accountability. No, let's not just move on! How many times did I hear this when working in the schools? If it wasn't "Let's just move on," it was something like, "Let's not point fingers" or "Let's not cast blame." Wrong! Let's point fingers! Let's cast blame! Let's not just move on! We need to know who messed up, who was responsible. How can we maintain any sense of accountability if we don't identify those responsible? How do we prevent the same bozos from getting positions to mess up again if we don't identify them? We're inundated with these code words and phrases, "Misspeaking" or "misstating" instead of lying. "Let's just move on." No, I'm tired of them. I wish people, good people, would start holding others responsible and accountable. I'm not holding my breath.
The e-mail scandal may or may not be anything big; I'm not sure. Clinton has gotten away with other things in her past. I have no doubts that had you or I done what she has done we'd have spent time in the slammer. So she lost her license to practice law for lying under oath? Big deal! What has that cost her? Who brings it up? Who ever remembers it? And, I suppose, I could offer a laundairy [sic] list of other things, but I won't. Again, maybe it's no big deal.
I think the comparison with Nixon is different. We were coming off of a turbulent '60s, a disastrous Viet Nam War, more and more exposure to lies that had come out of not just the Nixon administration, but Johnson's, too, and more. The country was reeling. Did we really need an impeachment trial or, worse, a criminal trial of a former President? I know President Ford was roundly criticized for the pardon. I thought it was wrong. It likely cost him the election in '76. But, knowing what I know now and rethinking, I was wrong. President Ford, a good man, did the right thing. He realized it and I didn't.
More important, what effect will this have on an increasing percentage of the citizenry already disillusioned with the government (esp at the federal and state levels) and politicians in general? How will people who have clung to the candidacy of Donald Trump react? Many people, including me, firmly believe we now have a system that is soundly based on a foundation of deceit, dishonesty, and outright lying. We think there is little help coming, too, not from either political party, opposition or otherwise, not from the supposed watchdog, the LameStream media, who have become Establishment lapdogs. The thought of a pardon, if an indictment is even forthcoming, is very distressing, esp in light of the current workings.
I heard a state gov't official yesterday say something that was also distressing. In discussing the Flint water crisis, I'm pretty sure he said, "Let's just move on and get this thing fixed." Yes, "get this thing fixed." I've blogged about this before, esp the travesty of the appointment of unelected emergency managers. But this time it wasn't just the Flint water crisis. It was the "let's just move on......" That's become a code phrase, one to avoid responsibility and/or accountability. No, let's not just move on! How many times did I hear this when working in the schools? If it wasn't "Let's just move on," it was something like, "Let's not point fingers" or "Let's not cast blame." Wrong! Let's point fingers! Let's cast blame! Let's not just move on! We need to know who messed up, who was responsible. How can we maintain any sense of accountability if we don't identify those responsible? How do we prevent the same bozos from getting positions to mess up again if we don't identify them? We're inundated with these code words and phrases, "Misspeaking" or "misstating" instead of lying. "Let's just move on." No, I'm tired of them. I wish people, good people, would start holding others responsible and accountable. I'm not holding my breath.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Open Court
I normally don't do much sports on television. But Michael had the NBA Channel on when some show, "Open Court," came on. It was a great show, a wonderful panel discussion of 7 former stars from the NBA. They were discussing race in basketball, growing up and in the NBA, as well as in all of the US in general.
There were, of course, well deserved tips of the hat to the pioneers of the '50s and '60s in the NBA, esp those like the Celtics Bill Russell (black) and Red Auerbach (white coach).
But there was also discussion of how sports can help transcend racism (although I dislike that word). One of the participants, Charles Barkley, said something like, "If I have the ball and I'm ready to pass to a teammate, I don't stop and think, 'Hey, is this guy black or white?'" Almost before he could answer his question, Reggie Miller said, "No, you ask, 'Can this guy make the shot?'" They all laughed and nodded at the truth in that--race wasn't important. "Can he play?" was important.
They pointed to Red Auerbach's Celtics. If his whole team, blacks and whites, couldn't stay at a segregated hotel, the whole team moved on and found a hotel where all were welcome. This was in contrast to the Pittsburgh Pirates when Roberto Clemente first broke in. During spring training, the team faced segregation and discrimination all over the South. At restaurants, the whites got off the team bus and had dinner, while Clemente waiting on the bus for his doggie bag. Whites stayed in hotels while Clemente was put up in some black house in the black section of town. When spring camp broke, the host city threw a BBQ for the players and their families at the local country club--for the white players and their families. Clemente, being black, wasn't invited. (That's one of the lessons of history. Yeah, you knew I find a way to throw in history, didn't you? We are asked to challenge ourselves--honestly. What would we have done in that situation, one of our black teammates is refused dinner or a room or a BBQ? Would we, as the Pirates did, have just gone along with it and let Clemente be left out because of his race? Would we have refused to eat, to stay, to attend if our black teammate couldn't?)
I was reminded, as they told how race brought whites and blacks and everyone else, players and fans alike, together when playing a hated rival, of the impact of Jackie Robinson. In a game between the bitter rivals, the Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants, Robinson led the Dodgers back to a ninth-inning, come-from-behind victory, driving in and scoring the tying and winning runs. Fans went crazy, yelling and cheering and hugging each other. One of those fans, a young white Jewish man, went home and was excitedly telling the story of the game, of the yelling and cheering and hugging, when he suddenly went quiet, very quiet. His family was puzzled, asking what was wrong. Nothing was wrong, the young man said, pensively. But he then told his family, "The man I was hugging was a black man," although I doubt he used the term "black." That's what Robinson did to and for people. Name another time in the late '40s America when a white Jewish man could be found cheering and yelling and hugging with a black man...... Right, you probably can't.
Barkley is very opinionated and outspoken. He's very intelligent, although I think sometimes he gets carried away and tries to say too much. He noted, among other things, that blacks in the US have to take responsibility for themselves. They can't assume they will be athletes or gangsta rappers or the like. They can and should aspire to becoming doctors and lawyers and owners of businesses. They can't blame whites for that. He said, "White guys aren't coming down to the ghetto and selling drugs. Whites aren't coming down and shooting up our neighborhoods. White guys aren't recruiting our young blacks to gangs." etc. Yet, Chris Webber added something very important. "We don't have to become doctors and lawyers. If we don't like wearing ties every day, we can become carpenters and...... We can become great people by loving our families and God and becoming good citizens."
It was a great program.
There were, of course, well deserved tips of the hat to the pioneers of the '50s and '60s in the NBA, esp those like the Celtics Bill Russell (black) and Red Auerbach (white coach).
But there was also discussion of how sports can help transcend racism (although I dislike that word). One of the participants, Charles Barkley, said something like, "If I have the ball and I'm ready to pass to a teammate, I don't stop and think, 'Hey, is this guy black or white?'" Almost before he could answer his question, Reggie Miller said, "No, you ask, 'Can this guy make the shot?'" They all laughed and nodded at the truth in that--race wasn't important. "Can he play?" was important.
They pointed to Red Auerbach's Celtics. If his whole team, blacks and whites, couldn't stay at a segregated hotel, the whole team moved on and found a hotel where all were welcome. This was in contrast to the Pittsburgh Pirates when Roberto Clemente first broke in. During spring training, the team faced segregation and discrimination all over the South. At restaurants, the whites got off the team bus and had dinner, while Clemente waiting on the bus for his doggie bag. Whites stayed in hotels while Clemente was put up in some black house in the black section of town. When spring camp broke, the host city threw a BBQ for the players and their families at the local country club--for the white players and their families. Clemente, being black, wasn't invited. (That's one of the lessons of history. Yeah, you knew I find a way to throw in history, didn't you? We are asked to challenge ourselves--honestly. What would we have done in that situation, one of our black teammates is refused dinner or a room or a BBQ? Would we, as the Pirates did, have just gone along with it and let Clemente be left out because of his race? Would we have refused to eat, to stay, to attend if our black teammate couldn't?)
I was reminded, as they told how race brought whites and blacks and everyone else, players and fans alike, together when playing a hated rival, of the impact of Jackie Robinson. In a game between the bitter rivals, the Brooklyn Dodgers and NY Giants, Robinson led the Dodgers back to a ninth-inning, come-from-behind victory, driving in and scoring the tying and winning runs. Fans went crazy, yelling and cheering and hugging each other. One of those fans, a young white Jewish man, went home and was excitedly telling the story of the game, of the yelling and cheering and hugging, when he suddenly went quiet, very quiet. His family was puzzled, asking what was wrong. Nothing was wrong, the young man said, pensively. But he then told his family, "The man I was hugging was a black man," although I doubt he used the term "black." That's what Robinson did to and for people. Name another time in the late '40s America when a white Jewish man could be found cheering and yelling and hugging with a black man...... Right, you probably can't.
Barkley is very opinionated and outspoken. He's very intelligent, although I think sometimes he gets carried away and tries to say too much. He noted, among other things, that blacks in the US have to take responsibility for themselves. They can't assume they will be athletes or gangsta rappers or the like. They can and should aspire to becoming doctors and lawyers and owners of businesses. They can't blame whites for that. He said, "White guys aren't coming down to the ghetto and selling drugs. Whites aren't coming down and shooting up our neighborhoods. White guys aren't recruiting our young blacks to gangs." etc. Yet, Chris Webber added something very important. "We don't have to become doctors and lawyers. If we don't like wearing ties every day, we can become carpenters and...... We can become great people by loving our families and God and becoming good citizens."
It was a great program.
MLK Day
It's Martin Luther King's Holiday and a great time to ruminate about the great and courageous things he did in the US. It's also a good time to consider discrimination, which unfortunately still rears its ugly head. My only gripe and it's a minor one is that, like so many other national holidays, it comes on a Monday instead of on MLK's real birthday. I understand the three-day weekends. But it's almost like we belittle the days and their meanings. "Presidents' Day?" Long weekend. "Columbus Day?" Long weekend. "Labor Day?" "Memorial Day?" Long weekends. We still do Independence Day and Veterans' Day right, though.
Lumping Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday into an almost meaningless "Presidents' Day" has always seemed misguided to me. Throwing them into Mondays for a three-day weekend compounds that. So, do James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding deserve the same honors (or any honors at all?) as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington? (Note I refrained from adding more current Presidents to Buchanan, Johnson, and Harding, but I wanted to, at least three of them.) And the three-day weekend makes such days of honor more palatable, easier to sell, because of the long weekends?
I was thinking the other day that I'll almost bet the Establishment Republicans are going to do it again. That is, they are going to present voters, not with the best of candidates for President, but the least worst. And, as I wrote my Republican Congressman (who seems like he's doing a good job despite the Establishment-types in DC) the other day, if this is what happens, the Democrats will win the White House. The Establishment Republicans are very much out of touch with reality, the reality of the base of their party. People are tired of "holding their noses" and voting for "the least worst." I have no doubts this led to Obama and all the bad things he's done to and for this country, but I don't blame voters. I blame Republican leadership, the arrogant elitists among them. Similar to the Democrats, but in their own ways, the Establishment Republicans continue to demonstrate they think they know what's best for Americans than Americans do themselves. People are reacting. That is the attraction of Donald Trump. And, if the Establishment continues to refuse to recognize the will of the base of the party, it will lose the election--again. Voters will vote for the Democrat or a minor party candidate or, more likely, just stay home and not vote out of continued frustration and anger.
Lumping Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday into an almost meaningless "Presidents' Day" has always seemed misguided to me. Throwing them into Mondays for a three-day weekend compounds that. So, do James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding deserve the same honors (or any honors at all?) as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington? (Note I refrained from adding more current Presidents to Buchanan, Johnson, and Harding, but I wanted to, at least three of them.) And the three-day weekend makes such days of honor more palatable, easier to sell, because of the long weekends?
I was thinking the other day that I'll almost bet the Establishment Republicans are going to do it again. That is, they are going to present voters, not with the best of candidates for President, but the least worst. And, as I wrote my Republican Congressman (who seems like he's doing a good job despite the Establishment-types in DC) the other day, if this is what happens, the Democrats will win the White House. The Establishment Republicans are very much out of touch with reality, the reality of the base of their party. People are tired of "holding their noses" and voting for "the least worst." I have no doubts this led to Obama and all the bad things he's done to and for this country, but I don't blame voters. I blame Republican leadership, the arrogant elitists among them. Similar to the Democrats, but in their own ways, the Establishment Republicans continue to demonstrate they think they know what's best for Americans than Americans do themselves. People are reacting. That is the attraction of Donald Trump. And, if the Establishment continues to refuse to recognize the will of the base of the party, it will lose the election--again. Voters will vote for the Democrat or a minor party candidate or, more likely, just stay home and not vote out of continued frustration and anger.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Sometimes...
...there are things we just can't make up.
Last week, the Governor Snyder-appointed Emergency Manager called the Detroit Public School teachers' sick-outs "unethical." If things weren't so serious, this would be extremely laughable, downright funny. This is the same guy who was the Emergency Manager in Flint with the water crisis. "Unethical" indeed!
Speaking of the Detroit schools,..... What posturing by the elected officials! I'm supposed to believe that the mayor of Detroit wasn't aware of the conditions in the schools? I guess there are several answers to that, none at all flattering to the mayor--or governor for that matter. Photos of rat traps out in the open sure seems to me to indicate there are rat problems. And the pictures of the black mold? I can commiserate with the "too cold" and "too hot." For years my room was always too hot or too cold. To cool it off to reasonable temperatures in the winter I'd often have to open my window, even in single-digit outdoor temps. Or, if the room was too hot in the winter (It was as if the room had a mind of its own, choosing alternately too hot or too cold, at its own whims.), I'd have to put a snow-drenched paper towel over the thermostat to get it warm enough to take off the coats and gloves. And I didn't teach in Detroit. Note, too, the frequently reported assaults on students and teachers at school and going to and coming from school; imagine how many don't get reported! Yet, the mayor didn't know. Doesn't he read the newspapers? And these Emergency Managers have driven up the DPS deficits to their highest levels ever. But that's OK, maybe. The Flint water crisis began because the EMs wanted to save a few bucks......
I had a discussion on my run this AM about Obama. My buddy thinks he's been "a good President." I am just befuddled how anyone can think that. Outside of those getting freebies (individuals and corporations and other such groups), I just don't understand. That W Bush was also bad (in my view) doesn't save Obama from well-deserved criticism. Foreign policy. Domestic policy. Brazen violation of checks/balances and separation of powers. (That Congress and the Courts have allowed this to happen doesn't make them any less egregious and, in fact, speaks volumes about them--again not in flattering terms.) ObamaCare is an abomination (Obama-nation?). That "Well, the Republicans don't have an alternative plan" is not only untrue, but irrelevant. To do something, something abominable, for the sake of doing something is not good. (Again, if the doo-gooders--and I mean "doo"--are so concerned about health insurance for who they consider the poor who can't or won't afford it, then they can forgo their own vacations, hobbies, personal pursuits and purchase basic health care policies for the downtrodden. But they won't. They want others to pay for what they want to happen.)
I have a couple of thoughts on politics. One regards "social media." Boy, I dislike that term; it grates on me a great deal. (Heh Heh) Are "social media" good or bad for politics? I suppose that includes blogs. Usually, people (like me?) post only when they are angry and frustrated. Often, the posts and tweets (Is that what they are called?) that get the most attention are those that are most extreme. Of course, in a sense that's good. Issues that the Establishment, be it politicians or the LameStream media, won't discuss or reveal. Social media opens up these issues. They have led to greater chances of actually discovering the truth or at least exposing the lies. Yet, at the same time, does this, airing of the most extreme positions, make more reasoned, moderate behavior less likely? I hope that all came out the right way, the way I intended. (I did have it pretty straight in my head while on my run this AM, but......)
Perhaps related, have we become distrustful of people with whom we don't agree? For instance, do we trust, say, opponents who have defeated our side in the election(s) to do the right things, to make good decisions? I'm not sure, but I think I'm leaning on the side of answering that "No." Obama famously stated, "Elections have consequences." I'm firmly of the opinion that what he and Congress have done over the past 7 years has not been "good." For that matter, I feel the same way about the 8 years of W. Bush. I think they both did/have done detrimental things, but for different reason, with different motives. I don't know if that makes a difference.
Last week, the Governor Snyder-appointed Emergency Manager called the Detroit Public School teachers' sick-outs "unethical." If things weren't so serious, this would be extremely laughable, downright funny. This is the same guy who was the Emergency Manager in Flint with the water crisis. "Unethical" indeed!
Speaking of the Detroit schools,..... What posturing by the elected officials! I'm supposed to believe that the mayor of Detroit wasn't aware of the conditions in the schools? I guess there are several answers to that, none at all flattering to the mayor--or governor for that matter. Photos of rat traps out in the open sure seems to me to indicate there are rat problems. And the pictures of the black mold? I can commiserate with the "too cold" and "too hot." For years my room was always too hot or too cold. To cool it off to reasonable temperatures in the winter I'd often have to open my window, even in single-digit outdoor temps. Or, if the room was too hot in the winter (It was as if the room had a mind of its own, choosing alternately too hot or too cold, at its own whims.), I'd have to put a snow-drenched paper towel over the thermostat to get it warm enough to take off the coats and gloves. And I didn't teach in Detroit. Note, too, the frequently reported assaults on students and teachers at school and going to and coming from school; imagine how many don't get reported! Yet, the mayor didn't know. Doesn't he read the newspapers? And these Emergency Managers have driven up the DPS deficits to their highest levels ever. But that's OK, maybe. The Flint water crisis began because the EMs wanted to save a few bucks......
I had a discussion on my run this AM about Obama. My buddy thinks he's been "a good President." I am just befuddled how anyone can think that. Outside of those getting freebies (individuals and corporations and other such groups), I just don't understand. That W Bush was also bad (in my view) doesn't save Obama from well-deserved criticism. Foreign policy. Domestic policy. Brazen violation of checks/balances and separation of powers. (That Congress and the Courts have allowed this to happen doesn't make them any less egregious and, in fact, speaks volumes about them--again not in flattering terms.) ObamaCare is an abomination (Obama-nation?). That "Well, the Republicans don't have an alternative plan" is not only untrue, but irrelevant. To do something, something abominable, for the sake of doing something is not good. (Again, if the doo-gooders--and I mean "doo"--are so concerned about health insurance for who they consider the poor who can't or won't afford it, then they can forgo their own vacations, hobbies, personal pursuits and purchase basic health care policies for the downtrodden. But they won't. They want others to pay for what they want to happen.)
I have a couple of thoughts on politics. One regards "social media." Boy, I dislike that term; it grates on me a great deal. (Heh Heh) Are "social media" good or bad for politics? I suppose that includes blogs. Usually, people (like me?) post only when they are angry and frustrated. Often, the posts and tweets (Is that what they are called?) that get the most attention are those that are most extreme. Of course, in a sense that's good. Issues that the Establishment, be it politicians or the LameStream media, won't discuss or reveal. Social media opens up these issues. They have led to greater chances of actually discovering the truth or at least exposing the lies. Yet, at the same time, does this, airing of the most extreme positions, make more reasoned, moderate behavior less likely? I hope that all came out the right way, the way I intended. (I did have it pretty straight in my head while on my run this AM, but......)
Perhaps related, have we become distrustful of people with whom we don't agree? For instance, do we trust, say, opponents who have defeated our side in the election(s) to do the right things, to make good decisions? I'm not sure, but I think I'm leaning on the side of answering that "No." Obama famously stated, "Elections have consequences." I'm firmly of the opinion that what he and Congress have done over the past 7 years has not been "good." For that matter, I feel the same way about the 8 years of W. Bush. I think they both did/have done detrimental things, but for different reason, with different motives. I don't know if that makes a difference.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Lincoln, Redux
I'm reading a book, Lincoln's Political Thought, by one of my college professors, George Kateb (Modern Political Thought). I know, I know, "Haven't you read enough books about Lincoln?" No, I haven't, although the number is now in excess of 40. I just find Lincoln and his story very inspiring and I learn new things about him with each book. Anyway, Professor Kateb reminds me in this book of his teaching--he thinks things most of the rest of us don't or can't, yet makes them comprehensible. And I'm glad to read that he's conflicted at times in "evaluating" Lincoln. Good because I am often that way, too. It's also comforting to read confirmation from someone like Professor Kateb of my own views of Lincoln. It's not light reading and I go about 20 or so pages at a sitting, but it's very worthwhile.
David Bowie died last week. (I almost wrote "Jim Bowie." Heh Heh.) I admit I was never a big fan of his; in fact, I was no fan at all. I suppose there may have been a tune or two of his when I didn't immediately switch the radio station, but I can't recall any. I can't recall any songs of his, any of them, although no doubt if someone were to mention the biggest of his hits, I might recognize them or at least some of them. What surprised me was how many of the articles, online and in the newspapers, referred to him as "a genius." Huh? When I think of "genius" I think of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and the like (and I have no idea of their IQs). But David Bowie "a genius?" I guess either I don't recognize genius or we've, like so many other things, have redefined (downward I'd say) the word. That's not a dig at Bowie. A lot of people liked him and his work. Great and good for them and him. But "genius??????"
I have a question. Back in the '50s and '60s (and likely long before then), blacks were referred to as "coloreds." That has, for the most part, become passe, seen as pejorative. I haven't really heard anyone use that term in that context since, well, my parents' generation. So, my question. I heard on the radio this AM while picking up Michael from practice a black radio talk show, one I hadn't heard before. The host referred to "people of color." I've heard that term before and, of course, there is the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why are "color/colored" acceptable in those contexts? Just asking......
I think I'm distressed at the news of more and more technology in cars. One of the big things coming out of the auto show and other places is "driverless cars." Boy, that seems frightening, doesn't it? I wonder how those work? Are there censors that, for example, read other censors in speed limit signs? How does the car know how fast or slow to go? Of course, I'm leery of much of the technology in the cars. I think they are distractions that lead to many accidents, including fatal ones. But, what do I know?
I still don't understand why Alan Trammell wasn't elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. He wasn't even close. Do the sportswriters who vote not really know the game? Wasn't he flashy enough (doing back flips, for instance) to catch their eyes? I know a little about the game (OK, I know a lot about the game) and he certainly deserves it. I might also make the cases for Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris, although I'm not as convinced they are as deserving as Trammell. But they might be. And, of course, most folks who know me realize I think Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall, esp when he is held up in comparison with most of the catchers already in the Hall. Oh, heck, here's one, too. I also think there's a very deserving athlete who belongs in a local hall of fame--but likely will never get selected. Too bad, because he, too, is more deserving than many already there.
The two carjackers who murdered a popular local musician in Detroit were caught. The other day another crowd gathered outside the police station demanding the firing of an officer who shot and killed a man (known as a criminal to the police and local business owners) who was wanted on an outstanding warrant, who was wanted for a larceny earlier in that day, and who fought with the officer for his gun. I'm not saying the felon deserved to die, but where is the mob, er, crowd protesting at the jail where the two carjackers are being held, protesting that they get the death penalty? Who gave these guys the right to kill someone because he refused to give up his car? For that matter, where are the protests against the woman (and her friends?) who shot up a house because someone in it earlier had "dissed" her, the shots killing a 7-year old girl who was playing with her Chris presents? Who led this woman (and her friends) to think that "dissing" is a capital offense?
I know it's more difficult, but another murderer, to get even, didn't use guns, but merely set a house on fire. The arson ended up killing several people. So, I guess, guns aren't necessary to kill others.
My Jan column was finally posted. I hope people like it. It was fun to write, comparing people's views on favorite and least favorite race distances (running). Here it is, for your dining and dancing pleasure: www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=28412. Read or delete at your whim. (You might have to cut and paste into your browser.)
I almost didn't run today. My two runner partners canceled out on me, which is fine. I thought, initially, I'd just take a needed day off from running. Ultimately, largely due to some building frustrations, I opted to get in a short one. It went, as I should have expected, longer than I had planned. And, upon finishing, I'm glad I decided not to rest today. It was a good run.
I was completing one of several online surveys I often do and was stunned when I filled out the demographic data. There is someone out there with my name, my exact name, who is 67 years old! 67!!!!!! Really. I wonder who it is......
David Bowie died last week. (I almost wrote "Jim Bowie." Heh Heh.) I admit I was never a big fan of his; in fact, I was no fan at all. I suppose there may have been a tune or two of his when I didn't immediately switch the radio station, but I can't recall any. I can't recall any songs of his, any of them, although no doubt if someone were to mention the biggest of his hits, I might recognize them or at least some of them. What surprised me was how many of the articles, online and in the newspapers, referred to him as "a genius." Huh? When I think of "genius" I think of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and the like (and I have no idea of their IQs). But David Bowie "a genius?" I guess either I don't recognize genius or we've, like so many other things, have redefined (downward I'd say) the word. That's not a dig at Bowie. A lot of people liked him and his work. Great and good for them and him. But "genius??????"
I have a question. Back in the '50s and '60s (and likely long before then), blacks were referred to as "coloreds." That has, for the most part, become passe, seen as pejorative. I haven't really heard anyone use that term in that context since, well, my parents' generation. So, my question. I heard on the radio this AM while picking up Michael from practice a black radio talk show, one I hadn't heard before. The host referred to "people of color." I've heard that term before and, of course, there is the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why are "color/colored" acceptable in those contexts? Just asking......
I think I'm distressed at the news of more and more technology in cars. One of the big things coming out of the auto show and other places is "driverless cars." Boy, that seems frightening, doesn't it? I wonder how those work? Are there censors that, for example, read other censors in speed limit signs? How does the car know how fast or slow to go? Of course, I'm leery of much of the technology in the cars. I think they are distractions that lead to many accidents, including fatal ones. But, what do I know?
I still don't understand why Alan Trammell wasn't elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. He wasn't even close. Do the sportswriters who vote not really know the game? Wasn't he flashy enough (doing back flips, for instance) to catch their eyes? I know a little about the game (OK, I know a lot about the game) and he certainly deserves it. I might also make the cases for Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris, although I'm not as convinced they are as deserving as Trammell. But they might be. And, of course, most folks who know me realize I think Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall, esp when he is held up in comparison with most of the catchers already in the Hall. Oh, heck, here's one, too. I also think there's a very deserving athlete who belongs in a local hall of fame--but likely will never get selected. Too bad, because he, too, is more deserving than many already there.
The two carjackers who murdered a popular local musician in Detroit were caught. The other day another crowd gathered outside the police station demanding the firing of an officer who shot and killed a man (known as a criminal to the police and local business owners) who was wanted on an outstanding warrant, who was wanted for a larceny earlier in that day, and who fought with the officer for his gun. I'm not saying the felon deserved to die, but where is the mob, er, crowd protesting at the jail where the two carjackers are being held, protesting that they get the death penalty? Who gave these guys the right to kill someone because he refused to give up his car? For that matter, where are the protests against the woman (and her friends?) who shot up a house because someone in it earlier had "dissed" her, the shots killing a 7-year old girl who was playing with her Chris presents? Who led this woman (and her friends) to think that "dissing" is a capital offense?
I know it's more difficult, but another murderer, to get even, didn't use guns, but merely set a house on fire. The arson ended up killing several people. So, I guess, guns aren't necessary to kill others.
My Jan column was finally posted. I hope people like it. It was fun to write, comparing people's views on favorite and least favorite race distances (running). Here it is, for your dining and dancing pleasure: www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=28412. Read or delete at your whim. (You might have to cut and paste into your browser.)
I almost didn't run today. My two runner partners canceled out on me, which is fine. I thought, initially, I'd just take a needed day off from running. Ultimately, largely due to some building frustrations, I opted to get in a short one. It went, as I should have expected, longer than I had planned. And, upon finishing, I'm glad I decided not to rest today. It was a good run.
I was completing one of several online surveys I often do and was stunned when I filled out the demographic data. There is someone out there with my name, my exact name, who is 67 years old! 67!!!!!! Really. I wonder who it is......
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
SOTU
First, an update on a previous post. I heard yesterday that another country, Norway I believe, is giving a course to male Muslim immigrants on how to behave toward Western women, that is, women aren't there to be groped, sexually assaulted, and raped.
The State of the Union. For one, I'm glad it's the last one Obama will give. He doesn't give out-and-out, bold-faced lies like, say, Joseph Goebbels. There's enough of the truth, but just a little bit, so that people accept what he says. That our economy is "strong" must be a joke to millions of Americans. For many (I won't deny that), times are better than in the recent past. But the unemployment rate is so much lower only because so many jobs have been eliminated. People can't work if there aren't jobs. Other than petrol, prices are very high; at least in this neck of the woods they are. And of course the US has the mightiest military in the world. But who's really afraid of it when the C-in-C uses it so timidly and, usually, only to foster political support or deflect criticism? Note on the day Obama made this claim, US sailors were snatched by our recent good buddies, the Iranians--and we thanked Iran for returning them!?!?!? In a not-so-vague reference to Ted Cruz, Obama criticized "carpet bombing of civilians" in the war against ISIS. Well, Cruz didn't say to carpet bomb civilians, but ISIS and if civilians were casualties that's deplorable, but it's also war. Should we not have fought back with bombs vs Germany and Japan in WW2?
How great that Congressman Steve King walked out of the SOTU, just before it began. I heard this earlier today and then was sent an e-mail about it. He just couldn't listen to any more, couldn't take any more. Specifically, I guess, he loathed the hypocrisy of Obama's empty chair. I don't think I need to re-explain that, that some lives matter and some don't depending on one's political persuasion and/or party. If more people acted like this, I know I know, "How rude!," maybe more people's eye's would be opened to the bad things that are occurring.
And what's with the Republicans, that is, the Establishment Republicans? OK, they are being the Establishment more than Republicans. I didn't hear all or even most of Nikki Haley's rebuttal of the SOTU, but what I did hear startled me. First, there wasn't much criticism of Obama and there's a lot of that to be found. Second, she seemed to repeat Democrat complaint about the Republicans. I think she said the Dems bear some of the responsibility for what's wrong now, but so do some Republicans--but only some. I don't think she was very good in hiding who she meant. Those are the winners from 2010 and 2014 who promised to go to DC to fix things and were met with slamming doors in their faces by the elitist Establishment-types. Third, why was she more critical of Trump and even Cruz (without naming either) than of Obama? This, no doubt, is typical Establishment Republican activity. Are they stupid? Are they willfully blind? Are they so darn arrogant? Do they still not realize why it is that Trump (of all people!) and Cruz are the Republican front-runners so late in the game? Do they not see the anger and frustration people have for what's been going on and they themselves are targeted as well as the Democrats?
Here's a prediction, if the Establishment Republicans give voters another Establishment candidate for President, the Democrat will win, be it Clinton (and shame on Americans if she's elected; heck, shame on Democrats if she's nominated!) or even Sanders.
Big government, what a fiasco! More and more is coming out about the Flint water travesty and more and more the finger is being pointed at the incompetence of big government. Obama? Snyder? It doesn't matter, I guess. When our leaders try to impose their own agendas, esp when the people have let their views be well known, we have big problems. Perhaps they could take a lesson from Abraham Lincoln, who was able to sway Northern views to accepting abolition in just a couple of short years.
BTW, I came across this quotation from Lincoln in a book by one of my Amherst professors, George Kateb (Modern Political Thought--and I still use some of the notes from his class in my classes!). I think it, the quote, relates well to what we've seen over the course of the past 40-50 years coming out of Washington, DC--the "bi-partisanship," "reaching across the aisle," "compromise." I've said this in the past, the other side, through "compromise," gets a little here, a little there, a little here, a little there and, "Poof! Magic!," it has everything it wanted and the other said is left with nothing, while still patting itself on the back for its "bi-partisanship," "reaching across the aisle," "compromise." Anyway, back to Lincoln, of this he said, "The system of compromise has no end." He was speaking of slavery, that on some issues, there is no "compromise."
Did you ever hear a parent tell an obnoxious child, "You better stop or you'll get a spanking" or "a time out" or some punishment, but then just keep saying that without ever spanking, giving a "time out"(Boy, I still dislike that......), etc.? Isn't it frustrating? Spank him! Give her the "time out!" Do something other than threaten! It reminds me of Obama with Libya, with Syria, with Iran, with Russia, with China. He continues to draw his "red lines," then when they are crossed, nothing happens.
Speaking of Obama, I read an article in the NY Review of Books or New Yorker or The Atlantic or some other such mag, about a purported review of a book Obama gave, as a student, to another student friend of his. No, there was nothing cheating about it, nothing dishonest. But I just don't believe, from what I read in the article, excerpts from Obama's purported analysis of the book, that he wrote it or even thought it. What I've seen of him over the past 8 to 10 years, I just don't believe those were his analyses. Maybe they were and I am wrong; I still don't believe it.
I was thinking about the anti-union sentiments in this country today. OK, maybe some of the anti-unionism is justified. It still irks me that for merely ratifying the last UAW contract, auto workers got upwards of $9000 in bonuses--each! I don't blame the workers or even their union reps. What a lot of people overlook is that unions don't act unilaterally. Management must approve, say, such bonuses! But think back to 100 years ago, when workers didn't have unions. Hundreds, in the steel industry alone!, were killed annually on the job due to unsafe factory conditions--dangerous machines, poor lighting (Hey, it costs money to light the factories!), etc. How many thousands were injured, maimed for life, with no prospects of ever being able to make a living again? Think of the money, too. Let's even go to the 1970s. Oh, even then we were talking big about how important education is. But, as usual, we never put our money where our mouths are. Working at the Rouge, in the foundry, I was making roughly $15,000 a year, including OT. Straight time was about $10,000. I left there to teach and my salary was $7,000! "Yeah, but you have your summers off!" (Nobody considers that we had to take classes in the summer, paying from our own pockets, from that $7,000.) Over the years I have been critical of unions, yep, even my own teachers' union. They've become something other than I'd have wanted them to become. But, too, without out them, where would workers be today? Do you really think we could have relied on the monied interests--enterpreneurs, school boards, etc.--to do the right and moral things? I don't......
The State of the Union. For one, I'm glad it's the last one Obama will give. He doesn't give out-and-out, bold-faced lies like, say, Joseph Goebbels. There's enough of the truth, but just a little bit, so that people accept what he says. That our economy is "strong" must be a joke to millions of Americans. For many (I won't deny that), times are better than in the recent past. But the unemployment rate is so much lower only because so many jobs have been eliminated. People can't work if there aren't jobs. Other than petrol, prices are very high; at least in this neck of the woods they are. And of course the US has the mightiest military in the world. But who's really afraid of it when the C-in-C uses it so timidly and, usually, only to foster political support or deflect criticism? Note on the day Obama made this claim, US sailors were snatched by our recent good buddies, the Iranians--and we thanked Iran for returning them!?!?!? In a not-so-vague reference to Ted Cruz, Obama criticized "carpet bombing of civilians" in the war against ISIS. Well, Cruz didn't say to carpet bomb civilians, but ISIS and if civilians were casualties that's deplorable, but it's also war. Should we not have fought back with bombs vs Germany and Japan in WW2?
How great that Congressman Steve King walked out of the SOTU, just before it began. I heard this earlier today and then was sent an e-mail about it. He just couldn't listen to any more, couldn't take any more. Specifically, I guess, he loathed the hypocrisy of Obama's empty chair. I don't think I need to re-explain that, that some lives matter and some don't depending on one's political persuasion and/or party. If more people acted like this, I know I know, "How rude!," maybe more people's eye's would be opened to the bad things that are occurring.
And what's with the Republicans, that is, the Establishment Republicans? OK, they are being the Establishment more than Republicans. I didn't hear all or even most of Nikki Haley's rebuttal of the SOTU, but what I did hear startled me. First, there wasn't much criticism of Obama and there's a lot of that to be found. Second, she seemed to repeat Democrat complaint about the Republicans. I think she said the Dems bear some of the responsibility for what's wrong now, but so do some Republicans--but only some. I don't think she was very good in hiding who she meant. Those are the winners from 2010 and 2014 who promised to go to DC to fix things and were met with slamming doors in their faces by the elitist Establishment-types. Third, why was she more critical of Trump and even Cruz (without naming either) than of Obama? This, no doubt, is typical Establishment Republican activity. Are they stupid? Are they willfully blind? Are they so darn arrogant? Do they still not realize why it is that Trump (of all people!) and Cruz are the Republican front-runners so late in the game? Do they not see the anger and frustration people have for what's been going on and they themselves are targeted as well as the Democrats?
Here's a prediction, if the Establishment Republicans give voters another Establishment candidate for President, the Democrat will win, be it Clinton (and shame on Americans if she's elected; heck, shame on Democrats if she's nominated!) or even Sanders.
Big government, what a fiasco! More and more is coming out about the Flint water travesty and more and more the finger is being pointed at the incompetence of big government. Obama? Snyder? It doesn't matter, I guess. When our leaders try to impose their own agendas, esp when the people have let their views be well known, we have big problems. Perhaps they could take a lesson from Abraham Lincoln, who was able to sway Northern views to accepting abolition in just a couple of short years.
BTW, I came across this quotation from Lincoln in a book by one of my Amherst professors, George Kateb (Modern Political Thought--and I still use some of the notes from his class in my classes!). I think it, the quote, relates well to what we've seen over the course of the past 40-50 years coming out of Washington, DC--the "bi-partisanship," "reaching across the aisle," "compromise." I've said this in the past, the other side, through "compromise," gets a little here, a little there, a little here, a little there and, "Poof! Magic!," it has everything it wanted and the other said is left with nothing, while still patting itself on the back for its "bi-partisanship," "reaching across the aisle," "compromise." Anyway, back to Lincoln, of this he said, "The system of compromise has no end." He was speaking of slavery, that on some issues, there is no "compromise."
Did you ever hear a parent tell an obnoxious child, "You better stop or you'll get a spanking" or "a time out" or some punishment, but then just keep saying that without ever spanking, giving a "time out"(Boy, I still dislike that......), etc.? Isn't it frustrating? Spank him! Give her the "time out!" Do something other than threaten! It reminds me of Obama with Libya, with Syria, with Iran, with Russia, with China. He continues to draw his "red lines," then when they are crossed, nothing happens.
Speaking of Obama, I read an article in the NY Review of Books or New Yorker or The Atlantic or some other such mag, about a purported review of a book Obama gave, as a student, to another student friend of his. No, there was nothing cheating about it, nothing dishonest. But I just don't believe, from what I read in the article, excerpts from Obama's purported analysis of the book, that he wrote it or even thought it. What I've seen of him over the past 8 to 10 years, I just don't believe those were his analyses. Maybe they were and I am wrong; I still don't believe it.
I was thinking about the anti-union sentiments in this country today. OK, maybe some of the anti-unionism is justified. It still irks me that for merely ratifying the last UAW contract, auto workers got upwards of $9000 in bonuses--each! I don't blame the workers or even their union reps. What a lot of people overlook is that unions don't act unilaterally. Management must approve, say, such bonuses! But think back to 100 years ago, when workers didn't have unions. Hundreds, in the steel industry alone!, were killed annually on the job due to unsafe factory conditions--dangerous machines, poor lighting (Hey, it costs money to light the factories!), etc. How many thousands were injured, maimed for life, with no prospects of ever being able to make a living again? Think of the money, too. Let's even go to the 1970s. Oh, even then we were talking big about how important education is. But, as usual, we never put our money where our mouths are. Working at the Rouge, in the foundry, I was making roughly $15,000 a year, including OT. Straight time was about $10,000. I left there to teach and my salary was $7,000! "Yeah, but you have your summers off!" (Nobody considers that we had to take classes in the summer, paying from our own pockets, from that $7,000.) Over the years I have been critical of unions, yep, even my own teachers' union. They've become something other than I'd have wanted them to become. But, too, without out them, where would workers be today? Do you really think we could have relied on the monied interests--enterpreneurs, school boards, etc.--to do the right and moral things? I don't......
Monday, January 11, 2016
Truth Stranger than Fiction--Again?
I've read about these attacks in several online sources. I heard about them on the radio. Apparently, on New Year's Eve, in three or four German cities, as well as some in Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, hundreds of women were robbed, sexually molested/groped ("They touched us all over!"), and even raped. More than 500 complaints were filed in Cologne alone. And, the attackers/rapists were purportedly all "Middle Eastern men," in each of the cities. Were city and national gov't officials trying to keep the lid on this? I only heard of it because of protests launched over the weekend, German citizens of Leipzig engaged in large demonstrations against "refugees" and "immigrants."
Now, what is most puzzling was a statement released by a Belgian gov't official. Belgium is going to offer classes, yes classes!, for male refugees and immigrants from the Middle East to teach them how to behave toward women in the West. Wait a minute!!!!!! What kind of a culture are they coming from if it is fine for men to grope, sexually assault, and rape women--whether or not women are "infidels?" Isn't this a logical extension of the excuses made for the attacks on Charlie Hebdo? "They're only reacting to cartoons of Muhammad, which is forbidden in their culture?"
Almost as disturbing is the virtual silence of the US LameStream media. I haven't seen a single peep about this in either of the Detroit newspapers. Maybe it was hiding back on page 11 or 12? Maybe it's been reported in other newspapers. Still, I didn't see anything here. And this happened when--New Year's Eve!!!!!! That's why the protest, in part, the lengthy lack of response by the German (and I suppose, Finnish, Dutch, Belgian, and who knows what other) governments.
Maybe this is all a bad dream, that none of this is true......
BTW, how did Angela Merkel receive the "Person of the Year" Award?????? Maybe the same way Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?
An interesting editorial in a Detroit newspaper called what Establishment Republicans in Wash DC do "pragmatic." I prefer "selling out." The lack of action by Establishment Republicans is blamed not on their sell-out, but on "ideological newcomers," which I suppose means the Tea Partiers and others who promised they'd try to fix the massive mess in DC. Of course, a number of the Establishment Republicans also promised they'd try to fix the massive mess in DC, but they were lying. They merely mouthed the words in order to get elected, to defeat popular opponents making the pledge. They had no intention of bucking the same old business as usual. I guess I don't understand, unless we must accept that the LameStreams are in the hands, not just of Democrats, but of the Establishment. That, I think, is to the detriment of the US and its citizens.
A great headline in the other Detroit newspaper was, "Heck of a job, Governor." Of course, it was very facetious and was aimed at Gov Snyder's woeful efforts regarding the Flint water crisis. Some folks claim the government's actions were/are criminal. I won't go that far, but it does go a long way to justify criticism of big gov't--by Dems or by Reps. Yep, those emergency managers, Governor, have really done bang up jobs! What's that Detroit Public Schools deficit now, say, compared to when the first EM took over? Can we keep going? Of course we can, but it's getting late.
Now, what is most puzzling was a statement released by a Belgian gov't official. Belgium is going to offer classes, yes classes!, for male refugees and immigrants from the Middle East to teach them how to behave toward women in the West. Wait a minute!!!!!! What kind of a culture are they coming from if it is fine for men to grope, sexually assault, and rape women--whether or not women are "infidels?" Isn't this a logical extension of the excuses made for the attacks on Charlie Hebdo? "They're only reacting to cartoons of Muhammad, which is forbidden in their culture?"
Almost as disturbing is the virtual silence of the US LameStream media. I haven't seen a single peep about this in either of the Detroit newspapers. Maybe it was hiding back on page 11 or 12? Maybe it's been reported in other newspapers. Still, I didn't see anything here. And this happened when--New Year's Eve!!!!!! That's why the protest, in part, the lengthy lack of response by the German (and I suppose, Finnish, Dutch, Belgian, and who knows what other) governments.
Maybe this is all a bad dream, that none of this is true......
BTW, how did Angela Merkel receive the "Person of the Year" Award?????? Maybe the same way Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?
An interesting editorial in a Detroit newspaper called what Establishment Republicans in Wash DC do "pragmatic." I prefer "selling out." The lack of action by Establishment Republicans is blamed not on their sell-out, but on "ideological newcomers," which I suppose means the Tea Partiers and others who promised they'd try to fix the massive mess in DC. Of course, a number of the Establishment Republicans also promised they'd try to fix the massive mess in DC, but they were lying. They merely mouthed the words in order to get elected, to defeat popular opponents making the pledge. They had no intention of bucking the same old business as usual. I guess I don't understand, unless we must accept that the LameStreams are in the hands, not just of Democrats, but of the Establishment. That, I think, is to the detriment of the US and its citizens.
A great headline in the other Detroit newspaper was, "Heck of a job, Governor." Of course, it was very facetious and was aimed at Gov Snyder's woeful efforts regarding the Flint water crisis. Some folks claim the government's actions were/are criminal. I won't go that far, but it does go a long way to justify criticism of big gov't--by Dems or by Reps. Yep, those emergency managers, Governor, have really done bang up jobs! What's that Detroit Public Schools deficit now, say, compared to when the first EM took over? Can we keep going? Of course we can, but it's getting late.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Snow!
It did snow, a bit before I thought the forecast predicted. We had about 2" or so, very wet and heavy, but likely not as heavy as an hour or two ago. The temperatures are about 10 degrees colder now than when I ran at 7:30 AM.
I was up early, but didn't get the newspaper right away. At 6:00 or so I went out and retrieved it, with no snow at all. When I looked up about 45 mins later, we had a coating. There was about 1/2" when I began running. As I retraced Bob's and my steps on my return run home, just 10 mins later, our tracks had been covered. Roads were slick, but, of course, that didn't slow many drivers at all......
The wind is whipping up, which made running a bit tougher. Fortunately, the house blocked most of it when I was shoveling a while ago.
Tonight, down to 11 or 12 degrees. Tomorrow night about the same and Tue night in the single digits or so it's predicted. Some snow here and there, an inch or two. I hope there's enough for some light shoveling.
I know the health hazards of fast food, well, too much of it I guess. But sometimes, for the price and at the right time, it's hard to beat it. Granted, McDouble or Jr Cheeseburger at Wendy's can't top the shrimp in lobster sauce or pork lo mein or war shu gai at House of Lee or the fettucini del mar or pasta y fagioli at Antonio's. but often those dollar menu items are just right.
I was up early, but didn't get the newspaper right away. At 6:00 or so I went out and retrieved it, with no snow at all. When I looked up about 45 mins later, we had a coating. There was about 1/2" when I began running. As I retraced Bob's and my steps on my return run home, just 10 mins later, our tracks had been covered. Roads were slick, but, of course, that didn't slow many drivers at all......
The wind is whipping up, which made running a bit tougher. Fortunately, the house blocked most of it when I was shoveling a while ago.
Tonight, down to 11 or 12 degrees. Tomorrow night about the same and Tue night in the single digits or so it's predicted. Some snow here and there, an inch or two. I hope there's enough for some light shoveling.
I know the health hazards of fast food, well, too much of it I guess. But sometimes, for the price and at the right time, it's hard to beat it. Granted, McDouble or Jr Cheeseburger at Wendy's can't top the shrimp in lobster sauce or pork lo mein or war shu gai at House of Lee or the fettucini del mar or pasta y fagioli at Antonio's. but often those dollar menu items are just right.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Outrage!
Here we go again, people expressing their "outrage." A Detroit newspaper asked where's the outrage over teacher sick-outs the past week in the Detroit public schools. I guess a good follow-up question for the News might be where's the outrage at the governor's dictatorial handing over control of the DPS, usurping power from the duly elected school board, to emergency managers under whose watches the DPS skyrocketed. Selective "outrage," I guess.
Speaking of emergency managers appointed by the governor, you know, to straighten out all those messes, it appears that the Flint water lead poisoning was covered up for quite some time. Where's the "outrage" at the appointment of such people who were supposed to have overseen the city government? Oh, the governor covered his bejabbers by dismissing the head of some department, but whoop-tee-doo.
The 7-year old girl who was murdered as some "dissed" person sprayed her house with bullets will have some burial problems. It seems somebody stole the money raised for the family's funeral on some online site. Where's the "outrage" at that entire fiasco?
For that matter, more murders in Detroit the past few days, not including those shot and merely seriously wounded. These instances involved some residents who have no respect for the value of human life. Where's the "outrage" over all these murders?
In a series of sexual assaults on the east side, an 18-year old Detroiter was arrested. And police are trying to discover if he was also involved in other crimes over a longer period. It happens that this guy was on probation for "a serious assault with intent to do great bodily harm." Why wasn't this guy locked up with the key thrown away? Where's the "outrage" that animals like this are allowed out of jail/prison to roam the streets and commit further violence? Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe we should wait for the family members to tell us what a good kid he is, how loving he is, etc.
Charges against Bill Cosby? Hillary being applauded for saying any woman who claims rape should be believed? Wait a minute...... What about her husband? Did Hillary believe Katherine Willey, Juanita Broadrick, and even Monica Lewinsky? (Check the spellings.) Of course she didn't. Instead, she went about destroying these women, well, not Lewinsky, but only because there was that nasty piece of evidence we know as the dress. Where is the "outrage" against Bill Clinton? Where are the women's groups on this? Or are the women who were assaulted "acceptable losses" as far as the Clintons and their followers are concerned?
A police officer was shot yesterday in Philly, by a man who did it "for Islam." The officer will survive, but his "death sentence" was apparently because he was an agent for the enforcement of the laws of infidels. And the Democrats and LameStream Media are still calling names for those who want to limit or, at least, slow immigration from the Middle East until we can get a handle on who is coming and why they are coming? Where's the "outrage" over this idiocy? If San Bernardino wasn't enough, what's it going to take? I'm not advocating slamming the doors, but before we just allow anyone and everyone in from anywhere and everywhere, maybe we should get a handle on things first.
This is like a conversation I had with some folks a few weeks back, who seemed to support Bernie Sanders, namely his plan to soak the rich, you know, those greedy people. I ended the conversation with, "As soon as you admit you are willing to pay the same taxes, that is, the same rate, as you expect others to pay, we can talk. You just want other people to pay for things you want. Until you agree to that, we aren't talking." Same thing here. Until people quit being selectively "outraged," blindly and often willfully following what others tell them to do, I can't take them very seriously.
Speaking of emergency managers appointed by the governor, you know, to straighten out all those messes, it appears that the Flint water lead poisoning was covered up for quite some time. Where's the "outrage" at the appointment of such people who were supposed to have overseen the city government? Oh, the governor covered his bejabbers by dismissing the head of some department, but whoop-tee-doo.
The 7-year old girl who was murdered as some "dissed" person sprayed her house with bullets will have some burial problems. It seems somebody stole the money raised for the family's funeral on some online site. Where's the "outrage" at that entire fiasco?
For that matter, more murders in Detroit the past few days, not including those shot and merely seriously wounded. These instances involved some residents who have no respect for the value of human life. Where's the "outrage" over all these murders?
In a series of sexual assaults on the east side, an 18-year old Detroiter was arrested. And police are trying to discover if he was also involved in other crimes over a longer period. It happens that this guy was on probation for "a serious assault with intent to do great bodily harm." Why wasn't this guy locked up with the key thrown away? Where's the "outrage" that animals like this are allowed out of jail/prison to roam the streets and commit further violence? Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe we should wait for the family members to tell us what a good kid he is, how loving he is, etc.
Charges against Bill Cosby? Hillary being applauded for saying any woman who claims rape should be believed? Wait a minute...... What about her husband? Did Hillary believe Katherine Willey, Juanita Broadrick, and even Monica Lewinsky? (Check the spellings.) Of course she didn't. Instead, she went about destroying these women, well, not Lewinsky, but only because there was that nasty piece of evidence we know as the dress. Where is the "outrage" against Bill Clinton? Where are the women's groups on this? Or are the women who were assaulted "acceptable losses" as far as the Clintons and their followers are concerned?
A police officer was shot yesterday in Philly, by a man who did it "for Islam." The officer will survive, but his "death sentence" was apparently because he was an agent for the enforcement of the laws of infidels. And the Democrats and LameStream Media are still calling names for those who want to limit or, at least, slow immigration from the Middle East until we can get a handle on who is coming and why they are coming? Where's the "outrage" over this idiocy? If San Bernardino wasn't enough, what's it going to take? I'm not advocating slamming the doors, but before we just allow anyone and everyone in from anywhere and everywhere, maybe we should get a handle on things first.
This is like a conversation I had with some folks a few weeks back, who seemed to support Bernie Sanders, namely his plan to soak the rich, you know, those greedy people. I ended the conversation with, "As soon as you admit you are willing to pay the same taxes, that is, the same rate, as you expect others to pay, we can talk. You just want other people to pay for things you want. Until you agree to that, we aren't talking." Same thing here. Until people quit being selectively "outraged," blindly and often willfully following what others tell them to do, I can't take them very seriously.
Ah, Michigan......
I really like/enjoy the distinct seasons of the year Michigan provides. Each has qualities that I eagerly anticipate, yes, even the snow.
But sometimes it seems the season are crammed into, say, one week! It was just a couple of days ago when I ran in 7 degrees. This AM, it is 42 degrees. Tomorrow night's low is forecast to be in the low teens. Heh Heh Heh. I hope the cold brings a little snow, a few inches. I know Karen doesn't like the snow, any of it, but it does brighten things. Last weekend we had about an inch or so, maybe a bit less. I was running in a state park with a friend and she looked around, saying, "It's really pretty out here." Yes, it was. I'm not calling for another 11 or 12 or 13 inches like we had in November, but 5 or 6 wouldn't bother me. Besides, I enjoy shoveling. I know that's odd, but I like the exercise and, especially at night when the snow is still falling, I love the peace and tranquility.
Speaking of running, one AM last week I saw (and heard?) a herd of deer pass right in front of me. At first, eight ran across my path. Right afterward, another four followed. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that many bunched like that around here. Later that afternoon, out running/walking with Karen, Carrie, Emily, and Russ, we came across two bucks, with decent sized racks. They stopped about twenty yards from us and just stared--as we stared. We won the staring contest, though, as they finally scampered off. It reminded me of the Three Stooges gag. "See the little fawn. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks......" I still think it's funny.
And, while we're on this Michigan thing, I'm reading Gerald Posner's history of Motown, the Berry Gordy record company. It was recommended to me by a high school friend and she was right--it is great! Much of it is nostalgic, stuff I already knew. But it's great to read the stories again and the Motown folks' reminiscences of them. And there is new stuff, "Hey, I didn't know that." And it has inspired me to check out a few tunes online. Plus, I have put in an order for a CD, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, The Anthology. It includes the stuff from back in the early '60s that I remember so well and later stuff that most others recall, too. I was reminded, also, of the play, Motown: The Musical. The story was good; the music was great! For my birthday, Matt and Linda bought and sent me a CD of Human Nature, the four, white, Australian guys who do a great, great Motown show in Las Vegas. If you are ever out there, by all means see that show! The CD is great. I sing along and, sometimes, just listen, esp to the band. Wow!
I'd also like to pick up the book by David Maraniss, Once in a Great City. It's a reminiscence (a history?) of Detroit in the mid-'60s, I think. I have read a couple of excerpts and my friend also recommended it to me.
But sometimes it seems the season are crammed into, say, one week! It was just a couple of days ago when I ran in 7 degrees. This AM, it is 42 degrees. Tomorrow night's low is forecast to be in the low teens. Heh Heh Heh. I hope the cold brings a little snow, a few inches. I know Karen doesn't like the snow, any of it, but it does brighten things. Last weekend we had about an inch or so, maybe a bit less. I was running in a state park with a friend and she looked around, saying, "It's really pretty out here." Yes, it was. I'm not calling for another 11 or 12 or 13 inches like we had in November, but 5 or 6 wouldn't bother me. Besides, I enjoy shoveling. I know that's odd, but I like the exercise and, especially at night when the snow is still falling, I love the peace and tranquility.
Speaking of running, one AM last week I saw (and heard?) a herd of deer pass right in front of me. At first, eight ran across my path. Right afterward, another four followed. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that many bunched like that around here. Later that afternoon, out running/walking with Karen, Carrie, Emily, and Russ, we came across two bucks, with decent sized racks. They stopped about twenty yards from us and just stared--as we stared. We won the staring contest, though, as they finally scampered off. It reminded me of the Three Stooges gag. "See the little fawn. Does it have any doe/dough? Yeah, two bucks......" I still think it's funny.
And, while we're on this Michigan thing, I'm reading Gerald Posner's history of Motown, the Berry Gordy record company. It was recommended to me by a high school friend and she was right--it is great! Much of it is nostalgic, stuff I already knew. But it's great to read the stories again and the Motown folks' reminiscences of them. And there is new stuff, "Hey, I didn't know that." And it has inspired me to check out a few tunes online. Plus, I have put in an order for a CD, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, The Anthology. It includes the stuff from back in the early '60s that I remember so well and later stuff that most others recall, too. I was reminded, also, of the play, Motown: The Musical. The story was good; the music was great! For my birthday, Matt and Linda bought and sent me a CD of Human Nature, the four, white, Australian guys who do a great, great Motown show in Las Vegas. If you are ever out there, by all means see that show! The CD is great. I sing along and, sometimes, just listen, esp to the band. Wow!
I'd also like to pick up the book by David Maraniss, Once in a Great City. It's a reminiscence (a history?) of Detroit in the mid-'60s, I think. I have read a couple of excerpts and my friend also recommended it to me.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Nicknames/Mascots
In registering for my class reunion, I came across the Amherst Alum blog re: "Lord Jeffs." I was struck by two things. One, there is an incredible amount of intelligence among many of the alumni. Two, there is a great deal if illogic (Is that a real word?) and ignorance among some of the alumni.
Even among those with whom I disagree, the power of their intellect and arguments is very persuasive. Others, although they appear to be eloquent (at least to themselves?), seem to merely be trendy in their thoughts. I'm still intimidated enough, at least intellectually, not to respond in many instances (although I have begun to take contrary views on my two Class of '71 list serves). But I see through the fallacies of many of the arguments. Others, even those I don't agree with, are very powerful
I have no problem with "Lord Jeffs" as the nickname/mascot of Amherst College. And, let it be known, I wrote a lengthy paper when the high school where I taught was considering the nickname "Redskins." As, I guess, the historian in residence, the principal asked me to research "Redskins," the term. I wrote of my findings, to the chagrin of the principal, most faculty, almost all alumni, and many students. "Redskins" is a pejorative, plain and simple. That "We don't mean it that way" isn't a justification for using it. I am loathe to use the word "racist," but "Redskins" was coined as a racist term and was perpetuated as such. I documented that in my paper--about 11 or 12 pages. I, too, at staff meetings was often a lone wolf in opposing the nickname.
There's my background on such issues.
"Lord Jeffs" is not in the same category, for a variety of reasons. First, all this claim about him sending smallpox-infected blankets to Indians is just garbage. He did send a letter seemingly approving of such a tactic. Second, a war was being fought. War! People die, unfortunately or I suppose, in some instances, fortunately. Some of them are innocents. Would Indians who might have contracted smallpox and died be any deader than, say, British/Americans who were scalped--or shot with musket- or cannonballs? Would giving smallpox to people be any worse than raiding a village and raping the women or enslaving them? Third, was what Amherst purportedly did, again not at all documented, any worse than what Jefferson or Washington or other slaveowners did? Fourth, the argument that "Amherst is ours" is hollow. Washington, DC "is ours," too, our national capital. If "Lord Jeffs" reflects poorly, even immorally, upon our college, how does "Washington, DC" reflect upon the nation founded on the Creed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.....?" Where does this all stop? Should we go back to naming things after trees and flowers and rivers and.....? Oh no, I forgot. What if a river is named after some reprehensible person, like Amherst or Jefferson? Fifth, people are not saints, at least not while they are here. (Mother Teresa, Reagan, and Obama excepted!) We all have flaws as well as assets. We do good things and we do some not-so-good things. To honor the good while acknowledging the bad seems to me to be what history is all about. Sixth, to let current students "demand" the removal of "Lord Jeffs" seems, frankly, stupid. Seriously, what do students know? This isn't some illegal, immoral war--like Vietnam. "Lord Jeffs" isn't getting anyone killed or maimed. "Oh, someone might be offended or made uncomfortable......" Grow up! Being "offended" and "uncomfortable" is a major part of life. I'm offended and feel uncomfortable almost every day. That the college is shielding these students reflects poorly on the administration and even the faculty. What's with this "safe places" garbage? What sort of a "safe place" was I in when Prof Guttmann told me, "If that's the best work you can do, I suggest you transfer to another college" or other professors, in bold and red ink, wrote on my papers, "No sloppy thinking allowed?" Seventh, is there no sense of history here, at Amherst? Had there been no Jeffery Amherst, Britain might well have lost the French and Indian War. It was losing before Amherst and Wolfe were appointed to replace the doofuses who were losing for the Brits. I doubt few know that Pontiac's Rebellion wasn't really directed at Amherst or that Amherst turned down command of Redcoats in the American Revolution because he thought it an unjust, immoral war, that the colonists had a point!
There are far, far better ways for Amherst and its students to make this a better world in which to live.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Brrr......
Temperature at 3:00 this AM was 8 degrees. That's a bit colder than the forecast last night (about 9 PM) of 15.
There's a bit of dusting of snow, but not much. I hope it prevented any frost on the windshield. (We have to get to the bus stop by 6:40 and then back to get Ashley ready for school, too.)
BTW, Venus and a crescent moon are beautiful this AM. It's so crisp and clear out there.
Some snow, just a few inches, would be nice. Last weekend, running at the state park, my partner pointed to the inch or less of white stuff and said, "It's pretty out here." She was right. I'm not talking about a foot, just a few inches--although I wouldn't mind shoveling a bit.
I don't know the forecast for the next several days.
There's a bit of dusting of snow, but not much. I hope it prevented any frost on the windshield. (We have to get to the bus stop by 6:40 and then back to get Ashley ready for school, too.)
BTW, Venus and a crescent moon are beautiful this AM. It's so crisp and clear out there.
Some snow, just a few inches, would be nice. Last weekend, running at the state park, my partner pointed to the inch or less of white stuff and said, "It's pretty out here." She was right. I'm not talking about a foot, just a few inches--although I wouldn't mind shoveling a bit.
I don't know the forecast for the next several days.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Foreboding?
For some reason I can't quite put my finger on, I have this sense of dread, of foreboding about 2016. Maybe it's because we are sinking more and more into the abyss, maybe with no way out. Maybe it's because it's a Presidential election year and, if either of the two front-runners now are elected, we are doomed, that there is no way out of the abyss. Maybe it's because we are in such cultural decline, often redefining behavior that used to be anathema so that it's very acceptable today.
I heard a voice on the radio this AM that struck a chord. It was something like, "I don't care who the Republican nominee is, I'm voting for him." I guess I'm still stuck on this one. Several Presidential elections ago I said I was tired of "holding my nose and voting for" the Establishment Republican candidate. I refused to do it. Of course, the chorus came out--"You threw away your vote!" "It's because of voters like you that Obama was elected." I've explained my views on this, more than once. First, in voting the way I did I was expressing my viewpoint and, if more had done as I did in the past three or four elections, maybe we wouldn't get stuck with the lousy candidates all of the time. And, I think, in voting for Obama or Romney, those voters "threw away" their votes. And, because Republicans have presented us with "hold your nose" candidates who I refused to vote for, it's my fault Obama was elected?????? That reminds me of Lincoln's words at his Cooper Union Address, "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver or I shall ill you and then you will be a murderer!'" Yep, the highwayman cleared his conscience all right. Besides, we sent the Establishment Republicans to Congress with sizable majorities in each house. How did that one work out for us? It's like the former Czech premier warned us, it's not the "prince of fools" (Obama), but "the vast confederacy of fools" who elected him and the others we have elected. That, my friends, is us. "We have met the enemy and it is us."
I heard some folks decrying that Trump is so popular. C'mon...... What is so surprising about his attraction? After all, this country is addicted to so-called "reality television."
We are deepening the cultural abyss. Note how we redefine things that used to be unacceptable, even evil. "Abortion" is now "a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes" and "planned parenthood." Even "lying" isn't lying any more; it's "misspeaking," "lies" being "misstatements." Oh how easily Nixon could have been home free had he only realized this.
In this same vein, we see to have lost our respect for human life. You can guess what I mean.
In an online discussion, in passing someone mentioned the "gun problem." I agree that we have a problem with guns. But is it the guns themselves? Or is it the people, dare I say animals?, who use guns in criminal and even murderous ways? I have neighbors who have guns. They hunt, take target practice, shoot skeet, etc. I imagine some out here in suburbia think their firearms are for protection, although I'd guess the former reasons are more relevant. So, some animal (yes, animal) who thinks she has been "dissed" uses a gun to shoot up a house, killing a 7-year old girl and seriously wounding her 8-year old friend, and my neighbors who shoot only for sport have to give up their guns? OK, if you buy that one, then let's outlaw cell phones. Sure, most people don't cause accidents with them, although I'm convinced practically every person with a cell phone at one time or another drives while using it. That's not the point, is it? I've been, as I noted, rear-ended twice by cell-phone using drivers. Once, the car was totaled and the responding officer noted "how lucky" I was that I wasn't seriously injured or even killed as my car was totaled. (And, just yesterday while running, a lady on a cell phone pinned me in to a barricade, coming within a yard of hitting me. Oh yeah, she was talking on the phone had no idea I was there, even after I yelled.) So, ban guns, then ban cell phones. I haven't been almost killed by a person with a gun, but more than once by a person on a cell phone.
I see some of the manufacturers are putting more toys on cars, in the form of electronic/technology advances. That's just what we need--more distractions for drivers. Why, if we are concerned about saving lives, don't all these technological advances get banned?
And over the Chris holidays, a shooting took place in one of the southern states, in a mall. A 17-year old was killed, shot by an off-duty police officer who was working security at the mall. The 17-year old was, predictably, "a good kid" who "everybody loved." Of course he was. I'm not at all suggesting he deserved to die, but consider...... He had multiple run-ins with the law, including drug and weapons charges--yes, more than one. He had been involved in an incident around Thanksgiving when his brother was shot. He had a loaded weapon at the mall this time. Witnesses counted at least 10 shots fired by two opposing parties at the mall, the crowded mall. They also reported the off-duty officer fired only after the 17-year old pointed his gun at him. "A good kid" who "everybody loved" also has a baby he fathered on the way. Again, we have redefined our vocabularies.
While dropping off Karen at the collision/bump shop (thanks to a cell-phone using driver) this AM, I got a kick out of the local radio jocks now insisting that the Lions' coach deserves to stay. Weren't these the same people howling for his scalp just a month or two ago? I don't know if he should stay or go--and don't care. But they remind me of weather folks on television or radio. "We have a slight possibility of a chance of rain" or "snow" or whatever "in some areas." Yeah, right. Unless the Lions have a distinct change of character, they'll likely get rid of Calvin Jackson, their wide receiver who is apparently still all-world. I forget who once said it, "You can always get more money. You can't always get another..." in this case, Calvin Jackson. Speaking of sports, why in the Detroit dailies is it so hard to find local high school scores, just scores, yet there's coverage of some soccer league in Britain or some third-string quarterback at Podunk U's pulled quadriceps? I wonder how many people--or how few--actually read the sports sections any more.
I heard a voice on the radio this AM that struck a chord. It was something like, "I don't care who the Republican nominee is, I'm voting for him." I guess I'm still stuck on this one. Several Presidential elections ago I said I was tired of "holding my nose and voting for" the Establishment Republican candidate. I refused to do it. Of course, the chorus came out--"You threw away your vote!" "It's because of voters like you that Obama was elected." I've explained my views on this, more than once. First, in voting the way I did I was expressing my viewpoint and, if more had done as I did in the past three or four elections, maybe we wouldn't get stuck with the lousy candidates all of the time. And, I think, in voting for Obama or Romney, those voters "threw away" their votes. And, because Republicans have presented us with "hold your nose" candidates who I refused to vote for, it's my fault Obama was elected?????? That reminds me of Lincoln's words at his Cooper Union Address, "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver or I shall ill you and then you will be a murderer!'" Yep, the highwayman cleared his conscience all right. Besides, we sent the Establishment Republicans to Congress with sizable majorities in each house. How did that one work out for us? It's like the former Czech premier warned us, it's not the "prince of fools" (Obama), but "the vast confederacy of fools" who elected him and the others we have elected. That, my friends, is us. "We have met the enemy and it is us."
I heard some folks decrying that Trump is so popular. C'mon...... What is so surprising about his attraction? After all, this country is addicted to so-called "reality television."
We are deepening the cultural abyss. Note how we redefine things that used to be unacceptable, even evil. "Abortion" is now "a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes" and "planned parenthood." Even "lying" isn't lying any more; it's "misspeaking," "lies" being "misstatements." Oh how easily Nixon could have been home free had he only realized this.
In this same vein, we see to have lost our respect for human life. You can guess what I mean.
In an online discussion, in passing someone mentioned the "gun problem." I agree that we have a problem with guns. But is it the guns themselves? Or is it the people, dare I say animals?, who use guns in criminal and even murderous ways? I have neighbors who have guns. They hunt, take target practice, shoot skeet, etc. I imagine some out here in suburbia think their firearms are for protection, although I'd guess the former reasons are more relevant. So, some animal (yes, animal) who thinks she has been "dissed" uses a gun to shoot up a house, killing a 7-year old girl and seriously wounding her 8-year old friend, and my neighbors who shoot only for sport have to give up their guns? OK, if you buy that one, then let's outlaw cell phones. Sure, most people don't cause accidents with them, although I'm convinced practically every person with a cell phone at one time or another drives while using it. That's not the point, is it? I've been, as I noted, rear-ended twice by cell-phone using drivers. Once, the car was totaled and the responding officer noted "how lucky" I was that I wasn't seriously injured or even killed as my car was totaled. (And, just yesterday while running, a lady on a cell phone pinned me in to a barricade, coming within a yard of hitting me. Oh yeah, she was talking on the phone had no idea I was there, even after I yelled.) So, ban guns, then ban cell phones. I haven't been almost killed by a person with a gun, but more than once by a person on a cell phone.
I see some of the manufacturers are putting more toys on cars, in the form of electronic/technology advances. That's just what we need--more distractions for drivers. Why, if we are concerned about saving lives, don't all these technological advances get banned?
And over the Chris holidays, a shooting took place in one of the southern states, in a mall. A 17-year old was killed, shot by an off-duty police officer who was working security at the mall. The 17-year old was, predictably, "a good kid" who "everybody loved." Of course he was. I'm not at all suggesting he deserved to die, but consider...... He had multiple run-ins with the law, including drug and weapons charges--yes, more than one. He had been involved in an incident around Thanksgiving when his brother was shot. He had a loaded weapon at the mall this time. Witnesses counted at least 10 shots fired by two opposing parties at the mall, the crowded mall. They also reported the off-duty officer fired only after the 17-year old pointed his gun at him. "A good kid" who "everybody loved" also has a baby he fathered on the way. Again, we have redefined our vocabularies.
While dropping off Karen at the collision/bump shop (thanks to a cell-phone using driver) this AM, I got a kick out of the local radio jocks now insisting that the Lions' coach deserves to stay. Weren't these the same people howling for his scalp just a month or two ago? I don't know if he should stay or go--and don't care. But they remind me of weather folks on television or radio. "We have a slight possibility of a chance of rain" or "snow" or whatever "in some areas." Yeah, right. Unless the Lions have a distinct change of character, they'll likely get rid of Calvin Jackson, their wide receiver who is apparently still all-world. I forget who once said it, "You can always get more money. You can't always get another..." in this case, Calvin Jackson. Speaking of sports, why in the Detroit dailies is it so hard to find local high school scores, just scores, yet there's coverage of some soccer league in Britain or some third-string quarterback at Podunk U's pulled quadriceps? I wonder how many people--or how few--actually read the sports sections any more.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
2016
Doesn't that feel weird to write or say? 2016. Where did 2015 go...or 1967 or 1971 or...for that matter? I suppose 2017 is next?
I admit to being somewhat of a grammar snob. If I make mistakes here or in other writing, usually they are due to carelessness or lousy typing skills. Sometimes, though, my misuse of words and etc. are deliberate. I get worked up, if just a bit, when I see mistakes in newspapers, magazines, and even books. OK, some of them are likely just carelessness, like mine. But some are not and are obviously not. This AM in the newspaper I read about a former Detroit Tiger who died last year, identified as "an alumni" of the last World Series championship team from Detroit. Sorry...but "alumni" is plural and alumnus is singular. I suppose it's bigoted of me to add the feminine forms are "alumna" and "alumnae." But, I refuse to call females who act "actors," preferring "actresses."
Why, by the way, and when did "actors" begin to be used for both genders? How in the world might "actresses" be offensive, let alone insulting? Oh, my fault--I'm sure it's a microaggression.
Another article in the paper this AM equated the treatment of Jews and Muslims in this country. The writer was a philosophy professor at a local college. He missed a big, big difference in Jews who have come to the US and Muslims, particularly recent immigrants, who have come. The Jews did not come here looking to kill Americans, to harm the US. I know, probably more than many/most people, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and other Middle Easterners are not terrorists. I have written about my experiences. But how many terrorists attacks have been perpetrated by migrant Jews?????? The philosophy professor might need to brush up on his logic.
Another op-ed piece was really terrific in the Free Press. Sometimes I agree with the writer and sometimes not. This one nailed it. With the idiotic murder of a 7-year old girl in Detroit, Rochelle Riley asks if all black lives matter or if it's just if the shooter is a white police officer. Of course she acknowledges they do, esp that of a 7-year old. The little girl was playing in her living room when a person who had been in the house earlier and apparently had been "dissed" went out and got a gun and shot up the house. Another young girl was wounded, but will survive. Riley's piece and others like it need to be on the front pages every day. Focus needs to be refocused on the deaths of so many of our people in places like Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc. at the hands of animals.
I see Arne Duncan is resigning as Sec of Education. It's too bad he didn't resign about 7 years ago, when he was appointed. Oh, he has his supporters (and his page at the Dept of Ed Web site is little more than a hagiography, undeserved), but you can probably tell I'm not one of them. He's a promoter of the Common Core. He's big on test, test, and test some more. One of the primary reasons college tuition has skyrocketed is the entry of the federal gov't in the loan/financial aid business. ("Hey, let's crank up tuition and room and board! The feds are giving or insuring loans and they won't default. Look how they bailed out......") Duncan pushed to limit annual repayments at 10% or less of a debtor's income. Even more, he favored eliminating the loans after 20 years. Gee, I wonder what the current scofflaws will see in that? Of course, those in the know likely suspected as much. I don't believe he ever taught a day in his life (although I might be wrong) and he was a career administrator, at various levels. He'll probably go out like Holder, with great fan fare, but having worsened an already sad state of affairs.
Oops! I just noticed the time. The Lions are on! Oh, I'm just kidding. I couldn't care less and won't be watching.
I admit to being somewhat of a grammar snob. If I make mistakes here or in other writing, usually they are due to carelessness or lousy typing skills. Sometimes, though, my misuse of words and etc. are deliberate. I get worked up, if just a bit, when I see mistakes in newspapers, magazines, and even books. OK, some of them are likely just carelessness, like mine. But some are not and are obviously not. This AM in the newspaper I read about a former Detroit Tiger who died last year, identified as "an alumni" of the last World Series championship team from Detroit. Sorry...but "alumni" is plural and alumnus is singular. I suppose it's bigoted of me to add the feminine forms are "alumna" and "alumnae." But, I refuse to call females who act "actors," preferring "actresses."
Why, by the way, and when did "actors" begin to be used for both genders? How in the world might "actresses" be offensive, let alone insulting? Oh, my fault--I'm sure it's a microaggression.
Another article in the paper this AM equated the treatment of Jews and Muslims in this country. The writer was a philosophy professor at a local college. He missed a big, big difference in Jews who have come to the US and Muslims, particularly recent immigrants, who have come. The Jews did not come here looking to kill Americans, to harm the US. I know, probably more than many/most people, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and other Middle Easterners are not terrorists. I have written about my experiences. But how many terrorists attacks have been perpetrated by migrant Jews?????? The philosophy professor might need to brush up on his logic.
Another op-ed piece was really terrific in the Free Press. Sometimes I agree with the writer and sometimes not. This one nailed it. With the idiotic murder of a 7-year old girl in Detroit, Rochelle Riley asks if all black lives matter or if it's just if the shooter is a white police officer. Of course she acknowledges they do, esp that of a 7-year old. The little girl was playing in her living room when a person who had been in the house earlier and apparently had been "dissed" went out and got a gun and shot up the house. Another young girl was wounded, but will survive. Riley's piece and others like it need to be on the front pages every day. Focus needs to be refocused on the deaths of so many of our people in places like Detroit, Chicago, DC, etc. at the hands of animals.
I see Arne Duncan is resigning as Sec of Education. It's too bad he didn't resign about 7 years ago, when he was appointed. Oh, he has his supporters (and his page at the Dept of Ed Web site is little more than a hagiography, undeserved), but you can probably tell I'm not one of them. He's a promoter of the Common Core. He's big on test, test, and test some more. One of the primary reasons college tuition has skyrocketed is the entry of the federal gov't in the loan/financial aid business. ("Hey, let's crank up tuition and room and board! The feds are giving or insuring loans and they won't default. Look how they bailed out......") Duncan pushed to limit annual repayments at 10% or less of a debtor's income. Even more, he favored eliminating the loans after 20 years. Gee, I wonder what the current scofflaws will see in that? Of course, those in the know likely suspected as much. I don't believe he ever taught a day in his life (although I might be wrong) and he was a career administrator, at various levels. He'll probably go out like Holder, with great fan fare, but having worsened an already sad state of affairs.
Oops! I just noticed the time. The Lions are on! Oh, I'm just kidding. I couldn't care less and won't be watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
