Those close to me know I'm not real big on compromise. It's not that I am completely averse to new or different ideas. Nor do I think I know everything. (Believe me, the older I get the more I realize how little I actually know!) I guess I just need a lot of convincing before I change my opinions.
I've never really liked "reach across the aisle," "bi-partisan," euphemisms for compromise. Of course there are places for compromise. In a country of 300 million people we'd be in quite a pickle without any compromise. But it isn't always a smart thing.
When, for instance, do we compromise our values? If we give in a little on them here and a little on them there, pretty soon, where are they?
And, speaking of values, should personal values become those of society at large? If, say, Christians are against gay marriage, should we outlaw gay marriage? Can't Christians still live their Christian lives, themselves, without forcing their religious beliefs on others, that is, the gay marriage folks? I don't see why not. It seems that many of those who are so vocally opposed to Sharia law, perhaps becoming entrenched here in the US (which I think is a very remote possibility; but, again, what do I know?), try to dictate their own religious beliefs on others. Can't Christians lead our lives and gays lead their lives? Why is there a need for conflict?
Now, that's not to say there aren't values that need to be enforced. I've written, if not directly, about a lot of them. Respect for life is one of them. This concerns the almost daily revelations of yet more murders in Detroit, abortion-on-demand ("Women's rights" is a clever, but misleading euphemism. It can be shot full of holes.), and more. We shoot others because we want their cars or shoes or because we have been "dissed?"
We've also become accustomed to getting entitlements (although that word is becoming quite tiresome, too). I'm not merely talking about individuals, but also corporations. Why should others pay for one's college education? (Bernie Sanders) Why should others pay (at least in large part) for a new arena for a professional team owned by a billionaire? Why do we subsidize bad behavior under the guise of "fairness?" (Now, there's another clever euphemism.)
Here's a question. Should the private/personal convictions of owners or CEOs of corporations lead to boycotts of those corporations? I'm thinking here of companies like Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A (spelling?). I've never patronized either place, but that's only because I don't think I've ever seen one of them. If we are going to boycott such companies, why, then, don't we boycott goods from China or Saudi Arabia or.....? After all, don't those companies commit egregious (I like that word! I just hope it doesn't become trite/overused incorrectly like so many other words have become.) atrocities, particularly regarding human rights? But not only don't we boycott, we actively seek trade with them. Our own governor, for instance, has traveled to China on such a mission and then touts success.
And why do colleges ban certain speakers from campuses? The latest is Williams College, as I've noted. Where in the world should opposing viewpoints, however odious, be exposed if not on college campuses? Again, I think we let a very small minority, vocal though they be, dictate. Invite the speakers and then protest/demonstrate outside of the talk. But get those ideas out there so they can be slammed.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
Typical?
I don't know if this is typical of the college experience today, but suspect it is. This episode involves, well, our (Amherst) big college rivals, Williams College. The rivalry goes back to the 1820s and the founding of the Amherst (from Williams expatriates?). And it extends to today, where both annually battle not only on the athletic fields, but also to see which will be rated the best liberal arts college in the land.
But I am distressed, that at such a renowned college, one identified with the best American has to offer in undergraduate education, such close-mindedness occurs. Apparently, some speakers with contrary, even reprehensible views were invited to speak on campus. Last fall, the anti-feminist speaker had her invitation rescinded, but the college president asked the student body, which had taken back its invite, to be willing to listen to other ideas. More recently, another speaker who has expressed reprehensible views (in speeches and in print) was invited. But, this time, the president un-invited the speaker.
Here are two articles, which may have to be copied and pasted into your browser(s):
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/22/williams-college-blocks-controversial-speaker-appearing-campus?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=7af3f26ed0-WNU20160226&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-7af3f26ed0-198545941#.VtCBXJ0uFV4.mailto
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/22/the-death-of-free-speech-at-williams-college/
The issue is explained pretty clearly.
This is odious on many counts. "Free speech is a value I hold in extremely high regard," wrote the college president, except for speech I don't hold in extremely high regard. How like a current school administrator! That students are allowed to determine which viewpoints they hear is blasphemous to the concept of a free marketplace of ideas, which is what a college is supposed to be, isn't it? It's easy to accept ideas we like or, at least, don't hate. Listen to these ideas and build the defenses against them! This is not an issue of a right of free speech, either. President Falk (I at first typed "Flak," a parapraxes?) might want to read the First Amendment. Of course Williams is well within its authority to cancel any speaker(s). Its not "Congress (shall make no law......)" or any branch of government. It is a private college. That's not at question, certainly not as "a right of free speech." The question is should the speaker(s) be canceled. One might argue, convincingly, that allowing such a speak merely gives a platform for the dissemination of abhorrent views. Indeed it does! Expose those views for being despicable. Shoot them down!
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Snow Day!
Yep, from 15 below zero a week and a half ago to 65 degrees last Sat to 11-12" of snow yesterday into today, with strong winds to boot. It's been quite a roller coaster.
The weather guys got it right and wrong. It was supposed to rain until mid-afternoon yesterday, but shortly into my 7:15 AM run, it began snowing. I knew we'd get a bit more than was forecast (4-8").
I shoveled out our driveway four times, opting for 2-4" at a time because the white stuff was wet and heavy. I also helped Michael earn some money, shoveling out a neighbor's drive. He did the yeoman's share of the work. I think I picked up the yeoman's share of the aches. Ah, to be young again......
Federal gov't revenue has increased steadily since 2009. In fact, over that span, the feds took in more than a trillion (That's t-t-t-trillion!) dollars more in '15 than it did six years later. Federal expenditures, over that same time frame, has remained about the same or increased slightly from year to year. That's after a significant boost, about half a trillion bucks, in 2009. The total debt is nearing $20,000,000,000,000. I'm not sure I can count all the zeroes. I know I can't use my fingers alone. Now, hold on to your hats. The debt increases manifold if we include unfunded liabilities--and we have to do that, don't we? Some, even former gov't lackeys, claim the real national debt is more than three times the number given by the deceitful politicians and bureaucrats, somewhere near $65 trillion. Yet others, not tied to the gov't past or present, insist the debt is well over $200,000,000,000,000. How can that ever be paid? And the fools in DC keep spending, spending, spending.
Of course, the meme that has spread ubiquitously is that "the rich don't pay their fair share." No doubt, some don't. Can they be blamed? How many of us don't take the deductions, exemptions, and credits coming to us on our taxes? Of course we take them. Who wouldn't?
The obvious problem isn't the revenue side of the equation, but the spending side. DC folks spend far too much money, other people's money and recklessly. State legislators, local officials, school administrators, etc. all do, too. After all, it's not their money and, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman has often written, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
Well, it goes deeper than that. I've read that if DC confiscates all the wealth in the US, every last dime, from the demonized "wealthy" to the rest of us, there still won't be enough to cover just the deficit spending of the first years of the Obama Administration. Even if that's off by a bit, it's very sobering, isn't it? Just think about that for a while.
Of course, much of this has resulted from a culture change. What's happened? If someone's kid gets sick, but the parent didn't have the foresight or the will to purchase health insurance for the family (I know, I know, "But it's too expensive." There are programs out there that even I know about that could and would have provided coverage for those unable to afford much if any. And if the truly needy, not those who would prefer an I-phone to health insurance, require assistance, let's give it to them), let's let others pick up the tab through higher medical and insurance rates or, worse, ObamaCare. If your kid wants to take a foreign language in school or wants yet more computers there, but the school district says "no" because of the expense, let's demand that gov't do something, that is, increase taxes on your neighbors to pay for what you and your kid want. Where else to visit? How about paying for college or housing or.....? Let's cry for gov't to "Do something!" And it will. It will raise taxes so our neighbors pay for, not what they want, but for what we want.
And we don't demonize those who continually seek to raise taxes, to make others (certainly never us!) pay more. No No No. We foist shame on those who call for fiscal responsibility in gov't, who demand reforms that might lead to efficiencies and accountability.
Here's an idea. Instead of hiding behind politicians, why don't those of us who seek more money from our neighbors (in the form of higher taxes) instead just go knocking on neighborhood doors and ask for it? I wonder how that would work out.
The weather guys got it right and wrong. It was supposed to rain until mid-afternoon yesterday, but shortly into my 7:15 AM run, it began snowing. I knew we'd get a bit more than was forecast (4-8").
I shoveled out our driveway four times, opting for 2-4" at a time because the white stuff was wet and heavy. I also helped Michael earn some money, shoveling out a neighbor's drive. He did the yeoman's share of the work. I think I picked up the yeoman's share of the aches. Ah, to be young again......
Federal gov't revenue has increased steadily since 2009. In fact, over that span, the feds took in more than a trillion (That's t-t-t-trillion!) dollars more in '15 than it did six years later. Federal expenditures, over that same time frame, has remained about the same or increased slightly from year to year. That's after a significant boost, about half a trillion bucks, in 2009. The total debt is nearing $20,000,000,000,000. I'm not sure I can count all the zeroes. I know I can't use my fingers alone. Now, hold on to your hats. The debt increases manifold if we include unfunded liabilities--and we have to do that, don't we? Some, even former gov't lackeys, claim the real national debt is more than three times the number given by the deceitful politicians and bureaucrats, somewhere near $65 trillion. Yet others, not tied to the gov't past or present, insist the debt is well over $200,000,000,000,000. How can that ever be paid? And the fools in DC keep spending, spending, spending.
Of course, the meme that has spread ubiquitously is that "the rich don't pay their fair share." No doubt, some don't. Can they be blamed? How many of us don't take the deductions, exemptions, and credits coming to us on our taxes? Of course we take them. Who wouldn't?
The obvious problem isn't the revenue side of the equation, but the spending side. DC folks spend far too much money, other people's money and recklessly. State legislators, local officials, school administrators, etc. all do, too. After all, it's not their money and, as Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman has often written, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
Well, it goes deeper than that. I've read that if DC confiscates all the wealth in the US, every last dime, from the demonized "wealthy" to the rest of us, there still won't be enough to cover just the deficit spending of the first years of the Obama Administration. Even if that's off by a bit, it's very sobering, isn't it? Just think about that for a while.
Of course, much of this has resulted from a culture change. What's happened? If someone's kid gets sick, but the parent didn't have the foresight or the will to purchase health insurance for the family (I know, I know, "But it's too expensive." There are programs out there that even I know about that could and would have provided coverage for those unable to afford much if any. And if the truly needy, not those who would prefer an I-phone to health insurance, require assistance, let's give it to them), let's let others pick up the tab through higher medical and insurance rates or, worse, ObamaCare. If your kid wants to take a foreign language in school or wants yet more computers there, but the school district says "no" because of the expense, let's demand that gov't do something, that is, increase taxes on your neighbors to pay for what you and your kid want. Where else to visit? How about paying for college or housing or.....? Let's cry for gov't to "Do something!" And it will. It will raise taxes so our neighbors pay for, not what they want, but for what we want.
And we don't demonize those who continually seek to raise taxes, to make others (certainly never us!) pay more. No No No. We foist shame on those who call for fiscal responsibility in gov't, who demand reforms that might lead to efficiencies and accountability.
Here's an idea. Instead of hiding behind politicians, why don't those of us who seek more money from our neighbors (in the form of higher taxes) instead just go knocking on neighborhood doors and ask for it? I wonder how that would work out.
Monday, February 22, 2016
It Gets Scarier...
...and scarier by the day.
I just can't imagine Don Trump as a President, let alone a candidate for President. I find it very frightening. I think he's a charlatan. I think he just tells people what they want to hear. He flip-flops on many issues. And, you say, "What's the difference? That's what they [politicians] all do." Of course it is--and that's my point. Americans are looking for somebody different. We want somebody who won't lie to us, who will do what he/she has told us he/she would do. I really don't think Trump is the guy. Yet, if he does well next week, on Super Tuesday, is it "Katie Bar the Door?"
I wrote to a member of the Republican Party a while back that Trump is the fault of the Republican Establishment. Oh, the Establishment will blame us, the peons, certainly not itself. (Note how I lump "the Establishment" as one!) We, to it, epitomize the Hamiltonian view, that common folks can't government themselves; we aren't capable of it. It doesn't realize or refuse to recognize that because of what the Establishment has offered us, Trump is the answer for many folks. Again, as I've written many times before, it's not Trump; it's the reaction against the Establishment. People are tired of "holding their noses" and voting for the least terrible candidate. People are tired of Establishment candidates promising this and that during their campaigns only to refuse to do this and that once elected. People are tired of candidates who are elected based on their promises only to find those candidates, once elected, marginalized or ignored by the Establishment. The Establishment Republicans should read a little Shakespeare (as difficult as I find reading him, too): "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves......"
I wonder where we'd be now if, in recent past elections, more people had decided not "to hold their noses" and vote for the least bad of the candidates. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Establishment would have taken no notice, but what if it had? Would it finally awaken to the fact that people are tired, frustrated, and angry? The Establishment claims that if so many Republicans hadn't stayed home in '08 and '12, Obama wouldn't have been elected. Maybe so, maybe not. And certainly things would have been different--such as ObamaCare. But look at W. Bush. Isn't that what "holding our noses" earned us? Oh, he no doubt was far better than the clowns Gore and Kerry, but, again, have we become relegated to choosing the least rotten of candidates to be President?
Are we ever going to see a Lincoln, a Washington, a Jefferson, etc. as President again? Are we stuck with the mediocre or worse of candidates? I sometimes think that, but it wasn't too far in the past when we did have good Presidents. Truman and Eisenhower (note, one a Democrat and one a Republican, but surely the parties have changed since then) were very good, I think. Some might say even more recently, Reagan. I'm still conflicted by him. But can we find, among 310 million people, another Truman or Eisenhower?
I wrote of this last week, I think, maybe before. If the Establishment Republicans want to behave like Democrats, e.g., more Big Government, why don't they become Democrats? Hmmm...... Is it, as many suspect, not really about us, about the US, about governing in the best interests of America and Americans? Is it really about power? It sure seems like it. Oh, they posture and sometimes even put on a good and convincing show (almost). But when push comes to shove, they are always on the side of more and more government.
I think it was confirmed this AM. Obama didn't attend Justice Scalia's funeral because he was burdened with the work of finding a replacement for the Supreme Court. Oh, there was the required photo showing him with a massive tome, purportedly of candidates for nomination. Wasn't that as predictable as the sun coming up in the AM? Yep, he was hard at work. Except, Sunday he was out on the golf course. I guess, maybe, he found his Supreme Court candidate on Saturday??????
I just can't imagine Don Trump as a President, let alone a candidate for President. I find it very frightening. I think he's a charlatan. I think he just tells people what they want to hear. He flip-flops on many issues. And, you say, "What's the difference? That's what they [politicians] all do." Of course it is--and that's my point. Americans are looking for somebody different. We want somebody who won't lie to us, who will do what he/she has told us he/she would do. I really don't think Trump is the guy. Yet, if he does well next week, on Super Tuesday, is it "Katie Bar the Door?"
I wrote to a member of the Republican Party a while back that Trump is the fault of the Republican Establishment. Oh, the Establishment will blame us, the peons, certainly not itself. (Note how I lump "the Establishment" as one!) We, to it, epitomize the Hamiltonian view, that common folks can't government themselves; we aren't capable of it. It doesn't realize or refuse to recognize that because of what the Establishment has offered us, Trump is the answer for many folks. Again, as I've written many times before, it's not Trump; it's the reaction against the Establishment. People are tired of "holding their noses" and voting for the least terrible candidate. People are tired of Establishment candidates promising this and that during their campaigns only to refuse to do this and that once elected. People are tired of candidates who are elected based on their promises only to find those candidates, once elected, marginalized or ignored by the Establishment. The Establishment Republicans should read a little Shakespeare (as difficult as I find reading him, too): "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves......"
I wonder where we'd be now if, in recent past elections, more people had decided not "to hold their noses" and vote for the least bad of the candidates. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Establishment would have taken no notice, but what if it had? Would it finally awaken to the fact that people are tired, frustrated, and angry? The Establishment claims that if so many Republicans hadn't stayed home in '08 and '12, Obama wouldn't have been elected. Maybe so, maybe not. And certainly things would have been different--such as ObamaCare. But look at W. Bush. Isn't that what "holding our noses" earned us? Oh, he no doubt was far better than the clowns Gore and Kerry, but, again, have we become relegated to choosing the least rotten of candidates to be President?
Are we ever going to see a Lincoln, a Washington, a Jefferson, etc. as President again? Are we stuck with the mediocre or worse of candidates? I sometimes think that, but it wasn't too far in the past when we did have good Presidents. Truman and Eisenhower (note, one a Democrat and one a Republican, but surely the parties have changed since then) were very good, I think. Some might say even more recently, Reagan. I'm still conflicted by him. But can we find, among 310 million people, another Truman or Eisenhower?
I wrote of this last week, I think, maybe before. If the Establishment Republicans want to behave like Democrats, e.g., more Big Government, why don't they become Democrats? Hmmm...... Is it, as many suspect, not really about us, about the US, about governing in the best interests of America and Americans? Is it really about power? It sure seems like it. Oh, they posture and sometimes even put on a good and convincing show (almost). But when push comes to shove, they are always on the side of more and more government.
I think it was confirmed this AM. Obama didn't attend Justice Scalia's funeral because he was burdened with the work of finding a replacement for the Supreme Court. Oh, there was the required photo showing him with a massive tome, purportedly of candidates for nomination. Wasn't that as predictable as the sun coming up in the AM? Yep, he was hard at work. Except, Sunday he was out on the golf course. I guess, maybe, he found his Supreme Court candidate on Saturday??????
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Saturday in Michigan
As I noted earlier, last Sat AM, Up North, it was 15 degrees below zero at 8 AM. Today, we are headed up to 65; it's already 60 degrees at noon.
Running with my blind buddy this AM reminded me of my good fortune. Not only do I have my sight, but also am lucky to be inspired by him. He was talking a bit about training, in years past, for his marathon(s). And he noted how difficult it is for a blind runner to train. He was right! Not only did Michael have to put in the miles and miles and miles of training, up to 22 or 23 or more, with all of the time; he also had to have guide runners who could and were willing to run that far. With one of his training periods, I put in the miles, so I decided I might as well try another marathon, too. But with his others (two or three?), I just did the long runs with him. I didn't want to run another marathon. It's one thing to run with a blind man, say, for 5 or 6 miles on the city streets. It's quite a different matter to run 22 or 23 the streets. We had to find a bit more secluded spot. He also reminded me of a race he did in Chicago, a stair-climbing event. It went up a skyscraper, 42 stories he said. Michael climbed the stairs "two at a time." Wow! My quads are hurting just think about that.
I heard this AM that the U of Connecticut is building a dorm for black males only. That isn't true, at least not completely so. The new dorm will have a wing that will house only black males, by their choice. Still, that seems to ring hollow to me in light of all US universities' insistence on "diversity." Isn't this segregation, even if by black choice? The rational might be noble; UConn claims it is merely seeking a way to help improve black retention and graduation rates. But imagine if there was a "white male only" section of a dorm? And how does this measure up to past efforts to, say, bus school children to white and black schools? I don't know about this one.
I keep hearing on the radio ads for "substitute school teachers." (Whoever came up with the silly name "guest teachers?" Maybe it's the same folks who changed "junior high" to "middle school." The reasoning behind that, I was once told, was to give the "junior high/middle school" an identity of its own, instead of being in the shadow of the (senior) high school. But can anything be any more nebulous than "middle school?")
Why has the Republican Party become another party of Big Government? Are, in general, the predictions of Barry Goldwater from the '60s coming true? They sure seem like it. Why have the Establishment Republicans abandoned Republican principles? Is it that that really do believe in Big Government? If so, why didn't they just become Democrats? Is it that they are afraid, of what I'm not sure? The Establishment has stabbed conservatives in the back, time and time again. So now it's not just the methods (unethical and otherwise) that make the two parties similar, but their goals, although the degree is somewhat different. But wait a while. Soon it will be just like the pigs'/mens' rapprochement in Animal Farm.
I'm trying to think of another country, besides the US, in which its citizens, or at least a significant number of them, continually rip on themselves and their homeland. This includes many of our leaders. I don't know all of the nations in the world, but of those I can name, I can't think of any who are always sniping at their own. Do the Germans and Japanese still criticize themselves for WW2 and all the evils associated with that? Why do so many Americans hate themselves, as citizens of the US that is?
Here's a question. Thomas Jefferson, I think, once opined that the end of democracy would come with uninformed voters. Hmmm...... Is that what is happening now? But here's my question: are Americans uninformed or misinformed? If it's the latter, is that misinformation deliberate? I believe that there are quite a few in government/politics who deliberately misinform, obfuscate, lie. In fact, I think much of our government and its leaders are based on a foundation of deception and dishonesty, from the local school boards to DC. But my real concern is the media, whose responsibilities the Founders held so dear that they were protected in the very First Amendment. The LameStream media, no doubt, doesn't tell us the truth or, at least, the whole truth. It obfuscates, at the very least, through commission and omission. Even the alternative media, esp the Internet, I think isn't balanced. In many ways, it is so jaundiced (thanks to the LameStreams) that it bends too far the other way. It is hard to believe anything these days.
Running with my blind buddy this AM reminded me of my good fortune. Not only do I have my sight, but also am lucky to be inspired by him. He was talking a bit about training, in years past, for his marathon(s). And he noted how difficult it is for a blind runner to train. He was right! Not only did Michael have to put in the miles and miles and miles of training, up to 22 or 23 or more, with all of the time; he also had to have guide runners who could and were willing to run that far. With one of his training periods, I put in the miles, so I decided I might as well try another marathon, too. But with his others (two or three?), I just did the long runs with him. I didn't want to run another marathon. It's one thing to run with a blind man, say, for 5 or 6 miles on the city streets. It's quite a different matter to run 22 or 23 the streets. We had to find a bit more secluded spot. He also reminded me of a race he did in Chicago, a stair-climbing event. It went up a skyscraper, 42 stories he said. Michael climbed the stairs "two at a time." Wow! My quads are hurting just think about that.
I heard this AM that the U of Connecticut is building a dorm for black males only. That isn't true, at least not completely so. The new dorm will have a wing that will house only black males, by their choice. Still, that seems to ring hollow to me in light of all US universities' insistence on "diversity." Isn't this segregation, even if by black choice? The rational might be noble; UConn claims it is merely seeking a way to help improve black retention and graduation rates. But imagine if there was a "white male only" section of a dorm? And how does this measure up to past efforts to, say, bus school children to white and black schools? I don't know about this one.
I keep hearing on the radio ads for "substitute school teachers." (Whoever came up with the silly name "guest teachers?" Maybe it's the same folks who changed "junior high" to "middle school." The reasoning behind that, I was once told, was to give the "junior high/middle school" an identity of its own, instead of being in the shadow of the (senior) high school. But can anything be any more nebulous than "middle school?")
Why has the Republican Party become another party of Big Government? Are, in general, the predictions of Barry Goldwater from the '60s coming true? They sure seem like it. Why have the Establishment Republicans abandoned Republican principles? Is it that that really do believe in Big Government? If so, why didn't they just become Democrats? Is it that they are afraid, of what I'm not sure? The Establishment has stabbed conservatives in the back, time and time again. So now it's not just the methods (unethical and otherwise) that make the two parties similar, but their goals, although the degree is somewhat different. But wait a while. Soon it will be just like the pigs'/mens' rapprochement in Animal Farm.
I'm trying to think of another country, besides the US, in which its citizens, or at least a significant number of them, continually rip on themselves and their homeland. This includes many of our leaders. I don't know all of the nations in the world, but of those I can name, I can't think of any who are always sniping at their own. Do the Germans and Japanese still criticize themselves for WW2 and all the evils associated with that? Why do so many Americans hate themselves, as citizens of the US that is?
Here's a question. Thomas Jefferson, I think, once opined that the end of democracy would come with uninformed voters. Hmmm...... Is that what is happening now? But here's my question: are Americans uninformed or misinformed? If it's the latter, is that misinformation deliberate? I believe that there are quite a few in government/politics who deliberately misinform, obfuscate, lie. In fact, I think much of our government and its leaders are based on a foundation of deception and dishonesty, from the local school boards to DC. But my real concern is the media, whose responsibilities the Founders held so dear that they were protected in the very First Amendment. The LameStream media, no doubt, doesn't tell us the truth or, at least, the whole truth. It obfuscates, at the very least, through commission and omission. Even the alternative media, esp the Internet, I think isn't balanced. In many ways, it is so jaundiced (thanks to the LameStreams) that it bends too far the other way. It is hard to believe anything these days.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Sometimes I Sits and Thinks...
...other times I just sits. Today might be a good day to do just that. But, nah......
This election has me all discomboobulated [sic]. I made a paid political announcement last night in class, without mentioning any specific names, that in November we might well have a Presidential election in which the candidates are Bozo and Krusty the Clown (the Simpsons). That, again without mentioning names, seemed to generate more than a few chuckles.
Gee, what prompted this in a Michigan History course?????? I was presenting the founding of the modern Republican Party, often cited as occurring in Jackson, MI (well, at least cited by teachers of Michigan history!), in 1854. I was explaining the disenchantment and dissatisfaction with both the Whigs (a major political party on its way out) and the Democrats, esp in the face of the question of slavery. Using today as a point of reference, I asked about current attitudes toward the Establishment Democrats and Republicans, particularly in light of Bernie Sanders and Don Trump. What, I asked, are the odds of a major party being created to succeed either the Dems or Reps? Letting that seep in a bit, I the pointed out that the Republicans created in 1854 ran a candidate for President merely two years later (and who lost by a couple of percentage points!) and won the Presidency in 1860 (You know who!).
Of course, the issues of today are quite different and the Republicans' character is not at all what it was in 1854. And neither is that of the Democrats. (That could be for better or worse in both instances, although I'd suggest worse.) But this Presidential campaign and election are referendums/a on the recent history of both parties. I think that is good, very good. Both parties have without question let down the American people, have weakened American life, and have created an unhealthy distrust, frustration, and even hatred of government.
What isn't good is what if this campaign/election thwarts the "uprising?" That is, what if the Establishment candidates win, both the election and even the nominations? Where will that leave us? The leadership of both parties, esp of the Republicans, have been very dismissive of what most Americans want. They (leadership of both parties) have exhibited an arrogant elitism, one peppered with ignorance and even stupidity. What if, in this "uprising," the people fail? That, my friends, is a scary thought.
Is this correct, that Obama isn't attending Justice Scalia's funeral? (Did you note I wrote "Obama," but "Justice Scalia?" That was intentional and I'll let you figure out why.) If so, I think that is just one more example of the divisiveness Obama has fostered over the past 7 years. He's always blathering about Republican "obstruction," (That is a good thing. Remember one of my favorite quotations regarding government is "Don't do something. Just stand there.") When exactly has he reached out, tried to compromise, seek bipartisanship? I know, I know...... "But Bush lied."
That said, Republican leadership is abysmal, if not worse. (Is there anything worse than "abysmal?") Already in the effort to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, McConnell has said the Senate won't take action (that is "advise or consent" or, I suppose, reject) on an Obama appointee. The man is a loon! Obama's Constitutional duty (and authority) is to name/nominate someone to fill the vacancy. (Of course, Obama has already shown us what he thinks of Constitutionalism, esp when it stands in the way of what he wants to do.) The Senate's duty is to vote, confirm or reject, that nominee. It's that simple. (I did hear one guy claim the Senate, unlikely to confirm, is just trying to save time, effort, and money on the hearings/process. Yeah, right. I can think of a lot more ways to save a lot more money that those Bozos are wasting.) This, on the part of both parties, is symbolic of the frustration and anger people have toward government, at least those now running government. We want them to do their jobs, not to play games all of the time. It's time for them to put on their big boy pants and do what they are elected to do, that is, represent us and do what we, not they, want.
I do like, however, the incredible hypocrisy of the Democrats in slamming the Republicans over this "obstructionism." Can you say "Sam Alito?" Yep, two US Senators named Clinton and Obama were among the Democrat obstructionists when Alito was nominated. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." And I get a great kick out of the Dems talking about following the Constitution after what their President has done, while they sit back in silent sycophancy. And let's go back about 30 years. Remember Robert Bork and the smear campaign the Dems launched against him when Reagan nominated him to the High Court? Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden wrote the book on obstructionism in '87 in seeking to block Bork's approval. And they didn't mind throwing out all scruples in doing so.
BTW, how the heck could anyone praise Ted Kennedy?????? "The Lion of the Senate?" If he was this, then God help us. If you want a good laugh (although it's not really funny), learn some things about Kennedy and then read the eulogies upon his death. Fact is stranger than fiction.
And what's with Madeleine Albright? She, a few weeks ago, loudly proclaimed that there's "a special place in hell" for women who wouldn't/won't support Hillary Clinton. Maybe that explains why she was such a lousy Secretary of State, a tradition kept alive by Clinton and Kerry.
This election has me all discomboobulated [sic]. I made a paid political announcement last night in class, without mentioning any specific names, that in November we might well have a Presidential election in which the candidates are Bozo and Krusty the Clown (the Simpsons). That, again without mentioning names, seemed to generate more than a few chuckles.
Gee, what prompted this in a Michigan History course?????? I was presenting the founding of the modern Republican Party, often cited as occurring in Jackson, MI (well, at least cited by teachers of Michigan history!), in 1854. I was explaining the disenchantment and dissatisfaction with both the Whigs (a major political party on its way out) and the Democrats, esp in the face of the question of slavery. Using today as a point of reference, I asked about current attitudes toward the Establishment Democrats and Republicans, particularly in light of Bernie Sanders and Don Trump. What, I asked, are the odds of a major party being created to succeed either the Dems or Reps? Letting that seep in a bit, I the pointed out that the Republicans created in 1854 ran a candidate for President merely two years later (and who lost by a couple of percentage points!) and won the Presidency in 1860 (You know who!).
Of course, the issues of today are quite different and the Republicans' character is not at all what it was in 1854. And neither is that of the Democrats. (That could be for better or worse in both instances, although I'd suggest worse.) But this Presidential campaign and election are referendums/a on the recent history of both parties. I think that is good, very good. Both parties have without question let down the American people, have weakened American life, and have created an unhealthy distrust, frustration, and even hatred of government.
What isn't good is what if this campaign/election thwarts the "uprising?" That is, what if the Establishment candidates win, both the election and even the nominations? Where will that leave us? The leadership of both parties, esp of the Republicans, have been very dismissive of what most Americans want. They (leadership of both parties) have exhibited an arrogant elitism, one peppered with ignorance and even stupidity. What if, in this "uprising," the people fail? That, my friends, is a scary thought.
Is this correct, that Obama isn't attending Justice Scalia's funeral? (Did you note I wrote "Obama," but "Justice Scalia?" That was intentional and I'll let you figure out why.) If so, I think that is just one more example of the divisiveness Obama has fostered over the past 7 years. He's always blathering about Republican "obstruction," (That is a good thing. Remember one of my favorite quotations regarding government is "Don't do something. Just stand there.") When exactly has he reached out, tried to compromise, seek bipartisanship? I know, I know...... "But Bush lied."
That said, Republican leadership is abysmal, if not worse. (Is there anything worse than "abysmal?") Already in the effort to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, McConnell has said the Senate won't take action (that is "advise or consent" or, I suppose, reject) on an Obama appointee. The man is a loon! Obama's Constitutional duty (and authority) is to name/nominate someone to fill the vacancy. (Of course, Obama has already shown us what he thinks of Constitutionalism, esp when it stands in the way of what he wants to do.) The Senate's duty is to vote, confirm or reject, that nominee. It's that simple. (I did hear one guy claim the Senate, unlikely to confirm, is just trying to save time, effort, and money on the hearings/process. Yeah, right. I can think of a lot more ways to save a lot more money that those Bozos are wasting.) This, on the part of both parties, is symbolic of the frustration and anger people have toward government, at least those now running government. We want them to do their jobs, not to play games all of the time. It's time for them to put on their big boy pants and do what they are elected to do, that is, represent us and do what we, not they, want.
I do like, however, the incredible hypocrisy of the Democrats in slamming the Republicans over this "obstructionism." Can you say "Sam Alito?" Yep, two US Senators named Clinton and Obama were among the Democrat obstructionists when Alito was nominated. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." And I get a great kick out of the Dems talking about following the Constitution after what their President has done, while they sit back in silent sycophancy. And let's go back about 30 years. Remember Robert Bork and the smear campaign the Dems launched against him when Reagan nominated him to the High Court? Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden wrote the book on obstructionism in '87 in seeking to block Bork's approval. And they didn't mind throwing out all scruples in doing so.
BTW, how the heck could anyone praise Ted Kennedy?????? "The Lion of the Senate?" If he was this, then God help us. If you want a good laugh (although it's not really funny), learn some things about Kennedy and then read the eulogies upon his death. Fact is stranger than fiction.
And what's with Madeleine Albright? She, a few weeks ago, loudly proclaimed that there's "a special place in hell" for women who wouldn't/won't support Hillary Clinton. Maybe that explains why she was such a lousy Secretary of State, a tradition kept alive by Clinton and Kerry.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Boy, Time Flies
Grrr...... I had about 90% of this done and then, for whatever reason, my computer burped and I lost it all. And, I can't find it. Now, if I can only remember what I wrote ten minutes ago!
Last Sat, Up North, the AM greeted us with 15 degrees, below zero! That was actual temperature, not windchill. There was a thermometer right outside the window. Of course I had to go running--of course. So I layered up, put on two masks and two pairs of insulated glubs/gloves, and out I went. No, I don't think that was crazy. It was a nice run, about 4-5 miles and I was never cold, not even remotely chilly. The next AM, it warmed--to about 11 or 12 below. I managed to get in almost 14 miles that day.
I received a message from one of the gods today. It was in the form of an e-mail from one of my Amherst professors. I had some great teachers there, very great. And if my physics professor wasn't my best, he was right near the top. He's coming to an event my class is having during our Reunion in May and I get to be his "host." I don't use the word "honored" very often, but I am very honored to be hosting. I find it interesting that a history major (me) who loves history had a physics teacher who I found so terrific. It wasn't just that he taught me physics (and back when I taught AP Government in the high school, on far more than one occasion I put away the government stuff for the day and helped students with their physics problems). He taught me more than that--how to learn and how to love learning. How cool, that since retiring, he's taken to local history, even writing a book of history!
I've been thinking about how schools, at least in Michigan, now require two years of a foreign language, although I think there are some options out for one year. I have nothing against that; learning a foreign language is good, although I don't put it as necessary as English (reading and writing), math, science, and history/government/economics. A one-year requirement is fine; two years seems excessive. If students want more than one year, the options should be there for them to continue. But my concern comes with this, while the schools seem intent on foreign language requirements, the rest of the gov't isn't nearly as insistent that immigrants become familiar with English. I know, I know...... That likely makes me some sort of bigot or racist or......
A Metro newspaper has had quite a few editorials/op-eds insisting that the state legislature come down hard on striking public employees, namely teachers, Detroit public school teachers. Now, no teachers have gone on strike, not at all. But many have called in stick to protest and publicize the deplorable conditions in far too many Detroit schools. I have written about the rodents, the black mold, the leaky roofs, the holes so big rooms have to be locked because people can fall through them, the daily threats of assaults, etc. Funny, I don't recall many editorials or articles from this newspaper regarding the deplorable conditions. Where have all their crackerjack/ace investigative reporters been? Aren't conditions in the schools important, noteworthy--esp with rats and black mold and assaults and.....? So, are we to believe the newspaper is more concerned with "sick-outs" than with rats and black mold and assaults and.....? I wonder how many of those editors have kids who go to school in Detroit. I wonder if they hammer out their work on computers with rooms having black mold, rampant rodents, etc. Right......
I think that is the same newspaper that supported the right-to-work (for less) legislation a few years ago. Oh, so vehement it was against unions, particularly public employees' unions. But back in the '90s (?), this newspaper was very quick to run to the legislature to get a joint operating agreement, sort of a union for newspaper publishers (?), to keep it from going under. Heh Heh...... Some of us remember. I guess it's whose ox is being gored, huh?
It's no secret I think Obama has been a rotten President, one of our worst. (It's hard to be worse than Buchanan or A. Johnson, but he seems to be trying. And remember, I think W. Bush was no prize either.) Apparently one of his political ploys is to divide the people. His two administrations seemed to have focused on divisiveness. Although I don't think he's done it intentionally, as Obama has, the Michigan governor Snyder has divided people, too. Again, it's not part of his political plan, but he's nonetheless created a divisiveness here. Listening to one of his talks this AM, I couldn't help but think the man is dense. He still thinks he can run a government like a business, with all the "best practices" and junk. Government isn't a business. It wasn't created to be one and isn't intended to be one. I guess he was a successful businessman, but I wonder how that came to be. To him, it isn't the customer who comes first, but the bottom line. Running the state, with a legislature that begs for some kind of leadership, he doesn't seem to have changed that view. Can you say, "Flint water?"
I refuse to take any Bernie Sanders (I think I forgot his first name; besides, a Michigan Congresswoman continues to mispronounce it.) supporter seriously unless he/she admits he/she would be willing to pay the same percentage of his/her income in taxes as he/she wants others, notably the ones he/she identifies as "the greedy rich." In fact, I think it's "greedy" of the Sanders supporters to expect others to pay for things they want. Remember, it's always the other guy who should pay more.
Michigan's minimum wage has gone up about 60% since 2001. (Whew. I so thankful to have my trusty calculator handy!) In that same time, unemployment for youths ages 16 to 19 has increased, too, from 26% to 45%. Hey, let's raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
More about the death of Justice Scalia and the appointment brouhaha (already?) later this week.
Last Sat, Up North, the AM greeted us with 15 degrees, below zero! That was actual temperature, not windchill. There was a thermometer right outside the window. Of course I had to go running--of course. So I layered up, put on two masks and two pairs of insulated glubs/gloves, and out I went. No, I don't think that was crazy. It was a nice run, about 4-5 miles and I was never cold, not even remotely chilly. The next AM, it warmed--to about 11 or 12 below. I managed to get in almost 14 miles that day.
I received a message from one of the gods today. It was in the form of an e-mail from one of my Amherst professors. I had some great teachers there, very great. And if my physics professor wasn't my best, he was right near the top. He's coming to an event my class is having during our Reunion in May and I get to be his "host." I don't use the word "honored" very often, but I am very honored to be hosting. I find it interesting that a history major (me) who loves history had a physics teacher who I found so terrific. It wasn't just that he taught me physics (and back when I taught AP Government in the high school, on far more than one occasion I put away the government stuff for the day and helped students with their physics problems). He taught me more than that--how to learn and how to love learning. How cool, that since retiring, he's taken to local history, even writing a book of history!
I've been thinking about how schools, at least in Michigan, now require two years of a foreign language, although I think there are some options out for one year. I have nothing against that; learning a foreign language is good, although I don't put it as necessary as English (reading and writing), math, science, and history/government/economics. A one-year requirement is fine; two years seems excessive. If students want more than one year, the options should be there for them to continue. But my concern comes with this, while the schools seem intent on foreign language requirements, the rest of the gov't isn't nearly as insistent that immigrants become familiar with English. I know, I know...... That likely makes me some sort of bigot or racist or......
A Metro newspaper has had quite a few editorials/op-eds insisting that the state legislature come down hard on striking public employees, namely teachers, Detroit public school teachers. Now, no teachers have gone on strike, not at all. But many have called in stick to protest and publicize the deplorable conditions in far too many Detroit schools. I have written about the rodents, the black mold, the leaky roofs, the holes so big rooms have to be locked because people can fall through them, the daily threats of assaults, etc. Funny, I don't recall many editorials or articles from this newspaper regarding the deplorable conditions. Where have all their crackerjack/ace investigative reporters been? Aren't conditions in the schools important, noteworthy--esp with rats and black mold and assaults and.....? So, are we to believe the newspaper is more concerned with "sick-outs" than with rats and black mold and assaults and.....? I wonder how many of those editors have kids who go to school in Detroit. I wonder if they hammer out their work on computers with rooms having black mold, rampant rodents, etc. Right......
I think that is the same newspaper that supported the right-to-work (for less) legislation a few years ago. Oh, so vehement it was against unions, particularly public employees' unions. But back in the '90s (?), this newspaper was very quick to run to the legislature to get a joint operating agreement, sort of a union for newspaper publishers (?), to keep it from going under. Heh Heh...... Some of us remember. I guess it's whose ox is being gored, huh?
It's no secret I think Obama has been a rotten President, one of our worst. (It's hard to be worse than Buchanan or A. Johnson, but he seems to be trying. And remember, I think W. Bush was no prize either.) Apparently one of his political ploys is to divide the people. His two administrations seemed to have focused on divisiveness. Although I don't think he's done it intentionally, as Obama has, the Michigan governor Snyder has divided people, too. Again, it's not part of his political plan, but he's nonetheless created a divisiveness here. Listening to one of his talks this AM, I couldn't help but think the man is dense. He still thinks he can run a government like a business, with all the "best practices" and junk. Government isn't a business. It wasn't created to be one and isn't intended to be one. I guess he was a successful businessman, but I wonder how that came to be. To him, it isn't the customer who comes first, but the bottom line. Running the state, with a legislature that begs for some kind of leadership, he doesn't seem to have changed that view. Can you say, "Flint water?"
I refuse to take any Bernie Sanders (I think I forgot his first name; besides, a Michigan Congresswoman continues to mispronounce it.) supporter seriously unless he/she admits he/she would be willing to pay the same percentage of his/her income in taxes as he/she wants others, notably the ones he/she identifies as "the greedy rich." In fact, I think it's "greedy" of the Sanders supporters to expect others to pay for things they want. Remember, it's always the other guy who should pay more.
Michigan's minimum wage has gone up about 60% since 2001. (Whew. I so thankful to have my trusty calculator handy!) In that same time, unemployment for youths ages 16 to 19 has increased, too, from 26% to 45%. Hey, let's raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
More about the death of Justice Scalia and the appointment brouhaha (already?) later this week.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Weird Michigan
Mon AM, I dropped off Michael at the bus stop and went out to run. It was 29 degrees. This AM, when I ran, it was 52 degrees. I went into the DDS's office at noon, with 53 degrees on the thermometer. Coming out, two hours later, it was 41 degrees, with quite blustery wind. Who knows what's in store for tomorrow?
Obsequious...... Now there's a word that sounds exactly like what it means. I listened to one of the local radio hosts interviewing the governor and the word immediately came to mind. Oh, when the guests are far from his show, he's taking aim at them, at least most of them. When they come on the show, pols from either party, he tosses them softball/lollipop questions. Or, maybe, he asks harder ones when I'm not listening.
And, I listened to a member of the US House on the radio the other day. Her English was pretty bad. The one goof that stands out to me is, "We have tooken," and it was pretty clear, "tooken," not taken, "steps......" And she also mispronounced Bernie Sanders' name, a member of her own party.
Aren't our advances amazing? They really are. I went in today for a tooth implant. The DDS, who was very impressive with her meticulous work, used a laser, drilled into my jawbone, screwed a toggle bolt into my jawbone, and cleaned up "the tissue." She said the material is the same as for hip and knee replacements, a new thing for implants. Who'd a thunk it?
I heard a good one today, about a new drinking game. Every time Bernie Sanders says something about another "free" (and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) government program, chug somebody else's beer!
Obsequious...... Now there's a word that sounds exactly like what it means. I listened to one of the local radio hosts interviewing the governor and the word immediately came to mind. Oh, when the guests are far from his show, he's taking aim at them, at least most of them. When they come on the show, pols from either party, he tosses them softball/lollipop questions. Or, maybe, he asks harder ones when I'm not listening.
And, I listened to a member of the US House on the radio the other day. Her English was pretty bad. The one goof that stands out to me is, "We have tooken," and it was pretty clear, "tooken," not taken, "steps......" And she also mispronounced Bernie Sanders' name, a member of her own party.
Aren't our advances amazing? They really are. I went in today for a tooth implant. The DDS, who was very impressive with her meticulous work, used a laser, drilled into my jawbone, screwed a toggle bolt into my jawbone, and cleaned up "the tissue." She said the material is the same as for hip and knee replacements, a new thing for implants. Who'd a thunk it?
I heard a good one today, about a new drinking game. Every time Bernie Sanders says something about another "free" (and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch) government program, chug somebody else's beer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
