No matter how often I visit Las Vegas, I marvel at how the city was created out of, well, nothing but desert. I think the mountains that surround Las Vegas are striking, even beautiful. They are stark, appearing all but barren. How was a city of several million created in such a place?
Perhaps it's a sign of my age, but I also still wonder how I can get in a narrow metal tube, travel at almost 600 mph, and be almost 2,200 miles away in just about 3 hours, a little longer. And it wasn't just me, but just shy of 200 people on that same metal tube.
It's also unnerving to head into a grocery store in Las Vegas (one in the Kroger family) and see people gambling on the slot machines!!!!!! Just drop a few bucks after shopping for the week...... And they gamble at the drug stores, too.
I was struck over the past week at the ubiquitous presence and use of cell phones--in what I think are/were inappropriate places. At Michael's basketball banquet, parents couldn't even put away their cell phone for a couple of hours to see their sons honored. I'll bet, at one time or another during the evening, at least half of the parents were texting away. And at two concerts last week--Dancin' in the Streets at the Fox in Detroit and Rod Stewart at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas--it was remarkable how many people were texting during the music. Surely it's a sign that the Apocalypse in nearly upon us....... (And note how did even mention how close I came to getting side-swiped by a guy sliding over to my lane on the expressway while he was dialing or texting. He never saw me until I laid on the horn after watching him not paying attention, well, not paying attention to driving.) Is there anything that tells us "It's all about me" more than a cell phone.
Both concerts were wonderful. I love the Motown sound and this concert (not necessarily featuring actual Motonw Artists) captured the essene of the sound. It was terrific. Rod Stewart is 71 and put on a surprisingly good show. They made up for, well, maybe just a bit, for not being able to see Human Nature in Las Vegas. Those are the four white Australian guys, with a great band behind them, who do their own Motow show. I have seen them once and am now convinced they are avoiding. I think that last 5 or 6 times planning a Vegas trip Human Nature has been absent, for different reasons. As have said before, "Maybe next time.
More terrorist attacks last week. I wonder if and when Western Europe and the US will finally wake up to the nature of Islamofascism. We shoot mad dogs, don't we? I think I also saw a headline announcing the crucifixion of a Catholic priest by the Islamofascists. Again, we shoot mad dogs, don't we?
And, here we go again, a three-year old girl was shot in Detroit over the weekend. She was hit when some idiots sprayed a house with gunfire. We shoot made dogs, don't we?
Monday, March 28, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Thoughts......
I once read something about what will lead to the fall of democracies, including I'd guess, the United States. It's not the armies of opponents that would cause the demise/destruction, but the self-centered interests of the wealthy and/or the arrogance of the political and professional classes. These groups will form an aristocracy, anointing themselves of course, and use their combination of riches and influence, their arrogant elitism to prevent the political institutions (namely, the Constitution) from protecting and insuring the freedom of the masses.
These groups might well come in different forms; I don't know. But a cursory, at least, glance at the past few decades seem to bear out a view such as above. Note, for instance, the government bail-outs of several years ago. Oh, there was an excuse, a rationale, "Too Big To Fail." I say HOGWASH! If they deserved to fail through there own greed, their own ineptitude then let them go.
Check out now, too. Could we find a better example of the arrogant political class than Hillary Clinton? For that matter, who could be looking out for the interests of the wealthy better than Don Trump? That these two might well be the choices come November makes me sick, almost physically so.
I can't begin to see myself voting for either one. I'd like someone to point out one redeeming quality possessed by Clinton. I've not heard one yet. And her politics, her views, if honestly promulgated, are all wrong. Trump? I fully understand, as I've written, his appeal. It's not about him. How can it be? Here's a guy who has gone bankrupt three or four times, can't get a gambling license from the state of Nevada, has left others holding the bag in bad business "deals" more than once...and consider this thing called "Trump University." No, I am no longer going to "hold my nose" and vote for the lesser of two pieces of crap. Lesser crap is still crap.
In response to a comment, Trump name-calls, actually lies. He is never held accountable for that. He never provides any facts to support his name-calling/lies. He just gets away with it. No, I'm not going to resort to the Nazis in Germany ("He who refers to Hitler first, loses!"), but guess what tactic they used? Perhaps I am just hyper-sensitive to name-calling, esp specious name-calling, where the accuser never supports anything, can't support anything, just spreads the half-truths and deceptions.
And I don't know what station or stations these supposed political experts represent, but I heard at least two of them yesterday pontificating on the Belgian Islamofascist bombings. Well, I think that's the core of their comments. But all I heard them talking about were the dangers of the American "right wingers" to the Muslim communities in the US. Granted, I may have come into the conversation a bit late and missed some things, but the couple of minutes I heard made no mention of the terrorist dangers--none.
I guess I don't understand the Establishment's fear of the, say, Tea Partiers. OK, I do--it's a question of the Establishment being far more concerned with retaining its own exalted position of power (see a few paragraphs above) than with representing the people or doing what's best for the US. But, what I don't comprehend is how easily dismissed the terrorist threat is and how emphatic that the real dangers lie with the Tea Partiers. I know people who regurgitate this.
I wonder if those folks can tell me how many Tea Partiers have been suicide bombers, lop off the heads of people different from them, send their own children into crowded areas wearing bomb vests, blow up airports and restaurants and night clubs and....... Maybe it's the arrogance of the professional classes (see a few paragraphs above), that they are so very superior to the rest of us.
I just found out some students at Oxford U in Britain are demanding that Oriel College remove a statue of Cecil B. Rhodes. Apparently they are upset that he was a colonialist (A pejorative term if there ever was one, don't you think?) who made much of his fortune off the backs of unfortunates. I certainly won't argue that point. After all, I think it was Rhodes who once stated, "I would annex the planets if I could." What I will argue is the stance of these students. I can't take them very seriously. After all, didn't these recipients of Rhodes Scholarships know what kind of man Rhodes was when they accepted the scholarships? If he was so rotten, why in the world would these students want to be associated with him and his tainted money? Now, I might sympathize just a little bit if each and every one of these Rhodes Scholarship students rejects the scholarship now and return all of the tainted money they received. If they don't do that, then tell them to shut up and examine their own selves.
These groups might well come in different forms; I don't know. But a cursory, at least, glance at the past few decades seem to bear out a view such as above. Note, for instance, the government bail-outs of several years ago. Oh, there was an excuse, a rationale, "Too Big To Fail." I say HOGWASH! If they deserved to fail through there own greed, their own ineptitude then let them go.
Check out now, too. Could we find a better example of the arrogant political class than Hillary Clinton? For that matter, who could be looking out for the interests of the wealthy better than Don Trump? That these two might well be the choices come November makes me sick, almost physically so.
I can't begin to see myself voting for either one. I'd like someone to point out one redeeming quality possessed by Clinton. I've not heard one yet. And her politics, her views, if honestly promulgated, are all wrong. Trump? I fully understand, as I've written, his appeal. It's not about him. How can it be? Here's a guy who has gone bankrupt three or four times, can't get a gambling license from the state of Nevada, has left others holding the bag in bad business "deals" more than once...and consider this thing called "Trump University." No, I am no longer going to "hold my nose" and vote for the lesser of two pieces of crap. Lesser crap is still crap.
In response to a comment, Trump name-calls, actually lies. He is never held accountable for that. He never provides any facts to support his name-calling/lies. He just gets away with it. No, I'm not going to resort to the Nazis in Germany ("He who refers to Hitler first, loses!"), but guess what tactic they used? Perhaps I am just hyper-sensitive to name-calling, esp specious name-calling, where the accuser never supports anything, can't support anything, just spreads the half-truths and deceptions.
And I don't know what station or stations these supposed political experts represent, but I heard at least two of them yesterday pontificating on the Belgian Islamofascist bombings. Well, I think that's the core of their comments. But all I heard them talking about were the dangers of the American "right wingers" to the Muslim communities in the US. Granted, I may have come into the conversation a bit late and missed some things, but the couple of minutes I heard made no mention of the terrorist dangers--none.
I guess I don't understand the Establishment's fear of the, say, Tea Partiers. OK, I do--it's a question of the Establishment being far more concerned with retaining its own exalted position of power (see a few paragraphs above) than with representing the people or doing what's best for the US. But, what I don't comprehend is how easily dismissed the terrorist threat is and how emphatic that the real dangers lie with the Tea Partiers. I know people who regurgitate this.
I wonder if those folks can tell me how many Tea Partiers have been suicide bombers, lop off the heads of people different from them, send their own children into crowded areas wearing bomb vests, blow up airports and restaurants and night clubs and....... Maybe it's the arrogance of the professional classes (see a few paragraphs above), that they are so very superior to the rest of us.
I just found out some students at Oxford U in Britain are demanding that Oriel College remove a statue of Cecil B. Rhodes. Apparently they are upset that he was a colonialist (A pejorative term if there ever was one, don't you think?) who made much of his fortune off the backs of unfortunates. I certainly won't argue that point. After all, I think it was Rhodes who once stated, "I would annex the planets if I could." What I will argue is the stance of these students. I can't take them very seriously. After all, didn't these recipients of Rhodes Scholarships know what kind of man Rhodes was when they accepted the scholarships? If he was so rotten, why in the world would these students want to be associated with him and his tainted money? Now, I might sympathize just a little bit if each and every one of these Rhodes Scholarship students rejects the scholarship now and return all of the tainted money they received. If they don't do that, then tell them to shut up and examine their own selves.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Crime and Punishment
That is one of my favorite novels, the suspense and mental anguish...... But this isn't about novels, although I've really read some good ones, "Spy and Suspense" I think the genre is called, recently.
This is about crime and punishment today. I have no feelings of sympathy for criminals. In fact, I almost exploded when I heard that some mother defended her inner city son who was shot while breaking into a house to thieve it. "How else was he supposed to get money?" Great, just great......
But I read recently that fewer than 10% of all criminals in federal prisons are there due to violent crimes. Yes, there are two considerations, not to merely accept that low figure. First, what about state prisons? Second, nonviolent crimes also deserve punishment, esp when they devastate other people's lives. I am think here of things like identity theft, financial scams, etc. Throw the book at those people and make them really pay for what they've done to others. Still, fewer than 10%.....?
Here I go again, railing about Big Government. Not quite 50% of all criminal laws coming from the federal gov't since the middle of the 19th Century have been enacted in the past 40 years or so. And between 2000 and 2007, Congress created more than one new crimes a week. That is, in that seven-year period, Congress passed laws that defined or created more than 450 new crimes! It's not a stretch to surmise that Congress manufactures crimes, as it typically shows no self-control--similarly to the lack of self-control with spending.
Government no longer adheres to the principle of limited government. Nope. It is as if it has an appetite, an appetite to regulate. It tells us what kind of toilets, light bulbs, television sets, shower heads, health insurance, and more we must have. And this is now also reflected in the intervention in regulating all behavior in society. This passion for telling us how to live each and every facet of our lives has now reached crime.
I know I'm beating a dead horse. Most people don't care. Government is the answer to everything; at least that's what we've heard for decades and decades. Even the phenomenon called "Trump" favors Big Government. Those who support him because of their distaste, frustration, and anger for Big Government probably don't realize (or care?) that Trump is a Big Government-guy. He is different from Clinton and Sanders, though, he says, because he can make it work better. Yeah, right......
I heard a lady from Flint the other day on the radio. She thought it was "nice" that so many Hollywood-types (my term) have expressed concern and sympathy for the people injured by the devastating water crisis. But she continued. I don't remember her exact words, but they were something like, "But it would be nicer if they sent some of their millions to help people." No, I don't expect that to happen very soon. It seems there are too many wealthy people, filthy rich people, who expect the other filthy rich people, the greedy ones, certainly not them, to pay for helping. You know, this is one of the many times I wish some people would show me to be wrong, very wrong. If they do, I will be glad to apologize.
In a discussion this weekend, I heard someone say, "I don't like Ted Cruz." I asked why and received the standard, "All I've heard about him is bad." I feel a great deal of empathy for Cruz in this regard, having been called names for quite a few years for standing up for what's right and criticizing what's wrong. Like I've noted in the past, even my wife has bought into the names I was called. I was reminded of how easy it is to just call names, merely repeat the same name-calling over and over until it becomes "the truth." A letter-to-the-editor in the newspaper referred to the Tea Partiers as "racists" and "bigots." I'd love to have a discussion with the lady who wrote the letter. I'd ask her why she uses such pejorative name-calling. What evidence is there that those who belong to the Tea Parties are "bigots" and "racists?" Surely some are, just as there are no doubt bigots and racists in the party she obviously favors. And, if she'd like, I can provide names. See how easy it is to merely toss out terms like "bigots" and "racists," without having to substantiate such claims. And, if enough ignorant people buy into the name-calling and repeat it, well, as Michael Jackson once sang, "...and the lie becomes the truth."
This is about crime and punishment today. I have no feelings of sympathy for criminals. In fact, I almost exploded when I heard that some mother defended her inner city son who was shot while breaking into a house to thieve it. "How else was he supposed to get money?" Great, just great......
But I read recently that fewer than 10% of all criminals in federal prisons are there due to violent crimes. Yes, there are two considerations, not to merely accept that low figure. First, what about state prisons? Second, nonviolent crimes also deserve punishment, esp when they devastate other people's lives. I am think here of things like identity theft, financial scams, etc. Throw the book at those people and make them really pay for what they've done to others. Still, fewer than 10%.....?
Here I go again, railing about Big Government. Not quite 50% of all criminal laws coming from the federal gov't since the middle of the 19th Century have been enacted in the past 40 years or so. And between 2000 and 2007, Congress created more than one new crimes a week. That is, in that seven-year period, Congress passed laws that defined or created more than 450 new crimes! It's not a stretch to surmise that Congress manufactures crimes, as it typically shows no self-control--similarly to the lack of self-control with spending.
Government no longer adheres to the principle of limited government. Nope. It is as if it has an appetite, an appetite to regulate. It tells us what kind of toilets, light bulbs, television sets, shower heads, health insurance, and more we must have. And this is now also reflected in the intervention in regulating all behavior in society. This passion for telling us how to live each and every facet of our lives has now reached crime.
I know I'm beating a dead horse. Most people don't care. Government is the answer to everything; at least that's what we've heard for decades and decades. Even the phenomenon called "Trump" favors Big Government. Those who support him because of their distaste, frustration, and anger for Big Government probably don't realize (or care?) that Trump is a Big Government-guy. He is different from Clinton and Sanders, though, he says, because he can make it work better. Yeah, right......
I heard a lady from Flint the other day on the radio. She thought it was "nice" that so many Hollywood-types (my term) have expressed concern and sympathy for the people injured by the devastating water crisis. But she continued. I don't remember her exact words, but they were something like, "But it would be nicer if they sent some of their millions to help people." No, I don't expect that to happen very soon. It seems there are too many wealthy people, filthy rich people, who expect the other filthy rich people, the greedy ones, certainly not them, to pay for helping. You know, this is one of the many times I wish some people would show me to be wrong, very wrong. If they do, I will be glad to apologize.
In a discussion this weekend, I heard someone say, "I don't like Ted Cruz." I asked why and received the standard, "All I've heard about him is bad." I feel a great deal of empathy for Cruz in this regard, having been called names for quite a few years for standing up for what's right and criticizing what's wrong. Like I've noted in the past, even my wife has bought into the names I was called. I was reminded of how easy it is to just call names, merely repeat the same name-calling over and over until it becomes "the truth." A letter-to-the-editor in the newspaper referred to the Tea Partiers as "racists" and "bigots." I'd love to have a discussion with the lady who wrote the letter. I'd ask her why she uses such pejorative name-calling. What evidence is there that those who belong to the Tea Parties are "bigots" and "racists?" Surely some are, just as there are no doubt bigots and racists in the party she obviously favors. And, if she'd like, I can provide names. See how easy it is to merely toss out terms like "bigots" and "racists," without having to substantiate such claims. And, if enough ignorant people buy into the name-calling and repeat it, well, as Michael Jackson once sang, "...and the lie becomes the truth."
Friday, March 18, 2016
Resignations?
Sanctimonious? Is that the correct term for this? In House hearings yesterday, several officials involved in the Flint water crisis were "urged to resign." These included the Michigan governor and the head of the EPA. I think they bear a great deal of responsibility ("The buck stops here!") and, in fact, might have known a lot more than they are admitting. (For a politician who campaigned on "transparency," he sure has helped do some sneaky things, mostly in the name of "best practices," which I guess is business speak for "the bottom line," the almighty "bottom line.") Should they "resign?" Hmmm......maybe, a definite maybe.
But that's not my point here. It is the cheek these politicians, as inept as they are, as devious and deceitful and downright dishonest as they are, display in calling for resignations. As far as I am concerned, if those involved in the Flint crisis "should resign," so should these politicians. The unctuous, smarmy nature of their pronouncements, "Don't you have a moral responsibility to resign?" and "You, too, should step down." is remarkable. "...moral responsibility?" What do these DC politicians know about "morality," other than it shouldn't get in the way of what they want to do? Their arrogant elitism really shined through once again.
Not only do they not resign themselves (heh heh, as if they would), they don't call for the resignations of their own kind. What about the blatant lying, the breach of Constitutional authority, the abrogation of Constitutional duty, etc.? Shouldn't they resign or at least insist their own kinds resign? Do they not also "have a moral responsibility to resign?" I guess not, certainly not if one is an arrogant elitist!
Again, to beat a dead horse, I think a lot of people are missing the boat with Don Trump. It's not Trump, not directly. It's the system, the dishonest and deceitful Establishment that games the system. People are fed up, frustrated, and angry with "business as usual." Trump is merely the one smart enough to play into that frustration and anger. And, to repeat, I am not a Trump fan. I certainly could never vote for Hillary Clinton and I am almost as certain that I could never vote for Trump.
And, it's not my fault if Hillary (or Trump) wins. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the least evil of evil candidates. Let's start putting the blame where it belongs--on the Establishment-types who throw rotten candidates at us.
Funny, this AM there is an online article that deals with this. I've been saying this for months--about not holding my nose, about not my fault for lousy Presidents and other elected officials, etc. I am more and more convinced they are looking in, whoever "they" may be.
But that's not my point here. It is the cheek these politicians, as inept as they are, as devious and deceitful and downright dishonest as they are, display in calling for resignations. As far as I am concerned, if those involved in the Flint crisis "should resign," so should these politicians. The unctuous, smarmy nature of their pronouncements, "Don't you have a moral responsibility to resign?" and "You, too, should step down." is remarkable. "...moral responsibility?" What do these DC politicians know about "morality," other than it shouldn't get in the way of what they want to do? Their arrogant elitism really shined through once again.
Not only do they not resign themselves (heh heh, as if they would), they don't call for the resignations of their own kind. What about the blatant lying, the breach of Constitutional authority, the abrogation of Constitutional duty, etc.? Shouldn't they resign or at least insist their own kinds resign? Do they not also "have a moral responsibility to resign?" I guess not, certainly not if one is an arrogant elitist!
Again, to beat a dead horse, I think a lot of people are missing the boat with Don Trump. It's not Trump, not directly. It's the system, the dishonest and deceitful Establishment that games the system. People are fed up, frustrated, and angry with "business as usual." Trump is merely the one smart enough to play into that frustration and anger. And, to repeat, I am not a Trump fan. I certainly could never vote for Hillary Clinton and I am almost as certain that I could never vote for Trump.
And, it's not my fault if Hillary (or Trump) wins. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the least evil of evil candidates. Let's start putting the blame where it belongs--on the Establishment-types who throw rotten candidates at us.
Funny, this AM there is an online article that deals with this. I've been saying this for months--about not holding my nose, about not my fault for lousy Presidents and other elected officials, etc. I am more and more convinced they are looking in, whoever "they" may be.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Selective Justice?
Just to start, I still like this one, "Move over Pinocchio. Here comes Hillary Clinton."
I haven't followed this very closely, but two Michigan lawmakers who had an affair, tried to cover it up, and then lied about it are being charged with six felonies. Hmmm......
So let me get this straight. A President of the US can engage in sexual activities, try to cover it up, and then lie (looking straight into the camera in front of the American people) about it, but then was caught in the affair and the lie(s) and nothing happens to him, nothing of substance? Oh, there was the sideshow of an impeachment and trial, but who thought that was going to lead anywhere? The man not only kept his position, but now makes millions of dollars giving speeches and appears as a respected elder statesman for his party. After all, "it was his personal life, none of anyone else's business." I disagree. The morality of the President of the United States is our business, but that's another point.
Why are these state lawmakers being charged with felonies? Wasn't their affair their "personal lives, none of our business?" Why is this different?
The state attorney-general, who is behind the charges, claims the citizens are skeptical of government and this will help to restore faith in it. Yeah, right. This guy is running around charging people with lying about an affair (Gee, I wonder if any other people who were accused of affairs every lied about them, even under oath?) to get people to believe in government again. We should ask the people of Flint how this is working, that is, restoring faith in government. Where are even the preliminary charges of the misconduct up there? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Congress in investigating. Now that restores my faith. I know it's probably early in the investigation, still......
In the same news broadcast, I heard some local government official, an elected one, is being charged with multiple counts of soliciting a prostitute. I am morally opposed to prostitution, I guess. But why is it or soliciting it a crime? Where are the feminists? Aren't women supposed to be able to do with their bodies what they wish? Who is hurt by this? Families and other loved ones, maybe. Then why don't we criminalize alcoholism and drug use, gambling addiction, and other things that also are deleterious to families? Again, I'm not a proponent of prostitution, but it seems we have things out of whack.
BTW, what is a "whack?"
One way of restoring our faith in government might well be to fix the federal tax system. Using the short form, 1040A, two pages, there are more than 80 pages of instructions. To handle the two lines dealing with Social Security benefits, one must wade through 30+ pages of instructions. Try doing any of the "worksheets." It's add this amount and then add that amount. After a few more instructions, it's turn around and subtract this same amount and subtract that same amount. What can be the reason, well any good reason, for such a complex system? I think we know the answer to that one.
I've always wondered, even back when I was a kid, how novelists come up with their ideas. I heard a former CIA guy some years ago on the radio. He noted that many of the ideas in the espionage and adventure novels aren't made up, that they are based on very real episodes. Hmmm...... That would, I suppose, explain some things. But, at the same, time, some of these horror novels, with the bad guys perpetrating the most terrible of crimes, where do those authors come up with those? Are these novelists psychos? How do they even imagine such things? Do they, too, cull their ideas from reality, from real life? That's more frightening than their novels, isn't it? Still, I marvel at many of them.
I see some Ivy League school students are complaining about the stress of homework--reading, assignments, and other class work. They can't sleep or eat. They have stomach issues. Maybe even some of them are losing hair. It seems, with all of the social protesting they are doing to right the world, the academics are too much. Yep, students are finding their studies to be too stressful, negatively affecting them. I guess deans are even making personal phone calls to see how students are holding up, how they are coping, how they are feeling. Well, that's nice. But there's a simple, very simple solution. It involves a choice. (Oh, no, another stressful matter!) Students who are so overwhelmed their mental and physical health are affected can either quit school and tend to those very important social protests or they can hold off on the protests and devote their time to being students/their studies. Apparently they can't handle both. So, make a choice. No doubt many professors will cave in and lighten their students' work loads. After all, if colleges give academic credit for "life experiences......"
I haven't followed this very closely, but two Michigan lawmakers who had an affair, tried to cover it up, and then lied about it are being charged with six felonies. Hmmm......
So let me get this straight. A President of the US can engage in sexual activities, try to cover it up, and then lie (looking straight into the camera in front of the American people) about it, but then was caught in the affair and the lie(s) and nothing happens to him, nothing of substance? Oh, there was the sideshow of an impeachment and trial, but who thought that was going to lead anywhere? The man not only kept his position, but now makes millions of dollars giving speeches and appears as a respected elder statesman for his party. After all, "it was his personal life, none of anyone else's business." I disagree. The morality of the President of the United States is our business, but that's another point.
Why are these state lawmakers being charged with felonies? Wasn't their affair their "personal lives, none of our business?" Why is this different?
The state attorney-general, who is behind the charges, claims the citizens are skeptical of government and this will help to restore faith in it. Yeah, right. This guy is running around charging people with lying about an affair (Gee, I wonder if any other people who were accused of affairs every lied about them, even under oath?) to get people to believe in government again. We should ask the people of Flint how this is working, that is, restoring faith in government. Where are even the preliminary charges of the misconduct up there? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Congress in investigating. Now that restores my faith. I know it's probably early in the investigation, still......
In the same news broadcast, I heard some local government official, an elected one, is being charged with multiple counts of soliciting a prostitute. I am morally opposed to prostitution, I guess. But why is it or soliciting it a crime? Where are the feminists? Aren't women supposed to be able to do with their bodies what they wish? Who is hurt by this? Families and other loved ones, maybe. Then why don't we criminalize alcoholism and drug use, gambling addiction, and other things that also are deleterious to families? Again, I'm not a proponent of prostitution, but it seems we have things out of whack.
BTW, what is a "whack?"
One way of restoring our faith in government might well be to fix the federal tax system. Using the short form, 1040A, two pages, there are more than 80 pages of instructions. To handle the two lines dealing with Social Security benefits, one must wade through 30+ pages of instructions. Try doing any of the "worksheets." It's add this amount and then add that amount. After a few more instructions, it's turn around and subtract this same amount and subtract that same amount. What can be the reason, well any good reason, for such a complex system? I think we know the answer to that one.
I've always wondered, even back when I was a kid, how novelists come up with their ideas. I heard a former CIA guy some years ago on the radio. He noted that many of the ideas in the espionage and adventure novels aren't made up, that they are based on very real episodes. Hmmm...... That would, I suppose, explain some things. But, at the same, time, some of these horror novels, with the bad guys perpetrating the most terrible of crimes, where do those authors come up with those? Are these novelists psychos? How do they even imagine such things? Do they, too, cull their ideas from reality, from real life? That's more frightening than their novels, isn't it? Still, I marvel at many of them.
I see some Ivy League school students are complaining about the stress of homework--reading, assignments, and other class work. They can't sleep or eat. They have stomach issues. Maybe even some of them are losing hair. It seems, with all of the social protesting they are doing to right the world, the academics are too much. Yep, students are finding their studies to be too stressful, negatively affecting them. I guess deans are even making personal phone calls to see how students are holding up, how they are coping, how they are feeling. Well, that's nice. But there's a simple, very simple solution. It involves a choice. (Oh, no, another stressful matter!) Students who are so overwhelmed their mental and physical health are affected can either quit school and tend to those very important social protests or they can hold off on the protests and devote their time to being students/their studies. Apparently they can't handle both. So, make a choice. No doubt many professors will cave in and lighten their students' work loads. After all, if colleges give academic credit for "life experiences......"
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Move Over Pinocchio
Yep, ran last night in tee shirt and shorts, bundled up for the 28 degrees this AM. I was very pleased, though, to get in 70+ miles this week. And, I'm a bit tired, but more so from lack of sleep than the exercise; no aches/pains either. I'll cut back next week.
I heard a great one this morning on a black radio talk show. It was "Pinocchio move over. Here comes Hillary Clinton." To be fair, there was also talk of Trump in the lying department, but the Pinocchio reference was directed at Clinton.
I guess there were collisions (?) between Trump supporters and Trump protesters last night, too. Trump canceled his talk, claiming he did so at the request of the police. Someone's lying. The police claimed they had no contact with the Trump people. Hmmm...... Yep, someone's lying and someone has a long history of it.
It seems to me that we have a big problem. (Oh, no, here he goes with that history stuff again!) In Weimar Germany, post-WW1/late '20s/start of the Depression, people were quite dissatisfied with German life. (But only after the Depression hit and hit hard, not in the immediately preceding years.) Along came Hitler and appealed to people who were frustrated, angry, and alienated, at least from their government. Roving gangs in the streets clashed as speakers, Hitler and others, made their cases. (Hitler was a joke of sorts before the Depression; his attempted coup in '23 was right out of the Three Stooges.)
Think of today. Many people are angry, frustrated, and alienated. Those feelings, correctly so, are directed at the government, Dems and Reps alike. Last night was an ugly scene, reminiscent of Germany of 85 or so years ago.
Trump's followers have been name-called; "fascists" is the latest. It seems to me that the name-callers have employed typical fascist tactics in trying to silence ideas they oppose. Both sides are reprehensible.
No doubt Trump will catch some flak on this (but who knows how much or so little due to our weasel-like media?). He deserves it. Remember his talks of "punch 'em in the mouth" and worse? Can words incite? Do words mean anything? Can words be used to get people to act?
But I recall 7 or 8 years ago. Do you? "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun." Yep, that's a direct quote from none other than Obama. So, how is that different from Trump's admittedly inflammatory comments, repeated?
I know Obama didn't attend either Justice Scalia's funeral or Nancy Reagan's funeral. More than anything I think that's a measure of the smallness of the man. I am also aware of the tradition/history of such funerals. Presidents often don't attend and usually send the First Ladies to funerals of past First Ladies. Presidents have a record of attending funerals of justices appointed by Presidents of their own kind, but not those appointed by the Presidents of the other party. And, knowing this, I still think Obama is a small man. In both cases, he had an opportunity to demonstrate (and, remember, he's the great unifier, the great healer!) that some in Washington can rise above the pettiness of politics. But he chose not to. Remember, he was supposed to be different. It's like the lying and other shenanigans. His defenders often resort to, "Well, they all do it." Of course, but is that an excuse? Does someone get a free pass for lying, etc., just because "they all do it?" Again, he was supposed to be different--but is worse.
I heard a great one this morning on a black radio talk show. It was "Pinocchio move over. Here comes Hillary Clinton." To be fair, there was also talk of Trump in the lying department, but the Pinocchio reference was directed at Clinton.
I guess there were collisions (?) between Trump supporters and Trump protesters last night, too. Trump canceled his talk, claiming he did so at the request of the police. Someone's lying. The police claimed they had no contact with the Trump people. Hmmm...... Yep, someone's lying and someone has a long history of it.
It seems to me that we have a big problem. (Oh, no, here he goes with that history stuff again!) In Weimar Germany, post-WW1/late '20s/start of the Depression, people were quite dissatisfied with German life. (But only after the Depression hit and hit hard, not in the immediately preceding years.) Along came Hitler and appealed to people who were frustrated, angry, and alienated, at least from their government. Roving gangs in the streets clashed as speakers, Hitler and others, made their cases. (Hitler was a joke of sorts before the Depression; his attempted coup in '23 was right out of the Three Stooges.)
Think of today. Many people are angry, frustrated, and alienated. Those feelings, correctly so, are directed at the government, Dems and Reps alike. Last night was an ugly scene, reminiscent of Germany of 85 or so years ago.
Trump's followers have been name-called; "fascists" is the latest. It seems to me that the name-callers have employed typical fascist tactics in trying to silence ideas they oppose. Both sides are reprehensible.
No doubt Trump will catch some flak on this (but who knows how much or so little due to our weasel-like media?). He deserves it. Remember his talks of "punch 'em in the mouth" and worse? Can words incite? Do words mean anything? Can words be used to get people to act?
But I recall 7 or 8 years ago. Do you? "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun." Yep, that's a direct quote from none other than Obama. So, how is that different from Trump's admittedly inflammatory comments, repeated?
I know Obama didn't attend either Justice Scalia's funeral or Nancy Reagan's funeral. More than anything I think that's a measure of the smallness of the man. I am also aware of the tradition/history of such funerals. Presidents often don't attend and usually send the First Ladies to funerals of past First Ladies. Presidents have a record of attending funerals of justices appointed by Presidents of their own kind, but not those appointed by the Presidents of the other party. And, knowing this, I still think Obama is a small man. In both cases, he had an opportunity to demonstrate (and, remember, he's the great unifier, the great healer!) that some in Washington can rise above the pettiness of politics. But he chose not to. Remember, he was supposed to be different. It's like the lying and other shenanigans. His defenders often resort to, "Well, they all do it." Of course, but is that an excuse? Does someone get a free pass for lying, etc., just because "they all do it?" Again, he was supposed to be different--but is worse.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Interesting: Curiouser and Curiouser
Sun AM, it was 19 degrees when I ran. That's still cold enough to be bundled up a bit. Yesterday afternoon when Carrie and I ran, it was 70 degrees at 4:00. Hey, 50 degrees warmer! Hooray! The only downside was, as ideal as 70 degrees sounds, it really felt warm, for both of us. I was "schweating" quite freely. "I'm really hot," said Carrie. But it was good to get out there in shorts and tee shirts, I think only the second time since Thanksgiving or so. This AM's run met the upper 50s, shorts and a long-sleeved tee. Will it last?
In a book I'm reading, I had to chuckle at this one: Speaking of an attorney, "he was a man of such integrity he threatened to single-handedly give all lawyers a good name." OK, I don't subscribe to the view that all lawyers are bad, but it was pretty funny.
And the older I get, the less I understand of some things. For instance, I was reminded of this the other day and can't at all fathom it. How can a pregnant Muslim woman strap on a suicide vest and kill herself and her baby? For that matter, how can parents send their kids to get candy from US and other coalition troops, their kids with grenades in their hands? How and why do parents do that? If it's due to their religious beliefs, then maybe a lot more inspection and teaching about radical Islam needs to be undertaken.
Yet more articles, likely thanks to the blathering of Bernie Sanders, about free college education, at least tuition. Of course, it wouldn't be free. Oh, I see the lure. Getting away from the community colleges, higher education costs far too much. Getting a degree with tens of thousands of dollars of debt (note the three "of"s!) accompanying it is not good. But "free?" First, a college education results in a lifetime increase of more than a $1,000.000 vs a high school diploma. This "free" business actually costs taxpayers. That million bucks over a lifetime--do the taxpayers get any of that? Heh Heh--of course they don't. Second, why don't people look at the federal gov't's role in higher college costs, namely, the feds taking on the primary role in loans? With the fed gov't ensuring payments, colleges were/are free to increase costs, without concern for the effect on students' pocketbooks/ Third, colleges in the '80s and '90s rushed to build new buildings, with all the lastest technology and gizmos, regardless of cost. Now, those mortgages have to be paid; those high loans are coming due. Today's students, granted maybe benefiting from this building/expansion, are paying for it. Fourth. I think many full-time professors don't work enough. That is, they don't teach enough classes. If, say, a professor has a full-load, he/she is teaching, actually in the classroom, maybe 12 or 15 hours a week. If anyone knows, it's me, but there are many hours of work outside the classroom. But, c'mon......12 or 15 hours of teaching in a week? That still would leave 25 to 28 hours for grading papers, preparing lessons, research, etc. (BTW, if professors are researching on the colleges' dimes/time, shouldn't they also pay the colleges for income received for published books? After all, they were getting paid by the colleges while researching and writing!) And my guess (but I think it's a reasoned guess) is that many professors do not assign essays very often, if at all, that many of them are now using Scan-trons or something similar, where machines grade. Of course, at the big universities there are graduate- and teaching-assistants to grade, copy, etc. Again, 12-15 hours of teaching in a week? Gee, I remember back in the "olden days," at the high school--30 hours a week!
Fifth, surely we must agree that students have far more "stuff" than in the past. Drive past any college or university, a residential one, and check the student parking lots. Hmmm...... Is it now a requirement for students to have cars? Note, too, all of their technology, the latest in computers, phones, and all the rest--top of the line, expensive. Going back to Amherst about 10 years ago for the first time in 30+ years, two things surprised me, a great deal. One was the amount of student vehicular traffic. The main intersection in town is a constant traffic jam. The other was the number and variety of restaurants. Back when, we had a few bars and grinder/pizza shops. There were a couple of restaurants, but not many. Now there are a whole slue of them, various ethnic restaurants, too. The small town is blighted with them! I guess a logical question is, "Are students getting loans so they can have cars, get the latest technology, eat at these restaurants, etc.?"
Last, but not least, I heard, but haven't confirmed, that Obama isn't going to travel to Calif for Nancy Reagan's funeral. How small of the man! What can he possibly be doing that takes precedence? Yet another golf outing? A fund-raiser? That he didn't attend Justice Scalia's funeral was indicative of Obama's character or lack of it. Now, this. Wasn't this the President who was going to bring us all together? Instead, he has created a greater gap between people, setting one group against another. We are more divided than at any time in the recent past. As little as I think of Carter as a President, at least he was a decent man. I wonder if history will rank Obama with Buchanan, A. Johnson, and Harding. Somehow I doubt it. I know, I know. That makes me a......
In a book I'm reading, I had to chuckle at this one: Speaking of an attorney, "he was a man of such integrity he threatened to single-handedly give all lawyers a good name." OK, I don't subscribe to the view that all lawyers are bad, but it was pretty funny.
And the older I get, the less I understand of some things. For instance, I was reminded of this the other day and can't at all fathom it. How can a pregnant Muslim woman strap on a suicide vest and kill herself and her baby? For that matter, how can parents send their kids to get candy from US and other coalition troops, their kids with grenades in their hands? How and why do parents do that? If it's due to their religious beliefs, then maybe a lot more inspection and teaching about radical Islam needs to be undertaken.
Yet more articles, likely thanks to the blathering of Bernie Sanders, about free college education, at least tuition. Of course, it wouldn't be free. Oh, I see the lure. Getting away from the community colleges, higher education costs far too much. Getting a degree with tens of thousands of dollars of debt (note the three "of"s!) accompanying it is not good. But "free?" First, a college education results in a lifetime increase of more than a $1,000.000 vs a high school diploma. This "free" business actually costs taxpayers. That million bucks over a lifetime--do the taxpayers get any of that? Heh Heh--of course they don't. Second, why don't people look at the federal gov't's role in higher college costs, namely, the feds taking on the primary role in loans? With the fed gov't ensuring payments, colleges were/are free to increase costs, without concern for the effect on students' pocketbooks/ Third, colleges in the '80s and '90s rushed to build new buildings, with all the lastest technology and gizmos, regardless of cost. Now, those mortgages have to be paid; those high loans are coming due. Today's students, granted maybe benefiting from this building/expansion, are paying for it. Fourth. I think many full-time professors don't work enough. That is, they don't teach enough classes. If, say, a professor has a full-load, he/she is teaching, actually in the classroom, maybe 12 or 15 hours a week. If anyone knows, it's me, but there are many hours of work outside the classroom. But, c'mon......12 or 15 hours of teaching in a week? That still would leave 25 to 28 hours for grading papers, preparing lessons, research, etc. (BTW, if professors are researching on the colleges' dimes/time, shouldn't they also pay the colleges for income received for published books? After all, they were getting paid by the colleges while researching and writing!) And my guess (but I think it's a reasoned guess) is that many professors do not assign essays very often, if at all, that many of them are now using Scan-trons or something similar, where machines grade. Of course, at the big universities there are graduate- and teaching-assistants to grade, copy, etc. Again, 12-15 hours of teaching in a week? Gee, I remember back in the "olden days," at the high school--30 hours a week!
Fifth, surely we must agree that students have far more "stuff" than in the past. Drive past any college or university, a residential one, and check the student parking lots. Hmmm...... Is it now a requirement for students to have cars? Note, too, all of their technology, the latest in computers, phones, and all the rest--top of the line, expensive. Going back to Amherst about 10 years ago for the first time in 30+ years, two things surprised me, a great deal. One was the amount of student vehicular traffic. The main intersection in town is a constant traffic jam. The other was the number and variety of restaurants. Back when, we had a few bars and grinder/pizza shops. There were a couple of restaurants, but not many. Now there are a whole slue of them, various ethnic restaurants, too. The small town is blighted with them! I guess a logical question is, "Are students getting loans so they can have cars, get the latest technology, eat at these restaurants, etc.?"
Last, but not least, I heard, but haven't confirmed, that Obama isn't going to travel to Calif for Nancy Reagan's funeral. How small of the man! What can he possibly be doing that takes precedence? Yet another golf outing? A fund-raiser? That he didn't attend Justice Scalia's funeral was indicative of Obama's character or lack of it. Now, this. Wasn't this the President who was going to bring us all together? Instead, he has created a greater gap between people, setting one group against another. We are more divided than at any time in the recent past. As little as I think of Carter as a President, at least he was a decent man. I wonder if history will rank Obama with Buchanan, A. Johnson, and Harding. Somehow I doubt it. I know, I know. That makes me a......
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Core Values?
A recent Detroit News editorial claimed, "...those who subscribe to the core values of the Republican Party are getting queasy." The editor was critical of the "WWE" show (his characterization) called the Presidential campaign, particularly that of the GOP.
But what really struck me was his use of the term "core values." It seems to me that it has been the Republican Party leadership, what I usually refer to, disparagingly of course, as The Establishment, which has forgotten Republican "core values." I'm not saying those values are good or bad, although you may know my views. What I am saying is that the Establishment has abandoned them.
John Boehner was forced to resign because of pressure brought from his abandonment of traditional Republican principles. His replacement, Paul Ryan, once thought to be a voice of reason (Oops! Did I tip my hand?), seems intent on continuing with the Boehner policies. Note, for instance, the 2016 budget that increases the national debt to $19 trillion (and that doesn't include the unfunded liabilities which increases that amount by triple or even much more).
What happened to the party of small government? of low taxes? of cutting the strangulation of gov't bureaucracy? of not forcing me to use certain light bulbs, television sets, toilets, etc.?
Demanding majorities in the Senate and House in 2012 and 2014, the Republicans received them each election. But what good did that do? ObamaCare wasn't overthrown or defunded. (And those of you who still support it, I welcome donations to offset the $2000 this year it will cost me, and about $5000--by the end of 2016--it will have cost me since its inception.) Planned Parenthood hasn't lost any taxpayer money. Spending goes up, up, up, with no end in sight.
So, have Republican Party "core values" changed? If so, does that mean the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party? Why, then, would traditional Republicans support it?
Are there any/many Republicans who have any courage? It seems most of those elected fear being labeled. What's wrong with being "the party of 'No!'?" There is nothing noble in going along merely to get along. Those who have tried to stand up to the government getting bigger and bigger and bigger, have been marginalized and emasculated. They have been smeared and called names. They have been penalized within the party by the Establishment. Need an example? Look no farther than Ted Cruz. And I can name others. Buck the Establishment's turn to bigger government, more spending and regulation and watch what happens.
I received a worried e-mail trying to make sense of "L'Affaire Trump." As I've noted many times, it isn't about Trump. It's about the Establishment, both Republicans and Democrats. But the e-mail tried to analyze the allure of Trump. The man is bombastic, lies left and right, is gross and insulting, etc., yet his popularity grows. Who are these Trump supporters?
First, I fully understand why he has such a following. Again, I don't think it's him. Second, I am not ever going to denigrate those supporters. No, they are not stupid or un- misinformed. I will not criticize them. Although I don't support Trump, I sympathize/empathize those who do. I do think his style attracts a lot of folks, folks who have been changed by a changing sense of societal values. He is confrontational. But that draws people. In sports, for instance, it's no longer enough to win or do well. Now, to be really cool, it has to be "in your face!" or "We kicked their" collective bejabbers or some other such nonsense. Watch any NFL or college game. The fans who fork over $200 or more for an authentic jersey wear them and think they have, because they have the jersey, won the game. "Grrrrrr," they growl in self-aggrandizing triumph. We have become a society that embraces any sort of confrontation. Look at the so-called "reality" television programs. How many of them are based on confrontation? (I can't give any real examples, since I don't watch them. But I have heard from others.) Confrontation. Look at road rage. Someone cuts off another and there's likely to be a chase, a fight, a shooting. How about "dissing?" It's OK to kill someone because another has been "dissed." This past week, a guy bumped into another on a local dance floor. Yep, it escalated into a shooting. Confrontation--that's cool. Of course, that's not all Trump backers, by no means. But I think it explains a lot.
My brother recently wrote to me about the "demonizing" of politics and politicians. Why, he asked, would any good, decent people want to be involved in that? I agree, but am of two minds. First, the demonizing is deserved, although I hesitate to generalize. As I've written before, politics and, indeed, government seem to be based on foundations of deceit, dishonesty, and downright lying. Campaign promises are made, willy-nilly, with no intentions of keeping them. I know the adage, "You can't do anything if you aren't elected," but politicians are often elected on those promises--and they still don't do anything! So, I think the demonizing is justified.
At the same time, there are some good ones out there. They are smeared with the same broad brush of demonizing. That's too bad. That's the problem with generalizing, as legitimate as the generalizations are. It's the same with teaching. It's no secret I think the state of teaching in our schools is not very good, that most teachers are mediocre or worse. But think of what that does to our good and great teachers--and, despite my rants, there are still many of them out there. Like politicians, why would any competent, dedicated people go into teaching? Teachers are scapegoats for practically everything. The public rejoices at the emasculation of teacher unions, which have often been a detriment to quality education, but which have, at the same time, provided needed protections and advances. Pay cuts are rampant, tossed in with higher costs for insurances, further eating into already dismal pay. (Again, as I've noted over the years, good teachers are vastly underpaid; bad teachers are grossly overpaid.) I could go on and on, but the picture is clear.
What is particularly aggravating for me is I have no real answers. Well, I do, but they are very impractical, likely impossible considering the current state of affairs. I don't know where to start.
But what really struck me was his use of the term "core values." It seems to me that it has been the Republican Party leadership, what I usually refer to, disparagingly of course, as The Establishment, which has forgotten Republican "core values." I'm not saying those values are good or bad, although you may know my views. What I am saying is that the Establishment has abandoned them.
John Boehner was forced to resign because of pressure brought from his abandonment of traditional Republican principles. His replacement, Paul Ryan, once thought to be a voice of reason (Oops! Did I tip my hand?), seems intent on continuing with the Boehner policies. Note, for instance, the 2016 budget that increases the national debt to $19 trillion (and that doesn't include the unfunded liabilities which increases that amount by triple or even much more).
What happened to the party of small government? of low taxes? of cutting the strangulation of gov't bureaucracy? of not forcing me to use certain light bulbs, television sets, toilets, etc.?
Demanding majorities in the Senate and House in 2012 and 2014, the Republicans received them each election. But what good did that do? ObamaCare wasn't overthrown or defunded. (And those of you who still support it, I welcome donations to offset the $2000 this year it will cost me, and about $5000--by the end of 2016--it will have cost me since its inception.) Planned Parenthood hasn't lost any taxpayer money. Spending goes up, up, up, with no end in sight.
So, have Republican Party "core values" changed? If so, does that mean the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party? Why, then, would traditional Republicans support it?
Are there any/many Republicans who have any courage? It seems most of those elected fear being labeled. What's wrong with being "the party of 'No!'?" There is nothing noble in going along merely to get along. Those who have tried to stand up to the government getting bigger and bigger and bigger, have been marginalized and emasculated. They have been smeared and called names. They have been penalized within the party by the Establishment. Need an example? Look no farther than Ted Cruz. And I can name others. Buck the Establishment's turn to bigger government, more spending and regulation and watch what happens.
I received a worried e-mail trying to make sense of "L'Affaire Trump." As I've noted many times, it isn't about Trump. It's about the Establishment, both Republicans and Democrats. But the e-mail tried to analyze the allure of Trump. The man is bombastic, lies left and right, is gross and insulting, etc., yet his popularity grows. Who are these Trump supporters?
First, I fully understand why he has such a following. Again, I don't think it's him. Second, I am not ever going to denigrate those supporters. No, they are not stupid or un- misinformed. I will not criticize them. Although I don't support Trump, I sympathize/empathize those who do. I do think his style attracts a lot of folks, folks who have been changed by a changing sense of societal values. He is confrontational. But that draws people. In sports, for instance, it's no longer enough to win or do well. Now, to be really cool, it has to be "in your face!" or "We kicked their" collective bejabbers or some other such nonsense. Watch any NFL or college game. The fans who fork over $200 or more for an authentic jersey wear them and think they have, because they have the jersey, won the game. "Grrrrrr," they growl in self-aggrandizing triumph. We have become a society that embraces any sort of confrontation. Look at the so-called "reality" television programs. How many of them are based on confrontation? (I can't give any real examples, since I don't watch them. But I have heard from others.) Confrontation. Look at road rage. Someone cuts off another and there's likely to be a chase, a fight, a shooting. How about "dissing?" It's OK to kill someone because another has been "dissed." This past week, a guy bumped into another on a local dance floor. Yep, it escalated into a shooting. Confrontation--that's cool. Of course, that's not all Trump backers, by no means. But I think it explains a lot.
My brother recently wrote to me about the "demonizing" of politics and politicians. Why, he asked, would any good, decent people want to be involved in that? I agree, but am of two minds. First, the demonizing is deserved, although I hesitate to generalize. As I've written before, politics and, indeed, government seem to be based on foundations of deceit, dishonesty, and downright lying. Campaign promises are made, willy-nilly, with no intentions of keeping them. I know the adage, "You can't do anything if you aren't elected," but politicians are often elected on those promises--and they still don't do anything! So, I think the demonizing is justified.
At the same time, there are some good ones out there. They are smeared with the same broad brush of demonizing. That's too bad. That's the problem with generalizing, as legitimate as the generalizations are. It's the same with teaching. It's no secret I think the state of teaching in our schools is not very good, that most teachers are mediocre or worse. But think of what that does to our good and great teachers--and, despite my rants, there are still many of them out there. Like politicians, why would any competent, dedicated people go into teaching? Teachers are scapegoats for practically everything. The public rejoices at the emasculation of teacher unions, which have often been a detriment to quality education, but which have, at the same time, provided needed protections and advances. Pay cuts are rampant, tossed in with higher costs for insurances, further eating into already dismal pay. (Again, as I've noted over the years, good teachers are vastly underpaid; bad teachers are grossly overpaid.) I could go on and on, but the picture is clear.
What is particularly aggravating for me is I have no real answers. Well, I do, but they are very impractical, likely impossible considering the current state of affairs. I don't know where to start.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
The World Turned Upside Down
I know I've used this title more than once before, but if it continues to fit......
So, let me get this straight. I hope I have this right (or do I?). Mitt Romney just lambasted Don Trump this AM. OK, that's fair enough, the lambasting is. But did he really called Trump "dishonest," a phony, a fraud, a bully, and more? So, where was Romney and his speeches with the Establishment Republicans the last few years?
I'm not at all a Trump guy. I'm pretty sure, if he wins the nomination, I won't vote for him. He's wrong on most of the issues: abortion, foreign policy, immigration, you name it. He has contributed to the Clinton campaign funds, for goodness sake! He can't be trusted, having used the courts to gain advantage at the expense of little guys. His moral character is, well, let's be kind and say questionable. (Of course in Modern America, moral character doesn't count for much, if anything.)In comparison, I certainly won't vote for Clinton. And I might actually agree with Romney on his characterization(s) of Trump. But that's not my point.
What have the Establishment Republicans been over the past 5-6 years if not what Romney calls Trump? In fact, isn't that why Trump is so popular? Of course it is. People are frustrated and angry with the dishonesty, phoniness, fraud, bullying, and what-not of the Establishment Republicans. Some of you may recall I have questioned if many of these same politicians can be sued for fraud, for deliberately lying to get elected--fully knowing what they were doing.
What is it we call people who embrace the Tea Party stands to win primaries and elections, then, by design, abandon those embraces? Liars and frauds immediately come to mind. What is is we call people (the Establishment) who immediately marginalize, ignore, or even politically punish those Tea Party candidates who actually try to live up to their campaign promises?
The Republican Establishment asked for a majority in the House to stop Obama and his Democrat friends. It happened. The Rep Est asked for a majority in the Senate to stop Obama and his Democrat friends. It happened. Oh, the majorities happened. The stopping didn't.
Imagine any Republican Speaker of the House, with supposed credentials like Paul Ryan, pushing forth the budget just passed by the Establishment. Right, I can't think of any other than Ryan and Boehner and...... Yep, just name the recent Speakers.
The Establishment has given us Dole (an honorable man, but not of Presidential stock), W Bush, McCain, and Romney. "We have to unite," it said. "Hold your noses and vote for the sake of party unity." "To stop the Democrats, we must unify." Now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe it's the Establishment that should "hold its collective nose" to unify to defeat Clinton. Or does "unify" only work one way? Of course it does. Where I worked, stupid stuff was thrown at us, but we were asked to be "team players" and just go along. But when something we wanted came up, the concept of "team" disappeared. (It's funny how the microcosms show up all of the time!) Here we are again, on the national stage.
The Establishment still doesn't get it. Are those people that stupid? Voters don't want Establishment candidates!!!!!! We don't trust them. They are deserving of our scorn. And they seem intent on self-destructing.
No, I am done "holding my nose" and voting. No, it's not my fault Obama was elected. It's the Republican Establishment's fault for giving us such lousy candidates! No, I won't vote for Clinton--ever. But I also am very unlikely to vote for Trump or some other Establishment candidate who might be pulled out of a last-minute hat.
And if Clinton gets elected, no, it won't be my fault. Isn't that pathetic? A woman like Hillary Clinton might well become President of the United States. Talk about dishonest, phoniness, fraud, bullying......
So, let me get this straight. I hope I have this right (or do I?). Mitt Romney just lambasted Don Trump this AM. OK, that's fair enough, the lambasting is. But did he really called Trump "dishonest," a phony, a fraud, a bully, and more? So, where was Romney and his speeches with the Establishment Republicans the last few years?
I'm not at all a Trump guy. I'm pretty sure, if he wins the nomination, I won't vote for him. He's wrong on most of the issues: abortion, foreign policy, immigration, you name it. He has contributed to the Clinton campaign funds, for goodness sake! He can't be trusted, having used the courts to gain advantage at the expense of little guys. His moral character is, well, let's be kind and say questionable. (Of course in Modern America, moral character doesn't count for much, if anything.)In comparison, I certainly won't vote for Clinton. And I might actually agree with Romney on his characterization(s) of Trump. But that's not my point.
What have the Establishment Republicans been over the past 5-6 years if not what Romney calls Trump? In fact, isn't that why Trump is so popular? Of course it is. People are frustrated and angry with the dishonesty, phoniness, fraud, bullying, and what-not of the Establishment Republicans. Some of you may recall I have questioned if many of these same politicians can be sued for fraud, for deliberately lying to get elected--fully knowing what they were doing.
What is it we call people who embrace the Tea Party stands to win primaries and elections, then, by design, abandon those embraces? Liars and frauds immediately come to mind. What is is we call people (the Establishment) who immediately marginalize, ignore, or even politically punish those Tea Party candidates who actually try to live up to their campaign promises?
The Republican Establishment asked for a majority in the House to stop Obama and his Democrat friends. It happened. The Rep Est asked for a majority in the Senate to stop Obama and his Democrat friends. It happened. Oh, the majorities happened. The stopping didn't.
Imagine any Republican Speaker of the House, with supposed credentials like Paul Ryan, pushing forth the budget just passed by the Establishment. Right, I can't think of any other than Ryan and Boehner and...... Yep, just name the recent Speakers.
The Establishment has given us Dole (an honorable man, but not of Presidential stock), W Bush, McCain, and Romney. "We have to unite," it said. "Hold your noses and vote for the sake of party unity." "To stop the Democrats, we must unify." Now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe it's the Establishment that should "hold its collective nose" to unify to defeat Clinton. Or does "unify" only work one way? Of course it does. Where I worked, stupid stuff was thrown at us, but we were asked to be "team players" and just go along. But when something we wanted came up, the concept of "team" disappeared. (It's funny how the microcosms show up all of the time!) Here we are again, on the national stage.
The Establishment still doesn't get it. Are those people that stupid? Voters don't want Establishment candidates!!!!!! We don't trust them. They are deserving of our scorn. And they seem intent on self-destructing.
No, I am done "holding my nose" and voting. No, it's not my fault Obama was elected. It's the Republican Establishment's fault for giving us such lousy candidates! No, I won't vote for Clinton--ever. But I also am very unlikely to vote for Trump or some other Establishment candidate who might be pulled out of a last-minute hat.
And if Clinton gets elected, no, it won't be my fault. Isn't that pathetic? A woman like Hillary Clinton might well become President of the United States. Talk about dishonest, phoniness, fraud, bullying......
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
The Weather
Isn't this ridiculous?????? Two weekends ago, it was 15 below zero. The weekend after hit the 60s. Then we had 11-12" of snow, followed by another weekend reaching the mid-60s. Today it's snowing like crazy, with a predicted 6-9" by midnight. The way it's coming down now, I believe we'll get it. Someone told me next week will be in the 50s and 60s.
Remember the boycott of South Africa over apartheid? That was what, 40 or 50 years ago? And, it worked. Why don't we boycott China or Cuba or Saudi Arabia? After all, don't the regimes there treat common folks pretty badly? Doesn't China pretty much rely on almost slave labor? How is it, again, that women are treated in Saudi Arabia (let alone the citizens as a whole)? And, go ahead, try to find a Cuban alive who was critical of either Castro in the past 55 years. So, why can we work up such outrage at South Africa, but not against these other countries? In fact, why is it that our governors and corporations race to China to do business? The Chinese steal our corporate and military secrets and our patents/products. They pollute the earth worse than anyone. And, the regime tells its people what they can think, how many kids they can have (Guess what happens to babies born beyond the quotas.), etc. Yet, there we are, begging to do business with them. Our President rushes to Cuba to embrace the tyrannical dictator--and it's not as if Cuba has any impact on our own defense. Maybe he just misses smoking good cigars? Would it be too much to ask Obama to take a real leadership role on this? Witnessing his 7+ years so far, yep, I guess it would.
Isn't it interesting to see the Establishment Republicans circling the wagons, rushing to dump on Trump and Cruz? Paul Ryan seems to be the latest, but there are others. Wasn't Ryan one of the new breed when elected just what seems like a few years ago? Why didn't he rail against the Establishment Republicans who lied to get elected and re-elected, who pressured, polarized, and stigmatized those Republicans who tried to live up to their anti-Establishment promises to get elected? I guess it didn't take him (and others like him) to learn to go-along-to-get-along?
It strikes a cord when I hear the slams and name-calling directed toward Cruz. I don't for a minute believe any of them. It is very apparent what is occurring. One might be opposed to Cruz based on philosophy, politics, etc. But the attempt to get rid of him through name-calling is the goal. I know, having been the target of name-calling when I questioned being asked to do very stupid things.
I heard a campaign ad for Clinton in which she is giving a speech, telling people that American doesn't have to be great again (Trump), but that we just need to come together again. Who, other than Clinton and her Democratic friends, have done more to polarize the nation, to divide people? I can't really think of any.
I was very hungry, waiting for dinner. From out of nowhere I thought of the probable choices in the November election: Trump v Clinton. I lost my appetite and am not at all hungry.
Remember the boycott of South Africa over apartheid? That was what, 40 or 50 years ago? And, it worked. Why don't we boycott China or Cuba or Saudi Arabia? After all, don't the regimes there treat common folks pretty badly? Doesn't China pretty much rely on almost slave labor? How is it, again, that women are treated in Saudi Arabia (let alone the citizens as a whole)? And, go ahead, try to find a Cuban alive who was critical of either Castro in the past 55 years. So, why can we work up such outrage at South Africa, but not against these other countries? In fact, why is it that our governors and corporations race to China to do business? The Chinese steal our corporate and military secrets and our patents/products. They pollute the earth worse than anyone. And, the regime tells its people what they can think, how many kids they can have (Guess what happens to babies born beyond the quotas.), etc. Yet, there we are, begging to do business with them. Our President rushes to Cuba to embrace the tyrannical dictator--and it's not as if Cuba has any impact on our own defense. Maybe he just misses smoking good cigars? Would it be too much to ask Obama to take a real leadership role on this? Witnessing his 7+ years so far, yep, I guess it would.
Isn't it interesting to see the Establishment Republicans circling the wagons, rushing to dump on Trump and Cruz? Paul Ryan seems to be the latest, but there are others. Wasn't Ryan one of the new breed when elected just what seems like a few years ago? Why didn't he rail against the Establishment Republicans who lied to get elected and re-elected, who pressured, polarized, and stigmatized those Republicans who tried to live up to their anti-Establishment promises to get elected? I guess it didn't take him (and others like him) to learn to go-along-to-get-along?
It strikes a cord when I hear the slams and name-calling directed toward Cruz. I don't for a minute believe any of them. It is very apparent what is occurring. One might be opposed to Cruz based on philosophy, politics, etc. But the attempt to get rid of him through name-calling is the goal. I know, having been the target of name-calling when I questioned being asked to do very stupid things.
I heard a campaign ad for Clinton in which she is giving a speech, telling people that American doesn't have to be great again (Trump), but that we just need to come together again. Who, other than Clinton and her Democratic friends, have done more to polarize the nation, to divide people? I can't really think of any.
I was very hungry, waiting for dinner. From out of nowhere I thought of the probable choices in the November election: Trump v Clinton. I lost my appetite and am not at all hungry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
