If we need any more evidence that Ted Cruz is the guy, not Trump, not Kasich, and certainly not Clinton or Sanders, here it is. The Establishment-types, John Boehner and Peter King, have come out railing against Cruz. I think Boehner called him "Lucifer" as well as some expletive deleted.
Boehner is a buddy of Trump and has said he'd vote for Clinton over Cruz. That's all well and good, for Boehner, but certainly not for us.
A key question to ask in all of this is, "Why? Why is Boehner so anti-Cruz?" He's not a liar, not a crook. He, as a US Senator from Texas, actually tried to do what he promised his constituents he would do. Of course, he was thwarted by the Establishment. And that answers our question, doesn't it?
Boehner is the Establishment, as is Peter King and Don Trump and Hillary Clinton. They have, for years and years, been getting away with increasing the size of the federal government, spending trillions of dollars, and making government more powerful at our expense. Cruz is the one guy who will try to stop them, try to stop this behemoth that has become the runaway federal government. And that frightens the Establishment.
Note, Boehner has never likened Clinton or Trump to "Lucifer," despite their, as the Free Press noted, "pathological" lying. Maybe I'm wrong and pathological lying isn't Satan-like and is now de rigeur, the way things are. Maybe honesty is passe, "so yesterday."
Anyone who is upset with how the Establishment--and that includes both parties!--has taken over this country, at the expense of American citizens, there is only one answer--and it's not Trump and it's not Clinton.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
"Cursive?"
We used to call it "penmanship" or merely "handwriting." Now it's referred to as "cursive." Regardless, it's not "printing." And, apparently, "cursive" is no longer taught in the schools, at least most of them. I understand why it isn't--"cursive" isn't on the test. And that's a shame, both for what we lose without cursive and what it says about the test and the people who mandate them. (It doesn't say much good about them.)
Studies have shown that using cursive writing stimulates the brain, improves the thinking process, and develops fine motor skills. (Of course, what to automatons being groomed for the workplace need with thinking or fine motor skills?) But that's not even my point here.
I have had several occasions recently that highlighted our misdirected educational system regarding cursive handwriting. First, my grandson had to sign, with a written not printed signature, a document for sports. He asked if he could print his name. Nope! So he largely printed and just connected the letters with lines. OK, I guess. The other had to do with a legal document I signed. "No printing" was allowed. If one couldn't handwrite one's signature, "An X" would suffice--if a witness who could handwrite counter-signed. And, I handed out in class a handwritten copy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in his handwriting. Many students just gave it a blank stare, until I pointed out there was a printed version on the reverse side.
And we let these people run our schools?!?!?!
I notice, too, that when I typed "handwrite," as now, it comes up as an error, needing correction. Yet when I typed "handwritten" or "handwriting," each was fine. Hmmm...... It was like my friend who sent directions via a text or whatever it's called. She typed in "Allegan Street" in Lansing. The text auto-corrected "Allegan" to "Allegiance." That sent the fellow traveler to a completely different location, about 15 minutes away. So, maybe technology still has some big flaws......
I have discovered the novels of Daniel Silva. I think he's terrific, a wonderful writer. As one of my intelligent friends (far more intelligent than I) once said of another author/novelist, "If only 10% of what he writes is true......" Of Silva, "if only 10% of what he writes is true" about the Palestinian conflict, about Europeans and their misguided paths, there is bigger and bigger trouble than anyone imagines. It reflects what Lenin wrote more than a century ago, "useful idiots." And what was it Stalin said, "When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope." Yep...... ("There he goes with that history stuff again. History ain't on the test either.")
I didn't read the article, but the headlline attracted my attention. "April Fools......" I immediately thought, "Hey, is that referring to the primary voters, the ones voting for Clinton or Sanders or Trump?" Since it was a political rant, it might well have been just that; I'll have to go back to read it.
The amount of dishonesty in this world, all over, astounds me. I'm talking about the little piddling stuff as well as the whoppers our political leaders tell. It's not just the blatant lies, but the distortions and obfuscations. And none of it seems to bother anyone. "Pathological liars" (as the Free Press called Trump and Clinton) are not called to task very often, certainly not by the LameStream media, and, if by some slim chance they are, they are not at all embarrassed by being caught in lies. "Lies" are often explained away with such euphemisms as "misspeaking." Such dishonesty undermines trust. Who can trust anyone? Who can believe anyone? If a democracy can succeed only with an enlightened people (so held Jefferson and other Founders), how are we to succeed when we are peppered with untruths? I know lies have been with us forever and today's politicians didn't invent them. But I wonder if the pervasiveness of dishonesty really took an upward tick with the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode. After all, the President on national television looked us in our collective eye and lied, deliberately and overtly--and he paid no price at all. No, the impeachment wasn't a penalty. The guy is a hero to Democrats, women, minorities, etc. He goes out and makes millions for speeches. Instead of finding a rock to crawl under, to hide his shame, there is no shame--he just makes more and more money. After all, if the President can lie so blatantly without recourse......
Studies have shown that using cursive writing stimulates the brain, improves the thinking process, and develops fine motor skills. (Of course, what to automatons being groomed for the workplace need with thinking or fine motor skills?) But that's not even my point here.
I have had several occasions recently that highlighted our misdirected educational system regarding cursive handwriting. First, my grandson had to sign, with a written not printed signature, a document for sports. He asked if he could print his name. Nope! So he largely printed and just connected the letters with lines. OK, I guess. The other had to do with a legal document I signed. "No printing" was allowed. If one couldn't handwrite one's signature, "An X" would suffice--if a witness who could handwrite counter-signed. And, I handed out in class a handwritten copy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in his handwriting. Many students just gave it a blank stare, until I pointed out there was a printed version on the reverse side.
And we let these people run our schools?!?!?!
I notice, too, that when I typed "handwrite," as now, it comes up as an error, needing correction. Yet when I typed "handwritten" or "handwriting," each was fine. Hmmm...... It was like my friend who sent directions via a text or whatever it's called. She typed in "Allegan Street" in Lansing. The text auto-corrected "Allegan" to "Allegiance." That sent the fellow traveler to a completely different location, about 15 minutes away. So, maybe technology still has some big flaws......
I have discovered the novels of Daniel Silva. I think he's terrific, a wonderful writer. As one of my intelligent friends (far more intelligent than I) once said of another author/novelist, "If only 10% of what he writes is true......" Of Silva, "if only 10% of what he writes is true" about the Palestinian conflict, about Europeans and their misguided paths, there is bigger and bigger trouble than anyone imagines. It reflects what Lenin wrote more than a century ago, "useful idiots." And what was it Stalin said, "When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope." Yep...... ("There he goes with that history stuff again. History ain't on the test either.")
I didn't read the article, but the headlline attracted my attention. "April Fools......" I immediately thought, "Hey, is that referring to the primary voters, the ones voting for Clinton or Sanders or Trump?" Since it was a political rant, it might well have been just that; I'll have to go back to read it.
The amount of dishonesty in this world, all over, astounds me. I'm talking about the little piddling stuff as well as the whoppers our political leaders tell. It's not just the blatant lies, but the distortions and obfuscations. And none of it seems to bother anyone. "Pathological liars" (as the Free Press called Trump and Clinton) are not called to task very often, certainly not by the LameStream media, and, if by some slim chance they are, they are not at all embarrassed by being caught in lies. "Lies" are often explained away with such euphemisms as "misspeaking." Such dishonesty undermines trust. Who can trust anyone? Who can believe anyone? If a democracy can succeed only with an enlightened people (so held Jefferson and other Founders), how are we to succeed when we are peppered with untruths? I know lies have been with us forever and today's politicians didn't invent them. But I wonder if the pervasiveness of dishonesty really took an upward tick with the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode. After all, the President on national television looked us in our collective eye and lied, deliberately and overtly--and he paid no price at all. No, the impeachment wasn't a penalty. The guy is a hero to Democrats, women, minorities, etc. He goes out and makes millions for speeches. Instead of finding a rock to crawl under, to hide his shame, there is no shame--he just makes more and more money. After all, if the President can lie so blatantly without recourse......
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Sun Ramblings
Talk about cheek! The former emergency manager of Flint, at the onset of the water crisis, is billing the city for his legal fees, esp regarding his testimony in DC. Wow!!!!!! Already three underlings have been charged. I wonder if any of the top dogs, although they surely will disavow any knowledge of malfeasance, their own or otherwise, will be charged. I think my money is on---no.
And this one really gets me, too. The politicians are debating when to retain students, that is, keep them, say, in third grade for another year. Some of the know-it-alls think that if students can't read at grade level, they shouldn't be promoted. And, on the face of it, who can argue with that? Of course, you know who--me! First, if we've learned anything in recent years, one thing is that politicians don't know very much. They do too much and, often, do the wrong things. Second, who says that they, now, are the experts in education? Well, they do. They went to school, didn't they? They remind me of the guys who played little league and watch ball games on television--and now know more baseball than major league managers. Third, and this one is problematic, who should be determining promotion or retention, some politician miles and miles away from the scene or a teacher right there in the classroom? The answer also appears, at least superficially and rationally, to be obvious. But I know too many teachers who shouldn't be making those decisions either. My views on teachers and teaching are well known. Many teachers are not "great" or even good and should be nowhere near classrooms; a handful are really top-flight and should be retained at all costs (and I mean all costs!) and, esp, should be consulted again and again; likely the majority of teachers are workman-like or mediocre and that's OK, as long as they have good leadership, which isn't the case today.
Someone suggested that the Republicans, the Establishment Republicans, will need a drubbing to rethink their party, what it's become and where it's headed. Trump and a defeat by Clinton (I don't think Trump, if nominated, can beat her.) will bring them to their senses. The argument is that it's worth a loss in Nov, if Trump is the nominee, because Clinton can't be worse than Obama. I don't know; it would be tough to trump Obama, but she just might be able to do it. I find this a very specious argument. If the Establishment Republicans haven't realized that losses to Obama with such candidates as McCain and Romney require a major make-over, what makes them think a Trump defeat would? For that matter, the Establishment-types still don't realize the anger and frustration many people feel at the devastating work of McConnell and Boehner, their lies and deception and stabs-in-the-back.
The other night someone was trying to talk me into realizing "how great" Prince was. I think I admitted that others think of him that way, but that I wasn't a big fan, really enjoying just a few of his songs. I accepted the argument the other night, not wanting to waste time on a debate/discussion, but not without asking if this person owned any Prince albums, CDs, etc. The answer was "No, but......" Again, many folks thought/think of him as, well, greater than I thought/think of him. And, that's fine. I am, as usual, chagrined at the coverage--another two-page tribute in today's paper, after a whole page the other day; my ISP continuing on with the surroundings of Prince's death.
Sometimes I watch games and maybe see too much. I think I know baseball better than I know history. OK, maybe I'm not as up to date on the very latest technology or, esp, recent players and stats. But I know my strategies and I know the game pretty well. I wondered the other day if the local high school coach noticed when his catcher ran to first base to get in the queue for a run-down or if he noticed a left fielder covering third base when the third baseman was, well, I don't know where he was except it wasn't covering his bag. I wonder, when leading by half a dozen runs with two out in the last inning and opposing runners on first and third, if he realized it was worth the gamble of throwing to second on the obvious upcoming steal attempt; that is, if he recognized the runner on third and his potential run meant nothing to the outcome of the game. And, if the kid on first lollygags into second and is thrown out because he doesn't expect a throw, the runner on third doesn't even score. Their lead-offs, all of the teams, are all wrong. Other than getting thrown out a few times due to lousy lead-offs and breaks, there have been no downsides to the poor baserunning. Maybe there won't ever be any, although one would think as players move up their poor techniques would become more detrimental. I don't know--maybe there a lots of Dairy Queen League coaches out there who are also moving up. And I don't disparage the DQ coaches; at least they are giving of their time! Most, though, really don't see very much.
And this one really gets me, too. The politicians are debating when to retain students, that is, keep them, say, in third grade for another year. Some of the know-it-alls think that if students can't read at grade level, they shouldn't be promoted. And, on the face of it, who can argue with that? Of course, you know who--me! First, if we've learned anything in recent years, one thing is that politicians don't know very much. They do too much and, often, do the wrong things. Second, who says that they, now, are the experts in education? Well, they do. They went to school, didn't they? They remind me of the guys who played little league and watch ball games on television--and now know more baseball than major league managers. Third, and this one is problematic, who should be determining promotion or retention, some politician miles and miles away from the scene or a teacher right there in the classroom? The answer also appears, at least superficially and rationally, to be obvious. But I know too many teachers who shouldn't be making those decisions either. My views on teachers and teaching are well known. Many teachers are not "great" or even good and should be nowhere near classrooms; a handful are really top-flight and should be retained at all costs (and I mean all costs!) and, esp, should be consulted again and again; likely the majority of teachers are workman-like or mediocre and that's OK, as long as they have good leadership, which isn't the case today.
Someone suggested that the Republicans, the Establishment Republicans, will need a drubbing to rethink their party, what it's become and where it's headed. Trump and a defeat by Clinton (I don't think Trump, if nominated, can beat her.) will bring them to their senses. The argument is that it's worth a loss in Nov, if Trump is the nominee, because Clinton can't be worse than Obama. I don't know; it would be tough to trump Obama, but she just might be able to do it. I find this a very specious argument. If the Establishment Republicans haven't realized that losses to Obama with such candidates as McCain and Romney require a major make-over, what makes them think a Trump defeat would? For that matter, the Establishment-types still don't realize the anger and frustration many people feel at the devastating work of McConnell and Boehner, their lies and deception and stabs-in-the-back.
The other night someone was trying to talk me into realizing "how great" Prince was. I think I admitted that others think of him that way, but that I wasn't a big fan, really enjoying just a few of his songs. I accepted the argument the other night, not wanting to waste time on a debate/discussion, but not without asking if this person owned any Prince albums, CDs, etc. The answer was "No, but......" Again, many folks thought/think of him as, well, greater than I thought/think of him. And, that's fine. I am, as usual, chagrined at the coverage--another two-page tribute in today's paper, after a whole page the other day; my ISP continuing on with the surroundings of Prince's death.
Sometimes I watch games and maybe see too much. I think I know baseball better than I know history. OK, maybe I'm not as up to date on the very latest technology or, esp, recent players and stats. But I know my strategies and I know the game pretty well. I wondered the other day if the local high school coach noticed when his catcher ran to first base to get in the queue for a run-down or if he noticed a left fielder covering third base when the third baseman was, well, I don't know where he was except it wasn't covering his bag. I wonder, when leading by half a dozen runs with two out in the last inning and opposing runners on first and third, if he realized it was worth the gamble of throwing to second on the obvious upcoming steal attempt; that is, if he recognized the runner on third and his potential run meant nothing to the outcome of the game. And, if the kid on first lollygags into second and is thrown out because he doesn't expect a throw, the runner on third doesn't even score. Their lead-offs, all of the teams, are all wrong. Other than getting thrown out a few times due to lousy lead-offs and breaks, there have been no downsides to the poor baserunning. Maybe there won't ever be any, although one would think as players move up their poor techniques would become more detrimental. I don't know--maybe there a lots of Dairy Queen League coaches out there who are also moving up. And I don't disparage the DQ coaches; at least they are giving of their time! Most, though, really don't see very much.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Rules?
Interesting that Trump is screaming about "the rules," but only when they don't favor him. If he benefits from "the rules," they are OK.
For instance, in Wisconsin, Cruz received far more votes than Trump did in NY. Yet, Trump received more NY delegates than Cruz. That's because, as Trump has trumpeted, the system is rigged. I guess being "rigged" is OK if it favors Trump?
BTW, Trump is not at all a lock to get the requisite number of delegate votes to win on the first ballot in Cleveland. And, despite the "wins" Trump has under his belt, I think a majority of those even committed to him on the first ballot are opposed to his nomination. That is a ray of hope for the Republicans.
If that is the outcome, that Trump doesn't get the nomination, the Establishment Republicans can still shoot themselves in the foot by selecting an Establishment candidate. Will they be stupid? Can they remember 2012 when so many Republicans stayed home rather than voting for Romney, allowing Obama to win? If they can, will they learn the lesson or will they be content to lose another election as long as their own Establishment candidate is nominated? Talk about a Pyrrhic Victory......
For instance, in Wisconsin, Cruz received far more votes than Trump did in NY. Yet, Trump received more NY delegates than Cruz. That's because, as Trump has trumpeted, the system is rigged. I guess being "rigged" is OK if it favors Trump?
BTW, Trump is not at all a lock to get the requisite number of delegate votes to win on the first ballot in Cleveland. And, despite the "wins" Trump has under his belt, I think a majority of those even committed to him on the first ballot are opposed to his nomination. That is a ray of hope for the Republicans.
If that is the outcome, that Trump doesn't get the nomination, the Establishment Republicans can still shoot themselves in the foot by selecting an Establishment candidate. Will they be stupid? Can they remember 2012 when so many Republicans stayed home rather than voting for Romney, allowing Obama to win? If they can, will they learn the lesson or will they be content to lose another election as long as their own Establishment candidate is nominated? Talk about a Pyrrhic Victory......
Earth Day!
Ah, "Earth Day!" On the surface, it's a wonderful idea. It's a reminder for me to turn down the heat or air condition (regardless if my kids are too cold or warm) so the glitterati can shuffle off all over the country and world to tell people we're ruining the planet. You get the idea or, at least, my idea about "Earth Day." Does NBC still change the color of its logo today to all green? Yep, that will surely make a difference.
It's interesting to watch the Presidential campaign, how it's unfolding. Forget that, as the Free Press noted a few weeks ago, that the two front-runners (one from each party) are "pathological liars." But the wagons are beginning to circle. Are the Republicans, for instance, beginning to make nice with Don Trump or at least come to terms with him? It seems that the lobbyists and other big money interests have already done so. I think they know that they can't buy off Ted Cruz.
In Westland, a suburb of Detroit, a police officer pulled over a guy in a car. During the stop, the officer discovered the man's daughter wasn't in a required car seat. He inquired why she wasn't. The man replied he couldn't afford one. "Follow me," the officer said. He drove down to a local Wal-Mart, went in, and, out of his own pocket, bought a car seat and gave it to the man. When the guy walked to his car and put in the seat, he looked up and the officer was gone. Hmmm...... Why isn't this on PAGE 1??????
Prince died and the accolades are coming. I will admit that he, at least musically, deserves many of them. I'm not a big fan of his. I can think of maybe one or two tunes for which I wouldn't switch the radio dial; I owned no albums or CDs of his. But, again, if he was that good to so many people, that's fine with me. It's the same old story, though, "legend," "icon," etc. How close was this guy to being a Mother Teresa?????? Give him is due, but back off. I know nothing about the guy's personal life, except he seemed pretty weird to me. I wonder if anyone can calculate his influence on our culture, for better or worse.
The gender/transgender wars continue. I just wonder how many people would be comfortable with their seven-year old daughters going into the same bathroom as a 36-year old man--or vice versa. Would anything happen? Likely not, but that's not the point, is it? There seems to be a pretty simple solution, though. Why not construction a third bathroom, one for transgenders? One for men; one for women; one for trans? But, to me, more to the point is the hypocrisy of so many "doo gooders" (and I do mean "doo"). Oh, from corporations to hippy rock stars to civil rights/liberties groups, they are calling for boycotts of states like Mississippi and North Carolina. I suppose that's their right to do so, to call for a boycott or actually boycott. Who is really being hurt by such actions? More concerning to me is the apathy these same "doo gooders" (and I do mean "doo") toward human rights violations, egregious ones, in other parts of the world. For instance, do these companies still do business with, say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Commie China? Do these entertainers (I use the term very loosely in many instances) continue to do shows/concerts in such countries as Cuba?
I laughed at a headline in today's newspaper, the op-ed pages: "John Kerry's diplomatic traveling circus." Yep. I wonder if foreign nations, at least their leaders, laugh more at Kerry than they did Hillary Clinton, more at Kerry than Obama. And what makes this so hilarious is recalling a campaign theme Kerry used against W. Bush--"gravitas." Ha Ha. First, what real person uses the word "gravitas?" Second, it's as if Kerry is trying to force us to believe he possesses "gravitas." Look at his visage, how his face is always filled with, well, "gravitas." Listen to him talk, as if the way he sounds makes him someone to be taken seriously. Ha Ha. Third, if any person lacks "gravitas," besides W that is, it must be Kerry. He certainly makes one wonder about a Yale education and a law degree, doesn't he, not to mention US politics? (Yeah, I realize how poorly written that sentence is, but I'm too tired to fix it.)
As my construction worker comrades would say, 50 years ago, "If it doesn't rain today, it's missing a good chance." But no rain is in the forecast.
It's interesting to watch the Presidential campaign, how it's unfolding. Forget that, as the Free Press noted a few weeks ago, that the two front-runners (one from each party) are "pathological liars." But the wagons are beginning to circle. Are the Republicans, for instance, beginning to make nice with Don Trump or at least come to terms with him? It seems that the lobbyists and other big money interests have already done so. I think they know that they can't buy off Ted Cruz.
In Westland, a suburb of Detroit, a police officer pulled over a guy in a car. During the stop, the officer discovered the man's daughter wasn't in a required car seat. He inquired why she wasn't. The man replied he couldn't afford one. "Follow me," the officer said. He drove down to a local Wal-Mart, went in, and, out of his own pocket, bought a car seat and gave it to the man. When the guy walked to his car and put in the seat, he looked up and the officer was gone. Hmmm...... Why isn't this on PAGE 1??????
Prince died and the accolades are coming. I will admit that he, at least musically, deserves many of them. I'm not a big fan of his. I can think of maybe one or two tunes for which I wouldn't switch the radio dial; I owned no albums or CDs of his. But, again, if he was that good to so many people, that's fine with me. It's the same old story, though, "legend," "icon," etc. How close was this guy to being a Mother Teresa?????? Give him is due, but back off. I know nothing about the guy's personal life, except he seemed pretty weird to me. I wonder if anyone can calculate his influence on our culture, for better or worse.
The gender/transgender wars continue. I just wonder how many people would be comfortable with their seven-year old daughters going into the same bathroom as a 36-year old man--or vice versa. Would anything happen? Likely not, but that's not the point, is it? There seems to be a pretty simple solution, though. Why not construction a third bathroom, one for transgenders? One for men; one for women; one for trans? But, to me, more to the point is the hypocrisy of so many "doo gooders" (and I do mean "doo"). Oh, from corporations to hippy rock stars to civil rights/liberties groups, they are calling for boycotts of states like Mississippi and North Carolina. I suppose that's their right to do so, to call for a boycott or actually boycott. Who is really being hurt by such actions? More concerning to me is the apathy these same "doo gooders" (and I do mean "doo") toward human rights violations, egregious ones, in other parts of the world. For instance, do these companies still do business with, say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Commie China? Do these entertainers (I use the term very loosely in many instances) continue to do shows/concerts in such countries as Cuba?
I laughed at a headline in today's newspaper, the op-ed pages: "John Kerry's diplomatic traveling circus." Yep. I wonder if foreign nations, at least their leaders, laugh more at Kerry than they did Hillary Clinton, more at Kerry than Obama. And what makes this so hilarious is recalling a campaign theme Kerry used against W. Bush--"gravitas." Ha Ha. First, what real person uses the word "gravitas?" Second, it's as if Kerry is trying to force us to believe he possesses "gravitas." Look at his visage, how his face is always filled with, well, "gravitas." Listen to him talk, as if the way he sounds makes him someone to be taken seriously. Ha Ha. Third, if any person lacks "gravitas," besides W that is, it must be Kerry. He certainly makes one wonder about a Yale education and a law degree, doesn't he, not to mention US politics? (Yeah, I realize how poorly written that sentence is, but I'm too tired to fix it.)
As my construction worker comrades would say, 50 years ago, "If it doesn't rain today, it's missing a good chance." But no rain is in the forecast.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
All Over the Place
I can't get this out of my head, for a few weeks now. It's that Free Press op-ed that questioned how "two pathological liars" could still be the front-runners in the Presidential campaign. I agree. But it's understandable that the FP would write this about Trump, but as overtly liberal as it is, it is a surprise to see this also applied to Clinton. Hmmm...... It will also be interesting to recall, later this summer or fall, when the FP endorses Clinton, how she was id'd as a "pathological liar" by it. I guess, as old Blowhard Limbaugh suggested about his guy, it's OK to lie if it's your guy who lies.
Can this be true? Another little girl was shot and killed in retaliation for a 3-year old who was murdered on Easter? And, this is about some gang-related incidents? What is wrong with us? And we're worried about men going into women's bathrooms (and vice versa, I suppose), which I don't think is right, regardless. Do the lives of these two little black girls matter? Where are the visible protests, like in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.?
Maybe I missed the boat on this one and am far off base, but why do the rest of us have to pay, to the tune of $265 million, to combat blight in our cities? I understand the idea that values will increase, that attraction will be enhanced, but who created this blight? Why don't they have to pay for it?
It looks like the little guys are going to bear the brunt of the Flint water crisis. Oh, one state official was quoted that this "is just the beginning." Who believes that? How high will this go? Does anybody think these little guys were acting on their own, without orders from above? How far "above" will further charges reach?
I had to apologize this week. I had written to the local school board, all the members, about an issue that is quite controversial around here and one that affects the Marinucci household directly. Among other things, many other things, I suggested that this school board is just like all of them in my 45 years living and working in the district. One member called me on that, "completely disagreeing." I replied that "the proof is in the pudding" and that how the board acted this week would be "the proof." Well, the board acted against the advice of the administration/superintendent and, at least temporarily, acted in the interests of the community. It wants to further examine the financial claims of both the community and the administration (whose claims were pretty solidly refuted by great research, facts, and logic by some diligent parents). So far, so good. After the proposal by the board, I wrote to the board member and apologized (and thanked him). He was right and I was wrong and, I added, it felt very good to be wrong!
I had a terrible thought the next day. What if--and it is almost like I was hallucinating!--the school board asks me to be on the committee examining ways to cut spending in the district? Nah, I know, that will never happen. But what if.....? I would have to be very up front and say my contributions won't start until we examine the district's administration--too many administrators making far too much money doing mostly useless or even detrimental things. I'd admit I wouldn't consider any proposals until administrators' jobs were cut and salaries were cut. My guess that such a hallucination would end right there.
Can this be true? Another little girl was shot and killed in retaliation for a 3-year old who was murdered on Easter? And, this is about some gang-related incidents? What is wrong with us? And we're worried about men going into women's bathrooms (and vice versa, I suppose), which I don't think is right, regardless. Do the lives of these two little black girls matter? Where are the visible protests, like in Ferguson, Baltimore, etc.?
Maybe I missed the boat on this one and am far off base, but why do the rest of us have to pay, to the tune of $265 million, to combat blight in our cities? I understand the idea that values will increase, that attraction will be enhanced, but who created this blight? Why don't they have to pay for it?
It looks like the little guys are going to bear the brunt of the Flint water crisis. Oh, one state official was quoted that this "is just the beginning." Who believes that? How high will this go? Does anybody think these little guys were acting on their own, without orders from above? How far "above" will further charges reach?
I had to apologize this week. I had written to the local school board, all the members, about an issue that is quite controversial around here and one that affects the Marinucci household directly. Among other things, many other things, I suggested that this school board is just like all of them in my 45 years living and working in the district. One member called me on that, "completely disagreeing." I replied that "the proof is in the pudding" and that how the board acted this week would be "the proof." Well, the board acted against the advice of the administration/superintendent and, at least temporarily, acted in the interests of the community. It wants to further examine the financial claims of both the community and the administration (whose claims were pretty solidly refuted by great research, facts, and logic by some diligent parents). So far, so good. After the proposal by the board, I wrote to the board member and apologized (and thanked him). He was right and I was wrong and, I added, it felt very good to be wrong!
I had a terrible thought the next day. What if--and it is almost like I was hallucinating!--the school board asks me to be on the committee examining ways to cut spending in the district? Nah, I know, that will never happen. But what if.....? I would have to be very up front and say my contributions won't start until we examine the district's administration--too many administrators making far too much money doing mostly useless or even detrimental things. I'd admit I wouldn't consider any proposals until administrators' jobs were cut and salaries were cut. My guess that such a hallucination would end right there.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Fri Musings
I read an interesting article last week. The author's premise is intriguing. He wrote that he wasn't in love with someone, but in love with the idea of being in love with her. Hmmm...... I think this can be translated to other things, not just people. It is worth thinking about.
I don't believe this has anything to do with "wannabe." I don't think I'm a "wannabe." I guess I've accomplished a lot in my life, academically, athletically, personally--I guess. At least I don't have to make up stories like so many folks seem to have to do.
I think it has to do more with pursuing an ideal, perfection--in people, in things, in goals, etc. And that's not bad, is it? I will have to do some more thinking about this.
I know, I know--"You think too much." Remember Socrates, through Plato, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I believe that, well, to an extent.
How's this? 2015 Federal tax revenues totaled $3.36 trillion. That's $115 billion more than the year before. Yet, despite taking in a sizable increase, the national debt will also go up by more than half a trillion dollars! Consider this--the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Oh, but I forgot, the Establishment Republicans control both houses of Congress.
Twenty years ago, the national debt was $5 trillion, It's quadrupled to $20 trillion now. Projections show a larger and larger national debt. When will it stop?
Consider, too, compliance with the Federal Tax Code costs US taxpayers more than $20 billion each year. It takes more than 1.35 billion hours to do so.
And, I just paid my taxes by credit card. Get this...... There's not a straight fee for paying that way, oh no. The fee is a percentage of the amount owed. So, does it cost more to process, say, $1,112 than $540? Is there a whole lot of extra paper work? Oh, no..that's why we do it online, isn't it--no paper work?
And the hits just keep on comin'......
I don't believe this has anything to do with "wannabe." I don't think I'm a "wannabe." I guess I've accomplished a lot in my life, academically, athletically, personally--I guess. At least I don't have to make up stories like so many folks seem to have to do.
I think it has to do more with pursuing an ideal, perfection--in people, in things, in goals, etc. And that's not bad, is it? I will have to do some more thinking about this.
I know, I know--"You think too much." Remember Socrates, through Plato, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I believe that, well, to an extent.
How's this? 2015 Federal tax revenues totaled $3.36 trillion. That's $115 billion more than the year before. Yet, despite taking in a sizable increase, the national debt will also go up by more than half a trillion dollars! Consider this--the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Oh, but I forgot, the Establishment Republicans control both houses of Congress.
Twenty years ago, the national debt was $5 trillion, It's quadrupled to $20 trillion now. Projections show a larger and larger national debt. When will it stop?
Consider, too, compliance with the Federal Tax Code costs US taxpayers more than $20 billion each year. It takes more than 1.35 billion hours to do so.
And, I just paid my taxes by credit card. Get this...... There's not a straight fee for paying that way, oh no. The fee is a percentage of the amount owed. So, does it cost more to process, say, $1,112 than $540? Is there a whole lot of extra paper work? Oh, no..that's why we do it online, isn't it--no paper work?
And the hits just keep on comin'......
Saturday, April 9, 2016
And Some Other Thoughts
The Pope came out with an encyclical in which he insisted that Catholic Church doctrine cannot be the test for answering questions of morality, that individual consciences must be the guides. Whoa! If that is the case, then why have a Church at all? Isn't the Church there to provide a moral as well as a spiritual compass?
For that matter, if as the Pope uses divorce and civil remarriages (formerly sins in the eyes of the Church) as examples of using individual consciences as guides, why can't the same be held for gay marriages? After all, isn't same-sex marriage a "tricky question of morality?"
It's almost as if the Pope is trying to dismantle the Church. OK, likely he's not. But he is trying to change the nature/face of the Church. And, in doing so, inadvertently, might he not also be heading down the road to the Church's death? His intentions might well be good (and I for one have no problems with same-sex marriages or unions or whatever they are called), but once the Church is removed from one of its primary functions, well, why is there a need for it? It's a very slippery slope
In a similar vein, isn't the transgender issue going to open the door to a lot of lawsuits? Can anyone deny we live in a litigious society, where many people see and use the courts as means of getting something? No doubt, some people deserve the compensation of court rulings. Others have lucked into what might be called "the judicial lottery." When will the discrimination suits against transgenders start? Hirings? Lost promotions? Even firings? One-gender bathrooms? How many people (and lawyers) will see this as another golden goose? Oh, the pain and suffering......
And I realize that many unions have serious faults. They are often there to protect themselves rather than represent their dues-paying members. (Yep, if you read something personal in that, you have read correctly.) They have, in negotiations, exhibited a great deal of short-sighted greed which has contributed to longer-term pitfalls. (And, too, remember that unions don't decide things unilaterally; management must agree.) I have a serious problem with right-to-work laws. I call them right-to-work for less laws. But that's not my concern here. It's those who choose not to join unions, as is their right and their choice, but also demand they get the same benefits as the dues-paying union members. I read about one such lawsuit this week, although I forget the state. A worker doesn't want to pay dues, fine, but does want the protections the union gives its members. And I see that right here in Michigan, right here in our local area. I wonder if any of those folks see themselves as "greedy?" Nah, I don't think so. It's always the other guy who is greedy.
For that matter, if as the Pope uses divorce and civil remarriages (formerly sins in the eyes of the Church) as examples of using individual consciences as guides, why can't the same be held for gay marriages? After all, isn't same-sex marriage a "tricky question of morality?"
It's almost as if the Pope is trying to dismantle the Church. OK, likely he's not. But he is trying to change the nature/face of the Church. And, in doing so, inadvertently, might he not also be heading down the road to the Church's death? His intentions might well be good (and I for one have no problems with same-sex marriages or unions or whatever they are called), but once the Church is removed from one of its primary functions, well, why is there a need for it? It's a very slippery slope
In a similar vein, isn't the transgender issue going to open the door to a lot of lawsuits? Can anyone deny we live in a litigious society, where many people see and use the courts as means of getting something? No doubt, some people deserve the compensation of court rulings. Others have lucked into what might be called "the judicial lottery." When will the discrimination suits against transgenders start? Hirings? Lost promotions? Even firings? One-gender bathrooms? How many people (and lawyers) will see this as another golden goose? Oh, the pain and suffering......
And I realize that many unions have serious faults. They are often there to protect themselves rather than represent their dues-paying members. (Yep, if you read something personal in that, you have read correctly.) They have, in negotiations, exhibited a great deal of short-sighted greed which has contributed to longer-term pitfalls. (And, too, remember that unions don't decide things unilaterally; management must agree.) I have a serious problem with right-to-work laws. I call them right-to-work for less laws. But that's not my concern here. It's those who choose not to join unions, as is their right and their choice, but also demand they get the same benefits as the dues-paying union members. I read about one such lawsuit this week, although I forget the state. A worker doesn't want to pay dues, fine, but does want the protections the union gives its members. And I see that right here in Michigan, right here in our local area. I wonder if any of those folks see themselves as "greedy?" Nah, I don't think so. It's always the other guy who is greedy.
Sat AM Thoughts
Sometimes I think it's far too early for "thoughts." But I have them anyway. I find, more and more commonly, that I need to write them down--or else I forget them. Often I forget them in a matter of moments.
It's good the Tigers won yesterday. Had they lost their opener, they'd not have been able to serve beer all season. OK, old and rotten joke, but I remember it at the beginning of each season. And Miggy has a couple of two-hit games already. Michael turned on the game the other day and we were lucky. Cabrera was coming to the plate. The screen said he'd whiffed his first to times up. He took a strike and then swung and missed at a second one. Then, he barely moved his front/left foot and drilled a ball between first and second for a hit. Just brilliant! I could watch him hit forever. And, many times over the winter, I read articles which lauded his baseball mind, that he knows the game far better than most. Good for him. I love to watch him hit and I love to watch him have fun with baseball.
I was thinking baseball the other day after talking with someone. I quit playing back when I was 22 or 23. Oh, there were reasons. I was an hour away from any league and I liked to drive the as little as I like to drive now. And I was bummed out and not having been picked up. Over the years I have wondered if I gave it up too soon, that is, if I should have kept playing--just for fun. I still enjoy getting out there and coaching Michael's team(s). (And I just registered for yet another season! My goal is to match my college coach, still pitching BP at 73 years old.) I like to throw him BP, just on our own, although I really need the L-Screen to protect myself from both my growing lack of reaction time and his line-drives. Hmmm...... I don't know. Maybe had I not moved so far away......
I read a nice piece in the newspaper this AM that had some recent relevance to me. It discussed being "lost" and finding the way back home or someplace. That, it was suggested, is not necessarily a bad thing, getting lost. Maybe on the path back, good things will be discovered. This happened last night, on our run on the trails. OK, we weren't lost, not really, but were on a trail that we didn't recognize from past runs. It was tough--many short, steep hills along with twists/turns/switchbacks. (The twists/turns/switchbacks were about 2.5 miles and the trip back was not quite 2 miles!) But being "lost" led us to a road, a quiet back road, and a very nice run back to the start and our cars. In that sense, we did find something good--a nice new place to run. Being "lost...wasn't so hard."
Only in America...... Wasn't that a song title by Jay and the Americans about 50 years ago? But I'm pretty sure Jay and his Americans weren't thinking of what we have today. This Presidential campaign is beyond disgusting. And, in fact, I always capitalize "President" and like terms, but more and more think maybe I'll stop. The respect that leads to the capitalization is fading and fading quickly. Last week there was an op-ed in the Free Press of all places that included this gem, "Both of the front runners [in the race] are pathological liars." I think we can toss in the current office-holder, too. If we know they are "pathological liars" and they continually prove and reinforce that, why in Heaven's name are they "front runners?" What is wrong with us?
A recent poll came out and suggested that the two "front runners" have approval ratings of 26% (Trump) and 40% (Clinton). 60-some% had unfavorable views of Trump, quite understandably as readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions" know. 55% had similar views of Clinton. Just as baffling to me is how 40% of the people can view Clinton "favorably." ?????? Have we stooped to such lows?
Talk about "hijacked conventions?" Maybe Americans should hijack both parties' conventions! Picture waking on Nov 9 and seeing that our next President will be either Trump or Clinton. After Obama, can anything be much more devastating?
I was sent a great e-mail that included a presentation a college baseball coach made at a coaching clinic. Thanks, Don. It reminded me of another coach who spoke to a small group of us when I was still coaching high school football and baseball--oh more than 40 years ago. I remember something he said, something very important. "If you accept it, you condone it." He was talking, in the short run, about behavior of athletes. But he was also making a much larger point. I think of this often, as we frequently overlook our behaviors and what they say about us. Why did the Rolling Stones play a concert in Havana, Cuba? In doing that, weren't they in reality "accepting" the dictatorial regime of the Castros? If so, weren't they also implicitly condoning the imprisonment of thousands of Cubans for their political views? (According to reports, many thousands were rounded up and slapped into jail before Obama's visit.) And what about the President? It might be one thing to meet with Castro; it's quite another to go to a baseball game and be photographed enjoying the whole thing, as if Obama and Raul are great buddies. And how about our own state governor and even American corporations dealing with the Chinese? The Chinese openly steal our corporate and military information. The government there has a terrible human rights record. Yet, there we are, seeking the almighty dollar despite the Chinese behaviors. Is money all that important--more important than everything? Apparently it is.
It's good the Tigers won yesterday. Had they lost their opener, they'd not have been able to serve beer all season. OK, old and rotten joke, but I remember it at the beginning of each season. And Miggy has a couple of two-hit games already. Michael turned on the game the other day and we were lucky. Cabrera was coming to the plate. The screen said he'd whiffed his first to times up. He took a strike and then swung and missed at a second one. Then, he barely moved his front/left foot and drilled a ball between first and second for a hit. Just brilliant! I could watch him hit forever. And, many times over the winter, I read articles which lauded his baseball mind, that he knows the game far better than most. Good for him. I love to watch him hit and I love to watch him have fun with baseball.
I was thinking baseball the other day after talking with someone. I quit playing back when I was 22 or 23. Oh, there were reasons. I was an hour away from any league and I liked to drive the as little as I like to drive now. And I was bummed out and not having been picked up. Over the years I have wondered if I gave it up too soon, that is, if I should have kept playing--just for fun. I still enjoy getting out there and coaching Michael's team(s). (And I just registered for yet another season! My goal is to match my college coach, still pitching BP at 73 years old.) I like to throw him BP, just on our own, although I really need the L-Screen to protect myself from both my growing lack of reaction time and his line-drives. Hmmm...... I don't know. Maybe had I not moved so far away......
I read a nice piece in the newspaper this AM that had some recent relevance to me. It discussed being "lost" and finding the way back home or someplace. That, it was suggested, is not necessarily a bad thing, getting lost. Maybe on the path back, good things will be discovered. This happened last night, on our run on the trails. OK, we weren't lost, not really, but were on a trail that we didn't recognize from past runs. It was tough--many short, steep hills along with twists/turns/switchbacks. (The twists/turns/switchbacks were about 2.5 miles and the trip back was not quite 2 miles!) But being "lost" led us to a road, a quiet back road, and a very nice run back to the start and our cars. In that sense, we did find something good--a nice new place to run. Being "lost...wasn't so hard."
Only in America...... Wasn't that a song title by Jay and the Americans about 50 years ago? But I'm pretty sure Jay and his Americans weren't thinking of what we have today. This Presidential campaign is beyond disgusting. And, in fact, I always capitalize "President" and like terms, but more and more think maybe I'll stop. The respect that leads to the capitalization is fading and fading quickly. Last week there was an op-ed in the Free Press of all places that included this gem, "Both of the front runners [in the race] are pathological liars." I think we can toss in the current office-holder, too. If we know they are "pathological liars" and they continually prove and reinforce that, why in Heaven's name are they "front runners?" What is wrong with us?
A recent poll came out and suggested that the two "front runners" have approval ratings of 26% (Trump) and 40% (Clinton). 60-some% had unfavorable views of Trump, quite understandably as readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions" know. 55% had similar views of Clinton. Just as baffling to me is how 40% of the people can view Clinton "favorably." ?????? Have we stooped to such lows?
Talk about "hijacked conventions?" Maybe Americans should hijack both parties' conventions! Picture waking on Nov 9 and seeing that our next President will be either Trump or Clinton. After Obama, can anything be much more devastating?
I was sent a great e-mail that included a presentation a college baseball coach made at a coaching clinic. Thanks, Don. It reminded me of another coach who spoke to a small group of us when I was still coaching high school football and baseball--oh more than 40 years ago. I remember something he said, something very important. "If you accept it, you condone it." He was talking, in the short run, about behavior of athletes. But he was also making a much larger point. I think of this often, as we frequently overlook our behaviors and what they say about us. Why did the Rolling Stones play a concert in Havana, Cuba? In doing that, weren't they in reality "accepting" the dictatorial regime of the Castros? If so, weren't they also implicitly condoning the imprisonment of thousands of Cubans for their political views? (According to reports, many thousands were rounded up and slapped into jail before Obama's visit.) And what about the President? It might be one thing to meet with Castro; it's quite another to go to a baseball game and be photographed enjoying the whole thing, as if Obama and Raul are great buddies. And how about our own state governor and even American corporations dealing with the Chinese? The Chinese openly steal our corporate and military information. The government there has a terrible human rights record. Yet, there we are, seeking the almighty dollar despite the Chinese behaviors. Is money all that important--more important than everything? Apparently it is.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Double Standards?
Sometimes it's difficult to believe what is true and what isn't. Government officials, news sources, it seems like so many people, hide complete stories, deceive or distort, or outright lie. Sometimes, though, there might be legitimate mistakes. I know, since I made one yesterday.
I was telling my students about the Instruction Booklet for the IRS 1040A form. I said, "It's 74 pages long!" One student was disbelieving, even telling me I was wrong, but not in so many words. Well, she was right and I was wrong. The instructions, to fill out three or four single pages, are not 74 pages. Nope, I looked it up. They are 88 pages. No, that doesn't make me feel better.
I heard this AM that some companies, although I didn't catch the names, are considering a boycott of North Carolina over the state's recent transgender bathroom law. These apparently were big corporations. The law relegates bathroom use by gender/sex (I can't ever remember how the two now differ, thanks to the sociologists!), not by what a person says or thinks or feels he or she is. So, if these corporation boycott NC, will they (or do they already) boycott countries like Iran, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.? I just ask because these countries do more than merely discriminate on the basis of what gender/sex one feels, thinks, etc he/she is today. They beat and torture and even kill (thrown off buildings, beheaded) the transgenders, not to mention gays, Christians, etc. Just askin'......
In the same vein, what's with this gangsta rapper, some female, who Tweeted/Twitted or whatever it is called that Sarah Palin should be sexually assaulted, etc.? I thought Tweeter/Twitter or whatever it is called had regulations against that, that threatening Tweets/Twits were prohibited. According to several newspaper accounts I saw, which picked up the Tweets/Twits before the rapper (?) removed them, they were pretty graphic, threatening, etc. Why have a policy if some people can get away with flaunting it? Even if there were no such policy, why would anyone want to belong to Tweeter/Twitter if such posts are permitted? Why don't those who believe in a civilized society just cancel their accounts? (BTW, is it true, that Twitter/Tweeter has posted a profit in only one quarter in the last decade? I don't know. It's hard to believe everything.)
It was pretty cool this AM listening to a radio talk show host turn a minister inside out over the abortion question. The host asked how a Christian pastor could publicly support a political candidate so overtly in favor of abortions. The minister blathered this and blathered that and after the fourth time the host directly asked the question, he also asked, "What's so hard to answer about this?" Again, the pastor was intellectually handcuffed and continued to just talk Chinese.
Why is it that local school boards almost always act to serve administrators, not the citizens/taxpayers of their school district? It appears to be happening right now, as it has for the past 45 years out here. No matter how much one argues with intelligence, insight, logic, and facts, it seems the school board merely rubber stamps what administrators throw at them. Last Mon eve, at a school board meeting, a local resident had a brilliant (and that's the term I used that night to describe it to others) presentation that refuted much of a proposal coming from the superintendent. It called into question the super's so-called "facts" and "logic," not to mention providing far greater insights that the superintendent did. Yet, why did I get the impression the "brilliant" presentation had no impact at all on the board members present? Gee, could it have been 45 years of experience? We'll see on this one in a couple of weeks. I won't quit bombarding the board with e-mails and ideas of my own.
I did have a chance to talk with one of the board members after the meeting. Rather than close a school (and, admittedly, I have a vested interest in the school remaining open), I demonstrated in fewer than 10 minutes how the district could save more money than closing the school. Granted, my plan would call for the layoffs of some administrators or make-do/boondoggle positions they created. Why do school boards balk at cutting administrators? They don't seem to be nearly as hesitant when cutting teachers or other employees. Maybe it's because they really have no understanding of how schools work, of quality education. Over one hundred years ago, I think Mark Twain had it right. "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards."
I was telling my students about the Instruction Booklet for the IRS 1040A form. I said, "It's 74 pages long!" One student was disbelieving, even telling me I was wrong, but not in so many words. Well, she was right and I was wrong. The instructions, to fill out three or four single pages, are not 74 pages. Nope, I looked it up. They are 88 pages. No, that doesn't make me feel better.
I heard this AM that some companies, although I didn't catch the names, are considering a boycott of North Carolina over the state's recent transgender bathroom law. These apparently were big corporations. The law relegates bathroom use by gender/sex (I can't ever remember how the two now differ, thanks to the sociologists!), not by what a person says or thinks or feels he or she is. So, if these corporation boycott NC, will they (or do they already) boycott countries like Iran, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.? I just ask because these countries do more than merely discriminate on the basis of what gender/sex one feels, thinks, etc he/she is today. They beat and torture and even kill (thrown off buildings, beheaded) the transgenders, not to mention gays, Christians, etc. Just askin'......
In the same vein, what's with this gangsta rapper, some female, who Tweeted/Twitted or whatever it is called that Sarah Palin should be sexually assaulted, etc.? I thought Tweeter/Twitter or whatever it is called had regulations against that, that threatening Tweets/Twits were prohibited. According to several newspaper accounts I saw, which picked up the Tweets/Twits before the rapper (?) removed them, they were pretty graphic, threatening, etc. Why have a policy if some people can get away with flaunting it? Even if there were no such policy, why would anyone want to belong to Tweeter/Twitter if such posts are permitted? Why don't those who believe in a civilized society just cancel their accounts? (BTW, is it true, that Twitter/Tweeter has posted a profit in only one quarter in the last decade? I don't know. It's hard to believe everything.)
It was pretty cool this AM listening to a radio talk show host turn a minister inside out over the abortion question. The host asked how a Christian pastor could publicly support a political candidate so overtly in favor of abortions. The minister blathered this and blathered that and after the fourth time the host directly asked the question, he also asked, "What's so hard to answer about this?" Again, the pastor was intellectually handcuffed and continued to just talk Chinese.
Why is it that local school boards almost always act to serve administrators, not the citizens/taxpayers of their school district? It appears to be happening right now, as it has for the past 45 years out here. No matter how much one argues with intelligence, insight, logic, and facts, it seems the school board merely rubber stamps what administrators throw at them. Last Mon eve, at a school board meeting, a local resident had a brilliant (and that's the term I used that night to describe it to others) presentation that refuted much of a proposal coming from the superintendent. It called into question the super's so-called "facts" and "logic," not to mention providing far greater insights that the superintendent did. Yet, why did I get the impression the "brilliant" presentation had no impact at all on the board members present? Gee, could it have been 45 years of experience? We'll see on this one in a couple of weeks. I won't quit bombarding the board with e-mails and ideas of my own.
I did have a chance to talk with one of the board members after the meeting. Rather than close a school (and, admittedly, I have a vested interest in the school remaining open), I demonstrated in fewer than 10 minutes how the district could save more money than closing the school. Granted, my plan would call for the layoffs of some administrators or make-do/boondoggle positions they created. Why do school boards balk at cutting administrators? They don't seem to be nearly as hesitant when cutting teachers or other employees. Maybe it's because they really have no understanding of how schools work, of quality education. Over one hundred years ago, I think Mark Twain had it right. "In the first place, God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards."
Monday, April 4, 2016
Here We Go Again
I've written before about how the federal government laced alcohol-replacement drinks (?) with poisons such as strychnine and mercury during Prohibition. Manufacturers were ordered to put these potentially fatal additives in anti-freeze, rubbing alcohol, embalming fluid, and other liquids people substituted for booze. In effect, the federal government was issuing death penalties to Americans, without benefit of charges, trials, or conviction for drinking something that was legal in every other country in the world, had been a socially accepting practice (usually in moderation) for centuries, and had been legal in the US up until a year or two before. And, the government's attitude can be summed up by, "They shouldn't be drinking that stuff anyway."
On the same page of the newspaper this AM are two more examples of the perils of government with too much power, with the arrogance that comes with having too much power. First, it is legal for government to seize people's property although they haven't been convicted of crimes. I think the term is "civil asset forfeiture." It can work like this. Several years ago, an art gallery party was held in Detroit without possession of "a proper license to hold such an event." More than three dozen cars parked on an adjacent street were seized and impounded by police. No charges, no trials, no convictions--just a loss of property. I even wonder if all of the cars that were taken belong to people at the party.
Second, a woman was tried and convicted of child abuse, sentenced to 25- to 50-years in prison. After serving 7 years, recent evidence, including recanting of the charges, polygraphs, and other eyewitnesses, it's apparent the woman was wrong convicted, even wrongly charged. Yet, the prosecutors are insisted on keeping the woman in prison, fighting the appeals. And, one court of appeals, already ruling, has supported this travesty. The reasoning is based on a "procedural technicality." No innocent person should be kept in jail merely because of a "procedural technicality." Even a panel of former state and federal prosecutors have filed an amicus brief critical of the use of the "procedural technicality" to keep this woman imprisoned.
And there was a front page article about the Emergency Manager Law. Yep, I am a critic of it. I criticize the governor for employing it. There may have been some successes (and I think Detroit would have pulled out of bankruptcy without an EM, like while Duggan was mayor), but the abject failures seen in Flint and the Detroit schools with little to no accountability is condemning. OK, the governor is now taking responsibility. That reminds me of some criminals who express sorrow and contrition. They aren't sorry for their crimes; they are sorry they were caught. And it sure looks like Snyder knew about the Flint tragedy long before he express his "sorrow." He did nothing. Maybe he is sorry the water has been poisoned; maybe, too he's sorry because the fingers are pointing at his administration. Remember, for him, it's always been about the bottom line, "best practices" and all that crap. What works in business doesn't necessarily work in the public sector. Besides, what ever happened to the concept of democracy, that people can choose their leadership? OK, if they continue to choose badly, then others shouldn't necessarily have to bail them out. But in Flint, the only bad choices came from appointed officials, not elected ones, well, other than the elected ones who appointed the officials. (Yeah, I think I just confused myself, too.)
Also in this AM's paper is an article with the headline, "Congress defined by inaction." It's as if this is a bad thing, that Congress isn't doing something. I know I've written about the vast number of laws that are passed each year. I know I've cited the Wall Street Journal from years past, telling Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there." (It's an obvious take-off of "Don't just stand there; do something.") I, for one, would much prefer Congress and much of the rest of government to "just stand there."
On the same page of the newspaper this AM are two more examples of the perils of government with too much power, with the arrogance that comes with having too much power. First, it is legal for government to seize people's property although they haven't been convicted of crimes. I think the term is "civil asset forfeiture." It can work like this. Several years ago, an art gallery party was held in Detroit without possession of "a proper license to hold such an event." More than three dozen cars parked on an adjacent street were seized and impounded by police. No charges, no trials, no convictions--just a loss of property. I even wonder if all of the cars that were taken belong to people at the party.
Second, a woman was tried and convicted of child abuse, sentenced to 25- to 50-years in prison. After serving 7 years, recent evidence, including recanting of the charges, polygraphs, and other eyewitnesses, it's apparent the woman was wrong convicted, even wrongly charged. Yet, the prosecutors are insisted on keeping the woman in prison, fighting the appeals. And, one court of appeals, already ruling, has supported this travesty. The reasoning is based on a "procedural technicality." No innocent person should be kept in jail merely because of a "procedural technicality." Even a panel of former state and federal prosecutors have filed an amicus brief critical of the use of the "procedural technicality" to keep this woman imprisoned.
And there was a front page article about the Emergency Manager Law. Yep, I am a critic of it. I criticize the governor for employing it. There may have been some successes (and I think Detroit would have pulled out of bankruptcy without an EM, like while Duggan was mayor), but the abject failures seen in Flint and the Detroit schools with little to no accountability is condemning. OK, the governor is now taking responsibility. That reminds me of some criminals who express sorrow and contrition. They aren't sorry for their crimes; they are sorry they were caught. And it sure looks like Snyder knew about the Flint tragedy long before he express his "sorrow." He did nothing. Maybe he is sorry the water has been poisoned; maybe, too he's sorry because the fingers are pointing at his administration. Remember, for him, it's always been about the bottom line, "best practices" and all that crap. What works in business doesn't necessarily work in the public sector. Besides, what ever happened to the concept of democracy, that people can choose their leadership? OK, if they continue to choose badly, then others shouldn't necessarily have to bail them out. But in Flint, the only bad choices came from appointed officials, not elected ones, well, other than the elected ones who appointed the officials. (Yeah, I think I just confused myself, too.)
Also in this AM's paper is an article with the headline, "Congress defined by inaction." It's as if this is a bad thing, that Congress isn't doing something. I know I've written about the vast number of laws that are passed each year. I know I've cited the Wall Street Journal from years past, telling Congress, "Don't do something; just stand there." (It's an obvious take-off of "Don't just stand there; do something.") I, for one, would much prefer Congress and much of the rest of government to "just stand there."
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Joshua's Trail
On Saturday AMs, on my drive home from running with my blind buddy, I've come to enjoy listening to Joshua's Trail on the radio. It's a self-described "black conservative radio program from a Judeo-Christian perspective." It's a long drive, so I get to hear about an hour of the show. The host and his sidekicks are pastors at some local church(es).
Sometimes they are a bit off the wall for me, perhaps too literal in their Biblical interpretations. But often they are right on the money. Frequently they instruct by merely asking questions. It seems to me that some of the questions, directed at those who differ in perspective, would make people uncomfortable.
Today, in the hour I listened, there were a couple of topics, lengthy due to several callers. I did get a chuckle out of the characterization of President Obama as "despicable," as in "a despicable human being." Yes, these black radio hosts have been very critical of the President--and toss in Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party. Often, the hosts ask how in the world black Americans can continue to vote for/support the Democrats. Oh, they provide answers, including the promise of freebies, but still don't ever seem to convince themselves of the answers. I don't necessarily subscribe to this view, but the hosts are convinced the President is a Muslim. I don't find their arguments conclusive or even convincing, but they are relentless.
Also, today saw (heard?) a lengthy segment on abortion, including the partial-birth abortion. It was ignited by Don Trump's statements last week. You might have guessed that the hosts are extremely anti-abortion and frequently refer to it as a cover for "murder." One caller tried to justify abortion, even partial birth, and the main host really shot him down, with facts, with postulates, in every such way.
Speaking of radio, it was great to hear a caller get the best, quite easily, of Rush Limbaugh the other day as I listened on the way home from class. I'm not a big Limbaugh fan; in fact, I'm not a fan at all. I catch his show often because he's on one of the few stations I can consistently find on the car radio. (I can get some FM stations, but they are filled with sports talk or music, which I choose not to listen to most of the time.) Any way, the caller kept at it and pinned Limbaugh into a corner again and again, one from which he never escaped. (It's surely a sign of my own slipping powers of recall that I cannot for the life of me remember the topic!) And, as usual, when the host is being battered by a caller, there's always the old hang-up and then berate the caller for being wrong or misinformed or unthinking or...... Not this time he wasn't.
Bill Bennett has retired from his daily radio show. Again, I couldn't always pick it up; sometimes a foreign language station overrides it. But I liked Bill Bennett and his show, despite that he's a Purple Cow from Williams. He is usually thoughtful and reasoned. Although I disagree with him on some matters (the Common Core, gay marriage), he never is disrespectful of callers. He gives them their time and their opinions. He'll disagree, but never tries to belittle anyone. I'll miss him.
Did I hear this correctly, that last week Sen. Patrick Leahy of VT called for Congressional hearings into the human rights abuses of Israel? Is this guy serious? Can he even be taken seriously? I might well actually take him seriously if he had called for such inquiries into the actions of, say, China or North Korea. Human rights abuses?????? Has he called for Congressional inquiries of human rights abuses in Muslim/Islamic nations? I'm curious. How many people have the Israelis headed? How many of their young women and girls have the Israelis genitally mutilated? How many gays have the Israelis thrown off of rooftops or drowned? How many Christian women have been raped by the Israelis? Do the Israelis strap explosives to their children and sent them out as human bombs? I wonder if, when walking by Leahy, people manage to keep a straight face.
We wonder what's wrong with higher education in the US and Walter Williams has given us a peek. I repeat from the other day the titles of some courses on some US college campuses. "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity." "Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing." "Philosophy and Star Trek." "What If Harry Potter Is Real?" And let's not forget the many comic books as literature or sports literature courses. Contraposed (OK, I'm not sure this word is technically the one to use here, but I don't think there are many times to use it. So, I thought I'd take the chance.), I was sent this title from a current Amherst course, "Readings in English and American Fiction, 1950-2010." Included in the description is "The effort will be to refine and complicate one's performance as a critic of these writers and their books." I'm not sure I know what that means, but I think I'd find out in a hurry. This professor was at AC when I was there and co-taught a course (I think) on "The 19th Century British Novel." For our final exam we had to read John Fowles' book, The French Lieutenant's Woman, which was published in 1969. The exam question was to "Describe The French Lieutenant's Woman as a '19th Century British Novel.'" No, I have no idea how I passed that. Another course, in the religion dept, for the final exam had us read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and then answer this, "Describe The Autobiography of Malcolm X as a religious experience." I don't know how I passed that one, either.
Sometimes they are a bit off the wall for me, perhaps too literal in their Biblical interpretations. But often they are right on the money. Frequently they instruct by merely asking questions. It seems to me that some of the questions, directed at those who differ in perspective, would make people uncomfortable.
Today, in the hour I listened, there were a couple of topics, lengthy due to several callers. I did get a chuckle out of the characterization of President Obama as "despicable," as in "a despicable human being." Yes, these black radio hosts have been very critical of the President--and toss in Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party. Often, the hosts ask how in the world black Americans can continue to vote for/support the Democrats. Oh, they provide answers, including the promise of freebies, but still don't ever seem to convince themselves of the answers. I don't necessarily subscribe to this view, but the hosts are convinced the President is a Muslim. I don't find their arguments conclusive or even convincing, but they are relentless.
Also, today saw (heard?) a lengthy segment on abortion, including the partial-birth abortion. It was ignited by Don Trump's statements last week. You might have guessed that the hosts are extremely anti-abortion and frequently refer to it as a cover for "murder." One caller tried to justify abortion, even partial birth, and the main host really shot him down, with facts, with postulates, in every such way.
Speaking of radio, it was great to hear a caller get the best, quite easily, of Rush Limbaugh the other day as I listened on the way home from class. I'm not a big Limbaugh fan; in fact, I'm not a fan at all. I catch his show often because he's on one of the few stations I can consistently find on the car radio. (I can get some FM stations, but they are filled with sports talk or music, which I choose not to listen to most of the time.) Any way, the caller kept at it and pinned Limbaugh into a corner again and again, one from which he never escaped. (It's surely a sign of my own slipping powers of recall that I cannot for the life of me remember the topic!) And, as usual, when the host is being battered by a caller, there's always the old hang-up and then berate the caller for being wrong or misinformed or unthinking or...... Not this time he wasn't.
Bill Bennett has retired from his daily radio show. Again, I couldn't always pick it up; sometimes a foreign language station overrides it. But I liked Bill Bennett and his show, despite that he's a Purple Cow from Williams. He is usually thoughtful and reasoned. Although I disagree with him on some matters (the Common Core, gay marriage), he never is disrespectful of callers. He gives them their time and their opinions. He'll disagree, but never tries to belittle anyone. I'll miss him.
Did I hear this correctly, that last week Sen. Patrick Leahy of VT called for Congressional hearings into the human rights abuses of Israel? Is this guy serious? Can he even be taken seriously? I might well actually take him seriously if he had called for such inquiries into the actions of, say, China or North Korea. Human rights abuses?????? Has he called for Congressional inquiries of human rights abuses in Muslim/Islamic nations? I'm curious. How many people have the Israelis headed? How many of their young women and girls have the Israelis genitally mutilated? How many gays have the Israelis thrown off of rooftops or drowned? How many Christian women have been raped by the Israelis? Do the Israelis strap explosives to their children and sent them out as human bombs? I wonder if, when walking by Leahy, people manage to keep a straight face.
We wonder what's wrong with higher education in the US and Walter Williams has given us a peek. I repeat from the other day the titles of some courses on some US college campuses. "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity." "Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing." "Philosophy and Star Trek." "What If Harry Potter Is Real?" And let's not forget the many comic books as literature or sports literature courses. Contraposed (OK, I'm not sure this word is technically the one to use here, but I don't think there are many times to use it. So, I thought I'd take the chance.), I was sent this title from a current Amherst course, "Readings in English and American Fiction, 1950-2010." Included in the description is "The effort will be to refine and complicate one's performance as a critic of these writers and their books." I'm not sure I know what that means, but I think I'd find out in a hurry. This professor was at AC when I was there and co-taught a course (I think) on "The 19th Century British Novel." For our final exam we had to read John Fowles' book, The French Lieutenant's Woman, which was published in 1969. The exam question was to "Describe The French Lieutenant's Woman as a '19th Century British Novel.'" No, I have no idea how I passed that. Another course, in the religion dept, for the final exam had us read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and then answer this, "Describe The Autobiography of Malcolm X as a religious experience." I don't know how I passed that one, either.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Colleges
I just finished reading a magazine sent to me. The articles, all of them, centered on students at many of our colleges and universities, namely their movements to remedy being "uncomfortable," facing "microaggressions," etc. Wow! The articles were very disheartening.
I'm pretty passionate about education. Although I didn't appreciate it at the time, the discomfort from my college professors was profoundly influential on my later life. I benefited from their challenges to my "safe spaces."
What I read was very upsetting. From one of our Ivy League universities a professor is quoted, "Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs," that is, hiring more conservatives in light of 96% of the faculty contributed to Democrat candidates, "would almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality......" What? Is this guy saying hiring conservatives would diminish the quality of education at the school? Is he suggesting conservatives are stupid or, at least, stupider than his own liberals? Is he intimating that conservatives are worse teachers or, perhaps less subtly said, not as good as liberal ones? From my experiences, I wouldn't make such as statement, but I would defend more conservative people in the classroom. OK, I'll just come out and say it. From my experiences, the best teachers can very well be conservatives. Of course, not all of them, just like many liberal teachers can also be rotten. But for a professor at an Ivy League college to say that?????? With such a closed mind, maybe his tenure should be terminated?
I found that merely calling the US "the land of opportunity" can be offensive, causing "microaggressions," and on some campuses might lead to a visit from the campus police or, at the least, a summons from the dean of diversity and inclusion. Wait. There is such an administrator. No wonder the cost of a college education is skyrocketing.
At Yale, students were asked to sign a petition that urged repeal of the First Amendment. More than 60 signed it. Surely we wouldn't want to protect freedoms of expression, nope.
Why would we expect students to know anything about the First Amendment and freedom of speech, petition, etc. when some courses at a variety of colleges around the US include "Philosophy and Star Trek," "Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing," "What If Harry Potter Is Real?," and worse?
One Texas college includes a professor who asked, "Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that as driven by 18th Century concerns?" An Ivy League dean blurted, "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice." Hmmm...... It seems to me it's the liberal professors and deans who are being nasty--they are the ones trying to silence opposing views.
It hurts to see this stuff happening even at my old school.
What happens when one of these graduates is hired and his/her boss says, "This work is rotten. Do it again."? How about, "You're fired!"? Talk about a microaggession!
I'm pretty passionate about education. Although I didn't appreciate it at the time, the discomfort from my college professors was profoundly influential on my later life. I benefited from their challenges to my "safe spaces."
What I read was very upsetting. From one of our Ivy League universities a professor is quoted, "Placing more emphasis on diversity of political beliefs," that is, hiring more conservatives in light of 96% of the faculty contributed to Democrat candidates, "would almost certainly require sacrificing on general quality......" What? Is this guy saying hiring conservatives would diminish the quality of education at the school? Is he suggesting conservatives are stupid or, at least, stupider than his own liberals? Is he intimating that conservatives are worse teachers or, perhaps less subtly said, not as good as liberal ones? From my experiences, I wouldn't make such as statement, but I would defend more conservative people in the classroom. OK, I'll just come out and say it. From my experiences, the best teachers can very well be conservatives. Of course, not all of them, just like many liberal teachers can also be rotten. But for a professor at an Ivy League college to say that?????? With such a closed mind, maybe his tenure should be terminated?
I found that merely calling the US "the land of opportunity" can be offensive, causing "microaggressions," and on some campuses might lead to a visit from the campus police or, at the least, a summons from the dean of diversity and inclusion. Wait. There is such an administrator. No wonder the cost of a college education is skyrocketing.
At Yale, students were asked to sign a petition that urged repeal of the First Amendment. More than 60 signed it. Surely we wouldn't want to protect freedoms of expression, nope.
Why would we expect students to know anything about the First Amendment and freedom of speech, petition, etc. when some courses at a variety of colleges around the US include "Philosophy and Star Trek," "Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing," "What If Harry Potter Is Real?," and worse?
One Texas college includes a professor who asked, "Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that as driven by 18th Century concerns?" An Ivy League dean blurted, "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice." Hmmm...... It seems to me it's the liberal professors and deans who are being nasty--they are the ones trying to silence opposing views.
It hurts to see this stuff happening even at my old school.
What happens when one of these graduates is hired and his/her boss says, "This work is rotten. Do it again."? How about, "You're fired!"? Talk about a microaggession!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
