I just returned from yet another college reunion, my 45th--and they never get old. Of course, just being on campus is a special treat, very special. Last summer I ran into a guy whose son when to a college reputed to have the most beautiful campus in the US. He admitted, though, that after his son visited Amherst, "Amherst had it beat." I think so, too.
I drove up from the airport and took the back roads, as I often do. I like driving through "The Notch" that splits the Holyoke Range. It's hilly and a bit tricky, but very scenic. And the Mt. Holyoke campus, where I had several friends, is very pretty, too.
Arriving on campus, I went to the gym and secured a locker in the locker room so I could run. I took a leisurely run of about an hour, traversing the campus and some of the town. The campus is much the same; the town is pretty well different. But it's fun to see everything anew on foot.
Besides just being back at Amherst, seeing special people was terrific, too. I met my former teammate, roommate, and good friend early Fri afternoon (We roomed together again at the Howard Johnson) and were practically inseparable for two days. On Sat AM, he and I picked up another teammate and good friend and headed down to West Springfield for a highlight, always a highlight, of any trip back to Amherst. I set up a breakfast or brunch for my teammates who still live in the Hartford and Springfield areas. This year we had a record turnout--13 of us! As I looked up and down the tables in the IHOP, I wondered if there could be a better collection of guys. I think not, at least not many. It was a great, great AM and two hours passed far too quickly. As we left each other, we were already making plans for "the next time" I visit.
About half of them followed us back to Amherst for a dedication ceremony for our coach, the establishment of a plaque on the field where, in 43 years his baseball teams won well over 800 games--and the teams didn't play 30 games every year either! It was warm (mid-90s), but a nice tribute. As I talked to him afterward, thanking and congratulating him, he murmured, to me, with a smile, "You and Bobby Jones started all this, you know." Yep, I guess I do. But I think I came out a bit ahead in the deal, with my Amherst education and the relationships I formed.
Previously, on Fri eve, our class hosted a reception at the Emily Dickinson House/Museum. Several professors from our time were there. I was honored to "host" Professor Romer, my physics professor, and also have a lengthy talk with Professor Starr (math). We had dinner planned at our class tent and my buddies left for it, but I stayed behind for about another hour just to talk with the professors. How could I give up talking to "gods?" We talked their subjects, teaching itself, some common folks, and even their current projects. Let's see, this was my 45th reunion and they, then, must be how old? And they are both still very active, as are their wives. It was a delightful evening, one I won't forget.
Dinner, it had started before I arrived from Emily's, was good and then we spent another 3 hours or so catching up with class mates. Most, naturally, were guys I knew back when--and I enjoy talking with them. But what is also really cool is that, esp at the past few reunions, I've made connections with guys I either didn't know or maybe barely spoke with in three or four years. But it's interesting how, just really meeting some of these guys maybe 7 or 10 years ago, we've developed a nice bond and greet each other heartily.
Of course there are others, ones with whom we had classes or shared majors, ones who worked with us in the dining hall, etc. One fella walked up to me at the baseball field and introduced himself. I didn't recognize him/his name, but he was a freshman when I was a senior. I must have looked a bit puzzled and the guy said, "You played rugby, didn't you?" Yep and he remembered that. Wow! And it was great to talk with them, too. I know some will find this hard to believe, but there was very little beer flowing between us. I think I might have had three the whole time.
Again, though, spending time with my teammates was extra special. I can't express how much I enjoy that. Yes, we do spend some talk going over past games and fun stuff. But we also focus a lot on the present--families, health, goals, even the state of affairs. Unfortunately, although we sometimes tried, we didn't solve the world's problems. Some of the discussions do get a little heavy and that's good--I went to college with a lot of smart guys! I don't remember if it was Fri or Sat night, but after one of my buddies posed a question I laughed and said, "Hey, this sounds like one of our Problems of Inquiry essays!" We all chuckled at that one.
I think I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to spend three days. And, as I noted above, we are all starting to think about "the next time."
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Sunday, May 22, 2016
"Sunday...
...at Detroit Dragway!" I wonder how many folks remember that one! That was certainly a long time ago.
I was reminded yesterday, by a 15-year old no less (my grandson), of the dire choices we have coming in November: Trump v Clinton. OK, Clinton is a never vote, unless one believes in dishonesty, corruption, hypocrisy, and worse. (Yep, that could apply to a lot of them!) But so is Trump. He's wrong on government health care. He's wrong on abortion. He's wrong on the minimum wage. He's wrong on so much. Then, to boot, toss in his character or, rather, his lack of character. I know it's old-fashioned to still think that character matters, but then why not vote for Clinton? As my 15-year old reminded me, November will be frightening; at least I think so. But, who really knows? After W and Obama......
And interesting article noted how many Republicans have continued to behave as if they were Democrats-lite. Apparently they are slow learners. It, behaving like Democrats-lite, led to a pretty lousy President in W. Bush. It continued with the defeats of '08 and '12, esp '12, to Obama no less! And it has led to Trump getting the Republican nomination. I've written it before and will continue to do so. It's not Trump, not at all. It's the Republican Establishment, surrendering its principles and values. This article cites another instance, of the conservative Establishment, at least some of them, now using strong-arm tactics employed by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al "Not-So" Sharpton. That is, conservatives have threatened, "Hire more conservatives or else......" Shame on them. Oh, I have forgotten--there is no shame any more.
I don't remember where or when (which is increasingly common and increasingly frightening to me) I heard that Major League Baseball is getting somewhat concerned with the length of games. I understand the concern. We have created a society where fewer and fewer people can appreciate the slower, more deliberate things in life. Too many people want it now. Baseball is a game that can take more than a couple of hours and often that's good. It's an intricate game, with many nuances. But, I suppose often the games are too long, far too long. The talk is this will be eliminated and that will be eliminated to speed up the game. But there seems to me to be the one thing that really lengthens the games--it's the between-inning commercial breaks. Note, if you go to a game live, how many of the players,esp pitchers, sit in the dugout for an extra few minutes between innings. They know that the commercials are airing and it takes five minutes or more to run them. Multiple those minutes by 18 (9 half innings) and see what you come up with. Games too long? There's the culprit. But, with the money involved, is that going to change? Of course it isn't. It's yet another consequence of the outrageous sums of money players are paid and owners reap. There is an alternative. We can stop watching.
I was reminded yesterday, by a 15-year old no less (my grandson), of the dire choices we have coming in November: Trump v Clinton. OK, Clinton is a never vote, unless one believes in dishonesty, corruption, hypocrisy, and worse. (Yep, that could apply to a lot of them!) But so is Trump. He's wrong on government health care. He's wrong on abortion. He's wrong on the minimum wage. He's wrong on so much. Then, to boot, toss in his character or, rather, his lack of character. I know it's old-fashioned to still think that character matters, but then why not vote for Clinton? As my 15-year old reminded me, November will be frightening; at least I think so. But, who really knows? After W and Obama......
And interesting article noted how many Republicans have continued to behave as if they were Democrats-lite. Apparently they are slow learners. It, behaving like Democrats-lite, led to a pretty lousy President in W. Bush. It continued with the defeats of '08 and '12, esp '12, to Obama no less! And it has led to Trump getting the Republican nomination. I've written it before and will continue to do so. It's not Trump, not at all. It's the Republican Establishment, surrendering its principles and values. This article cites another instance, of the conservative Establishment, at least some of them, now using strong-arm tactics employed by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al "Not-So" Sharpton. That is, conservatives have threatened, "Hire more conservatives or else......" Shame on them. Oh, I have forgotten--there is no shame any more.
I don't remember where or when (which is increasingly common and increasingly frightening to me) I heard that Major League Baseball is getting somewhat concerned with the length of games. I understand the concern. We have created a society where fewer and fewer people can appreciate the slower, more deliberate things in life. Too many people want it now. Baseball is a game that can take more than a couple of hours and often that's good. It's an intricate game, with many nuances. But, I suppose often the games are too long, far too long. The talk is this will be eliminated and that will be eliminated to speed up the game. But there seems to me to be the one thing that really lengthens the games--it's the between-inning commercial breaks. Note, if you go to a game live, how many of the players,esp pitchers, sit in the dugout for an extra few minutes between innings. They know that the commercials are airing and it takes five minutes or more to run them. Multiple those minutes by 18 (9 half innings) and see what you come up with. Games too long? There's the culprit. But, with the money involved, is that going to change? Of course it isn't. It's yet another consequence of the outrageous sums of money players are paid and owners reap. There is an alternative. We can stop watching.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Sat AM Thoughts
The freeway was closed this weekend, so I had to take the back way home from my blind running buddy's house in Clawson. There were a lot of runner's out today. I think the prospect of running in shorts and tee shirts was appealing. I know Michael, my blind buddy, enjoyed "not being all bundled up."
"Diversity?" Is there anything more "diverse" than running? I saw ample evidence of that today, while running with Michael and on my drive home. With the freeway closed for destruction, I had to take the back way. It's a very different (and longer!) ride than usual, an opportunity to see the runners in the neighborhoods.
Let's start with a black blind runner (Michael) being guided by an old white runner (me). There were three men, older than I (at least it looked like they were), out jogging and talking, likely solving the world's problems, as runners are wont to do while out there. A senior Asian woman was putting in some running miles, moving pretty lively, too. There were a couple of younger folks pushing baby joggers. But one really caught my eye. There was no baby in it, just a "Trump for President" sign!
It looked like some long distance folks were among the two dozen or so I witnessed. At least they had water bottles. And, there were some who were doing fast laps on the Clawson HS track. One was doing the steps up and down the bleachers. Michael and I ran some hill repeats. Different strokes (or workouts) for different folks!
I watched most of the Tiger game last night, mostly to see Miguel Cabrera bat. I read my book in between his at-bats. When he's in a groove--lookout pitchers! Victor Martinez is fun to watch and is a good, good hitter. But Miggy! He had three hits, including two HRs. One of them went 431 feet! He could have easily had five. He hit a fly ball that was caught on the warning track in the deepest part of the outfield. When he's in that zone, he makes it look so easy. I liken it to the rest of us hitting a ball off of a tee. And, of course, it's not. He's hitting balls that are 90 and 95 mph and faster, ones that are considerably slower, and ones that move up and down and in and out. I really don't know if many people who watch realize how difficult hitting is at that level. Maybe some of them played little league or even high school ball. Nah, we're talking much higher levels than that. I played against maybe 11-12 guys who, at one time or another, pitched in the Majors, if only time for a cup of coffee. But they made it. They were tough, very tough, to hit. Yet, sometimes Cabrera makes it look so easy. I remember Mariano Rivera's farewell appearance at Tiger Stadium, still throwing in the mid- to upper-90s, with that wicked breaking ball. Miggy lashed on of his pitches about 440 feet to the television camera booth in straight-away CF. Yep, he's fun to watch.
Speaking of hitting, I've always wondered if I could have hit, say, college softball pitchers. I don't know what speeds they reach, but do know they are only 46 feet from home plate. That's about 14 feet closer than a baseball pitcher's slab/rubber. And the softball pitchers have not only fastballs and curves, but drops and risers. I used to watch fast-pitch softball when I was a kid and my dad umpired games. Funny, but I remember the catchers (and umpires!) wore masks, but no chest protectors or shin guards. At least in the Detroit area, I think slow-pitch softball killed off fast-pitch. I don't know if there are any men's leagues still around here.
That's not necessarily bad, not an indictment of slow-pitch. It's a lot of fun and a lot of guys play it. In a way, it helped me some in baseball, teaching me to be patient with slower pitchers especially. For several summers, I played both softball and baseball, often one of each on the same nights. Each was enjoyable. In softball, we had a bunch of kids, late teens and early 20s, some, but not all, of whom played high school baseball. But we were pretty good. In tournaments, we beat some of the Major Metro slow-pitch teams, even ones who had or would win national titles. The key was where we played. If there were fences, we didn't stand a chance and were slaughtered. If the fields were open, with no fences, we usually did well, staying close and sometimes winning. That's because we had young kids in the outfield who could chase down the long fly balls for outs, which would have been HRs with fences. I remember some of the Major Metros were very angry, that some young punks beat them. One of our players, when our team broke up (I think jobs and moving away for jobs got in the way.), hooked up with a Major Metro and became an All-American on a national championship team or two.
This time next week I'll be in Amherst for my class's 45th year reunion. Doesn't that seem like a long time--45 years? I think that's because it is. I am looking forward to it, just like I do the class of '70s reunions, which I have been attending (having been made an honorary class member!). I love to take an hour or two and leisurely run on the campus and through the town. The campus has changed, but only a bit. The town has changed immensely. I think I see more cars in a single afternoon than I'd see in a month back when. I run past my dorms and fraternity, past class room buildings, to the athletic fields, and through the bird sanctuary (where we did our long conditioning runs for rugby). I run past places that hold great memories for me--both good and not-so-good! Mostly, though, I love running to Memorial Hill, not only my favorite place on campus, but maybe anywhere. The view of the baseball field is stunning as it takes in the Holyoke Range to the south. And the spring time was my favorite time to look out from Memorial Hill, with the lush greens. Or was the fall my favorite time, the beautiful colored foliage painting an amazing tapestry? Or was it the winter, with the pure white snow covering fields and mountains both? You get the picture. I am rooming with one of my former roommates, teammates, and very close friend. It will be great to see him for a few days. On Sat AM, in West Springfield, I set up my usual baseball team breakfast. It looks like 11-12, plus me, will be there this time. They are great guys and that, too, will be fun. I am meeting my physics professor and baseball coach, both at a reception at Emily Dickinson's house--she won't be there, though. And I haven't even looked at the presentations and panels that will be offered. Karen often pokes fun at them, "You've graduated and still have to go to class?" They are usually very interesting and informative--fun! As I've said many times, here and elsewhere, to have been able to attend Amherst College was a very fortunate thing for me.
"Diversity?" Is there anything more "diverse" than running? I saw ample evidence of that today, while running with Michael and on my drive home. With the freeway closed for destruction, I had to take the back way. It's a very different (and longer!) ride than usual, an opportunity to see the runners in the neighborhoods.
Let's start with a black blind runner (Michael) being guided by an old white runner (me). There were three men, older than I (at least it looked like they were), out jogging and talking, likely solving the world's problems, as runners are wont to do while out there. A senior Asian woman was putting in some running miles, moving pretty lively, too. There were a couple of younger folks pushing baby joggers. But one really caught my eye. There was no baby in it, just a "Trump for President" sign!
It looked like some long distance folks were among the two dozen or so I witnessed. At least they had water bottles. And, there were some who were doing fast laps on the Clawson HS track. One was doing the steps up and down the bleachers. Michael and I ran some hill repeats. Different strokes (or workouts) for different folks!
I watched most of the Tiger game last night, mostly to see Miguel Cabrera bat. I read my book in between his at-bats. When he's in a groove--lookout pitchers! Victor Martinez is fun to watch and is a good, good hitter. But Miggy! He had three hits, including two HRs. One of them went 431 feet! He could have easily had five. He hit a fly ball that was caught on the warning track in the deepest part of the outfield. When he's in that zone, he makes it look so easy. I liken it to the rest of us hitting a ball off of a tee. And, of course, it's not. He's hitting balls that are 90 and 95 mph and faster, ones that are considerably slower, and ones that move up and down and in and out. I really don't know if many people who watch realize how difficult hitting is at that level. Maybe some of them played little league or even high school ball. Nah, we're talking much higher levels than that. I played against maybe 11-12 guys who, at one time or another, pitched in the Majors, if only time for a cup of coffee. But they made it. They were tough, very tough, to hit. Yet, sometimes Cabrera makes it look so easy. I remember Mariano Rivera's farewell appearance at Tiger Stadium, still throwing in the mid- to upper-90s, with that wicked breaking ball. Miggy lashed on of his pitches about 440 feet to the television camera booth in straight-away CF. Yep, he's fun to watch.
Speaking of hitting, I've always wondered if I could have hit, say, college softball pitchers. I don't know what speeds they reach, but do know they are only 46 feet from home plate. That's about 14 feet closer than a baseball pitcher's slab/rubber. And the softball pitchers have not only fastballs and curves, but drops and risers. I used to watch fast-pitch softball when I was a kid and my dad umpired games. Funny, but I remember the catchers (and umpires!) wore masks, but no chest protectors or shin guards. At least in the Detroit area, I think slow-pitch softball killed off fast-pitch. I don't know if there are any men's leagues still around here.
That's not necessarily bad, not an indictment of slow-pitch. It's a lot of fun and a lot of guys play it. In a way, it helped me some in baseball, teaching me to be patient with slower pitchers especially. For several summers, I played both softball and baseball, often one of each on the same nights. Each was enjoyable. In softball, we had a bunch of kids, late teens and early 20s, some, but not all, of whom played high school baseball. But we were pretty good. In tournaments, we beat some of the Major Metro slow-pitch teams, even ones who had or would win national titles. The key was where we played. If there were fences, we didn't stand a chance and were slaughtered. If the fields were open, with no fences, we usually did well, staying close and sometimes winning. That's because we had young kids in the outfield who could chase down the long fly balls for outs, which would have been HRs with fences. I remember some of the Major Metros were very angry, that some young punks beat them. One of our players, when our team broke up (I think jobs and moving away for jobs got in the way.), hooked up with a Major Metro and became an All-American on a national championship team or two.
This time next week I'll be in Amherst for my class's 45th year reunion. Doesn't that seem like a long time--45 years? I think that's because it is. I am looking forward to it, just like I do the class of '70s reunions, which I have been attending (having been made an honorary class member!). I love to take an hour or two and leisurely run on the campus and through the town. The campus has changed, but only a bit. The town has changed immensely. I think I see more cars in a single afternoon than I'd see in a month back when. I run past my dorms and fraternity, past class room buildings, to the athletic fields, and through the bird sanctuary (where we did our long conditioning runs for rugby). I run past places that hold great memories for me--both good and not-so-good! Mostly, though, I love running to Memorial Hill, not only my favorite place on campus, but maybe anywhere. The view of the baseball field is stunning as it takes in the Holyoke Range to the south. And the spring time was my favorite time to look out from Memorial Hill, with the lush greens. Or was the fall my favorite time, the beautiful colored foliage painting an amazing tapestry? Or was it the winter, with the pure white snow covering fields and mountains both? You get the picture. I am rooming with one of my former roommates, teammates, and very close friend. It will be great to see him for a few days. On Sat AM, in West Springfield, I set up my usual baseball team breakfast. It looks like 11-12, plus me, will be there this time. They are great guys and that, too, will be fun. I am meeting my physics professor and baseball coach, both at a reception at Emily Dickinson's house--she won't be there, though. And I haven't even looked at the presentations and panels that will be offered. Karen often pokes fun at them, "You've graduated and still have to go to class?" They are usually very interesting and informative--fun! As I've said many times, here and elsewhere, to have been able to attend Amherst College was a very fortunate thing for me.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Blind Ideology
Perhaps all of us are guilty of this at times, maybe frequently. Perhaps it's a natural order, inevitable in some instances. But it seems that an adherence to a blind ideology is dangerous, counterproductive, and inefficient. I hope I'm not speaking of principles here.
In this AM's newspaper, an opinion article talked of Lansing Republicans' "determin[ation] to purge organized labor from the public square--even if it means producing a generation of dunces." The reference is to the Republicans' incessant efforts to kill the teachers' unions. I've written about the teachers' unions before; they are a dual-edged sword. There are some good things about them, which they've done, but there are some rotten things, too.
Yet, is this blind ideology "to purge organized labor from the public square," and I'd submit the Republicans would like "to purge" all unions in all sectors, worth "producing a generation of dunces?" Of course unions have some bad things about them, but what the Republicans apparently haven't realized is that the unions never have acted unilaterally. Anything they have managed to achieve has been done with the cooperation (OK, maybe it hasn't been voluntary cooperation.) of management/businesses.
One might argue that the unions have stood in the way of quality education, of steps to improve the schools. (From what I've seen, any attempts put forth by politicians to improve education have been counter-productive, if not downright stupid.) And, have the non-union schools (e.g., the charters) been any more effective at producing quality education? The evidence seems to suggest not.
The article demonstrates the precipitous drop in Michigan student rankings among the 50 states. That is distressing. But, first of all, the rankings are based on standardized tests. I have serious issues with them and the blind reliance upon them. Second, the fall seems to have come from about the time the politicians became involved, that is, sticking their noses into areas where they know little or nothing (but, of course, think they do because, after all, they went to school, didn't they?).
It took a while, but George Washington in warning us about "factions" more than 200 years ago, was right. Democrats? Republicans? "A pox on both of their houses!"
Mitch Albom had a relevant opinion article in last weekend's newspaper. It was about the airlines and their ridiculous profits at the expense of customers. Have you flown lately? Go ahead, try to fit into one of the seats. Everything costs now--fees, fees, fees. For refreshments, there's half a can of soda and a thumbnail-size bag of peanuts or two cookies. Need to check a bag? There's a fee for that, too.
According to US Dept of Trans figures, the airlines in 2015 made the highest profit in four decades, more than three times what they did in 2014. But we keep hearing cries of poverty from the flying folks. "Tighter security." "Fuel prices." and on and on. But, wait a minute, Aren't fuel prices the lowest they've been in years? Yep, Have airline tickets gone down at all? Nope. And fees keep multiplying.
Yeah, but what about the free market? Demand is up, so prices go up. Government should realize that and continue to stay out of the way. Bologna/Baloney. Fifteen years ago, the airlines were all over the federal gov't for bailouts after 9/11. As Albom notes, the airlines insisted "flying was a vital national issue." How many billions of US taxpayer dollars went to the airlines then? Oh, that's a different story.
And exactly what "free market" is that? The one that has, what, three or four major carriers in this country thanks to the myriad "mergers" of the past 30 or 40 years, mergers that must have federal gov't approval. Why would the feds approve of mergers that reduce competition, that destroy or at least inhibit the "free market?"
Methinks it's the lobbyists. Flying customers don't have lobbyists, with their fat check books, in DC. The airlines must have oodles of them. Once again, our elected officials and bureaucrats aren't there to represent us. Nope, not at all. It's the monied interests.
Stretch out and enjoy your peanuts and half can of soda.
In this AM's newspaper, an opinion article talked of Lansing Republicans' "determin[ation] to purge organized labor from the public square--even if it means producing a generation of dunces." The reference is to the Republicans' incessant efforts to kill the teachers' unions. I've written about the teachers' unions before; they are a dual-edged sword. There are some good things about them, which they've done, but there are some rotten things, too.
Yet, is this blind ideology "to purge organized labor from the public square," and I'd submit the Republicans would like "to purge" all unions in all sectors, worth "producing a generation of dunces?" Of course unions have some bad things about them, but what the Republicans apparently haven't realized is that the unions never have acted unilaterally. Anything they have managed to achieve has been done with the cooperation (OK, maybe it hasn't been voluntary cooperation.) of management/businesses.
One might argue that the unions have stood in the way of quality education, of steps to improve the schools. (From what I've seen, any attempts put forth by politicians to improve education have been counter-productive, if not downright stupid.) And, have the non-union schools (e.g., the charters) been any more effective at producing quality education? The evidence seems to suggest not.
The article demonstrates the precipitous drop in Michigan student rankings among the 50 states. That is distressing. But, first of all, the rankings are based on standardized tests. I have serious issues with them and the blind reliance upon them. Second, the fall seems to have come from about the time the politicians became involved, that is, sticking their noses into areas where they know little or nothing (but, of course, think they do because, after all, they went to school, didn't they?).
It took a while, but George Washington in warning us about "factions" more than 200 years ago, was right. Democrats? Republicans? "A pox on both of their houses!"
Mitch Albom had a relevant opinion article in last weekend's newspaper. It was about the airlines and their ridiculous profits at the expense of customers. Have you flown lately? Go ahead, try to fit into one of the seats. Everything costs now--fees, fees, fees. For refreshments, there's half a can of soda and a thumbnail-size bag of peanuts or two cookies. Need to check a bag? There's a fee for that, too.
According to US Dept of Trans figures, the airlines in 2015 made the highest profit in four decades, more than three times what they did in 2014. But we keep hearing cries of poverty from the flying folks. "Tighter security." "Fuel prices." and on and on. But, wait a minute, Aren't fuel prices the lowest they've been in years? Yep, Have airline tickets gone down at all? Nope. And fees keep multiplying.
Yeah, but what about the free market? Demand is up, so prices go up. Government should realize that and continue to stay out of the way. Bologna/Baloney. Fifteen years ago, the airlines were all over the federal gov't for bailouts after 9/11. As Albom notes, the airlines insisted "flying was a vital national issue." How many billions of US taxpayer dollars went to the airlines then? Oh, that's a different story.
And exactly what "free market" is that? The one that has, what, three or four major carriers in this country thanks to the myriad "mergers" of the past 30 or 40 years, mergers that must have federal gov't approval. Why would the feds approve of mergers that reduce competition, that destroy or at least inhibit the "free market?"
Methinks it's the lobbyists. Flying customers don't have lobbyists, with their fat check books, in DC. The airlines must have oodles of them. Once again, our elected officials and bureaucrats aren't there to represent us. Nope, not at all. It's the monied interests.
Stretch out and enjoy your peanuts and half can of soda.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
William Lloyd Garrison
There are reasons we should study history, although I'm not certain we articulate them clearly or loudly enough. Lessons are there to be learned. People are there to emulate. Successes and mistakes are there to see.
One such lesson comes from William Lloyd Garrison. He was an Ante-Bellum abolitionist, one of the first and certainly one of the loudest. He (and his partner, Isaac Knapp) began publishing his newspaper, The Liberator, on January 1, 1831 and vowed to continue until the end of slavery. He did just that, stopping only after the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Garrison was a picture of contradiction, short in stature, mild in manner, and soft in speech, while full of fierce passion when it came to abolition. He was a fighting pacifist. Relying on the written word, not violence in his opposition, he wrote with such fiery words that any peaceful solution to the issue of slavery became virtually impossible. In the South, there was a price on his head; the state legislature of Georgia alone offered $5000 for his arrest and conviction for inciting slaves to rebel (after Nat Turner's revolt in VA). Even in Boston, the "Cradle of Liberty" of the American Revolution, he had to be rescued from mobs intent on doing him harm, even hanging. Just imagine the man's bravery, his personal courage.
Yet, in the face of all these threats, Garrison stood strong in opposition to slavery, a moral evil. He not only condemned Southern slave owners (Slavery was a sin; therefore slave owners were sinners and would be condemned to eternal damnation.), but also apathetic Northerners.
His first editorial included, "I do not wish to think or speak or write with moderation.... I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. I will be heard." Although The Liberator wasn't wildly popular anywhere except abolitionist circles, which were quite small, word of Garrison's newspapers spread. Perhaps, even, Garrison and The Liberator are given more credit than actually earned--but I don't think so.
Garrison himself penned one of the lessons we can learn. It is relevant to today, to the culture we have created. He wrote, "My crime is that I will not go with the multitudes to do evil." How easy it is to silently go along with wrong that is committed or, as he accused Northerners, to be apathetic in the face of wrong. How easy it is, especially today, to sacrifice principles when confronted by opposition, when threatened with labeling and name-calling. How easy it is to sell out in the name of compromise, "bi-partisanship," or "reaching across the aisle." The majority, silent or otherwise, is not always right. William Lloyd Garrison's words are a message we should hear, almost two centuries later, "My crime is that I will not go with the multitudes to do evil."
One such lesson comes from William Lloyd Garrison. He was an Ante-Bellum abolitionist, one of the first and certainly one of the loudest. He (and his partner, Isaac Knapp) began publishing his newspaper, The Liberator, on January 1, 1831 and vowed to continue until the end of slavery. He did just that, stopping only after the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Garrison was a picture of contradiction, short in stature, mild in manner, and soft in speech, while full of fierce passion when it came to abolition. He was a fighting pacifist. Relying on the written word, not violence in his opposition, he wrote with such fiery words that any peaceful solution to the issue of slavery became virtually impossible. In the South, there was a price on his head; the state legislature of Georgia alone offered $5000 for his arrest and conviction for inciting slaves to rebel (after Nat Turner's revolt in VA). Even in Boston, the "Cradle of Liberty" of the American Revolution, he had to be rescued from mobs intent on doing him harm, even hanging. Just imagine the man's bravery, his personal courage.
Yet, in the face of all these threats, Garrison stood strong in opposition to slavery, a moral evil. He not only condemned Southern slave owners (Slavery was a sin; therefore slave owners were sinners and would be condemned to eternal damnation.), but also apathetic Northerners.
His first editorial included, "I do not wish to think or speak or write with moderation.... I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. I will be heard." Although The Liberator wasn't wildly popular anywhere except abolitionist circles, which were quite small, word of Garrison's newspapers spread. Perhaps, even, Garrison and The Liberator are given more credit than actually earned--but I don't think so.
Garrison himself penned one of the lessons we can learn. It is relevant to today, to the culture we have created. He wrote, "My crime is that I will not go with the multitudes to do evil." How easy it is to silently go along with wrong that is committed or, as he accused Northerners, to be apathetic in the face of wrong. How easy it is, especially today, to sacrifice principles when confronted by opposition, when threatened with labeling and name-calling. How easy it is to sell out in the name of compromise, "bi-partisanship," or "reaching across the aisle." The majority, silent or otherwise, is not always right. William Lloyd Garrison's words are a message we should hear, almost two centuries later, "My crime is that I will not go with the multitudes to do evil."
Never Calling to Account
I guess the President's commencement address at Howard University included something about a homeless man, asking how such a situation can exist in this, the wealthiest of all nations. Is Obama guy really a college-educated man? Maybe he's just on stage again, pushing his agenda, not really caring to know about reality. Perhaps a more perplexing question is to ask, of the man himself, first why he's homeless. I'd assume it's not necessarily by choice. But, it's a relevant and required question. Did the man not take advantage of the multitude of educational opportunities this nation offers? How did this guy get to be homeless with the many government agencies to help those in need? (Of course, I'll skip all the administration rhetoric about how many jobs have been created in the past seven years, esp since I don't believe the statistics, as manipulated as they are.)
But then the President chastises those who have succeeded. He brought out that old bugaboo, "You didn't create that!" He often uses words like "fortunate" and "lucky" to describe the successful. I suppose some luck and good fortune go into just about everything. But he always--and I mean always--seems to ignore effort, hard work, and good thinking. And, talk about "luck" and "good fortune," I am still perplexed as to how someone like Obama, about whose background we still know so little, managed to get elected to the US Senate and then the Presidency. Maybe there is something to his "lucky" and "fortunate."
But then the President chastises those who have succeeded. He brought out that old bugaboo, "You didn't create that!" He often uses words like "fortunate" and "lucky" to describe the successful. I suppose some luck and good fortune go into just about everything. But he always--and I mean always--seems to ignore effort, hard work, and good thinking. And, talk about "luck" and "good fortune," I am still perplexed as to how someone like Obama, about whose background we still know so little, managed to get elected to the US Senate and then the Presidency. Maybe there is something to his "lucky" and "fortunate."
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Some Quick Thoughts
Why do surveys and other online inquiries ask for both a Zip Code and a state of residence? Aren't Zips unique to a state and area?
Often, when checking the weather, something is awry. For instance, I just checked today's weather. The high temperature is forecast to be 57 degrees, but right next to that is the current temperature, 63 degrees??????
Who is the one who frequently takes my printer "offline?" I never do it, but far more often than I'd like, I am not able to print because my "printer is offline." So, I have to uninstall and then reinstall the same printer. Printing then works......
I was really upset this AM with drivers. I was biking and then running--yep, reverse order from my usual workout. Who says I am rigid and won't try anything different? At least half a dozen drivers came far over toward the shoulder, where I was biking/running, when there were no cars coming from the opposite direction. Are they on cell phones? I couldn't tell, but wouldn't be surprised. Are they doing something other than driving? Are they lousy drivers? Are they self-absorbed? "The road is mine; get off it. I get to use all of it." Are they merely jerks?
I do puzzles in the daily newspaper. One of them provide a word and then players are asked to make other words, using those letters, from it. But, some of the words given in the solutions the next day.....? For instance, from yesterday, what is "gaur?" "guan?" (I know "guano!") "sard?" and "surd?" Hmmm...... I think they might fit in well with "tarn," "proa," and the rest. I should look them up, but there far too many of them each day and, besides, with my memory going and going fast, I don't think I'd remember them.
Often, when checking the weather, something is awry. For instance, I just checked today's weather. The high temperature is forecast to be 57 degrees, but right next to that is the current temperature, 63 degrees??????
Who is the one who frequently takes my printer "offline?" I never do it, but far more often than I'd like, I am not able to print because my "printer is offline." So, I have to uninstall and then reinstall the same printer. Printing then works......
I was really upset this AM with drivers. I was biking and then running--yep, reverse order from my usual workout. Who says I am rigid and won't try anything different? At least half a dozen drivers came far over toward the shoulder, where I was biking/running, when there were no cars coming from the opposite direction. Are they on cell phones? I couldn't tell, but wouldn't be surprised. Are they doing something other than driving? Are they lousy drivers? Are they self-absorbed? "The road is mine; get off it. I get to use all of it." Are they merely jerks?
I do puzzles in the daily newspaper. One of them provide a word and then players are asked to make other words, using those letters, from it. But, some of the words given in the solutions the next day.....? For instance, from yesterday, what is "gaur?" "guan?" (I know "guano!") "sard?" and "surd?" Hmmm...... I think they might fit in well with "tarn," "proa," and the rest. I should look them up, but there far too many of them each day and, besides, with my memory going and going fast, I don't think I'd remember them.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Mon AM
Many on the Left in this country decry the partisanship shown, particularly by their opponents. But they don't see it in themselves. Yesterday's newspaper included an editorial with these: "tea-party conspirists" and "charter school zealots." What is so conspiratorial about the Tea Partiers? They are pretty open on what they believe and want. And, for that matter, what is it that the Tea Partiers believe and want that is so bad? They want government to get out of their lives. I don't think they want to completely do so, but do in a lot of personal matters. I'm no charter school supporter, but to give a blanket claim that those who do support them are "zealots" seems to be over the top. I fully understand many people's dissatisfaction with the public schools. They want better things for their children. What's wrong with that? Not all of the charter school folks are there for the money-making possibilities; for that matter, note all those who have taken advantage of the public schools to make money! Using such epithets in an editorial, which I understand is by definition is opinionated, cedes any semblance of credibility.
And speaking of government in our lives: The latest uproar has to do with legislation that intends to make it so transgenders are no longer "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed" or even "feeling unsafe" when using public restrooms. But what about others, the 99% (or what ever the number) who identify themselves as traditional (or whatever the new term is; surely it will soon become a loaded word that will imply bigotry)? What about them? What if seeing a man in a women's bathroom makes any of them "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed?" What if they "feel unsafe?" Is it just "Too bad for you?" I understand the concept of tyranny by the majority, but I don't at all think this issue fits into that category. I don't care what restroom an adult man or woman uses, if nobody else is in there. If my granddaughter or wife are using a public restroom, I'm not going to allow a man to walk in there, law or no law. If mine aren't in there, I couldn't care who uses it.
I've had occasion several times this spring to be reminded of one of the things that made A. Lincoln so great. He, throughout his life, grew as a person. He, in the words of W.E.B. Dubois, "became Abraham Lincoln." (Those words still stir me, no matter how many times I read or cite them!) This was esp true when Lincoln was President. Yet, how many times this spring have I found people locked into/onto ideas, views, actions that, despite evidence to the contrary, are never changed? Often, such advantages to changing are very obvious, yet...... I am reminded of what some of the construction workers on my job of nearly 50 years ago used to say, of the bosses (and not in a complimentary manner), "This is the way we've always done it and, right or wrong, we're going to keep doing it." Or something like that......
Several administrators of higher education, maybe they were the presidents or deans, had an op-ed about "Recommitting to higher education." I think that's well and good. I firmly believe in education and "higher education." I think its very important to a democratic society, not necessarily to prepare people for jobs. So, what can the schools themselves do to "recommit?" Maybe they can lower costs, instead of continuing on the upward rise of tuition year after year. Perhaps they can cut down on the number of administrators, require the full-time instructors to actually teach full-time. I don't see any of the common sense approaches happening. Too many people have too much invested in themselves to be really concerned with "recommitting to higher education." Of these university administrators, what are their salaries? Surely well over half a million bucks, easily. (That some football and basketball coaches make more is also deplorable, but a different matter.) If these college administrators are so concerned, why don't they, at least symbolically, take less money? Don't wait fo that to happen. It's easier to make speeches and write columns in newspapers. This op-ed was, I think, another example of lip-service.
The Michigan state treasury announced that projected revenues have fallen below predictions. It appear that the sales tax and corporate tax are generating far less income than forecast. And those numbers, less revenue than projected, are predicted for the next three years. (Of course, we just saw what happens with gov't predictions, didn't we?) So, if as we keep hearing, Michigan has rebounded from the economic recession, with all these jobs, why aren't people spending more? Why aren't companies producing more to handle the increased demand? I think as I have suspected. There is a recovery, but only for some folks. Many of us are still stuck. Oh, some may have jobs now, but they are making less, far less, or are working fewer hours. I know this has hit our household, for more than 10 years. Remember Mark Twain--"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." And who can manipulate statistics more dishonestly than government?
There was another "feel-good" letter-to-the-editor, too. The writer was calling on the US gov't to cut back on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what world this guy lives in--probably some college campus! Maybe he doesn't realize that rogue nations and extremist groups are developing nukes. With that happening, are we supposed to cut back? Maybe we should just give Iran, North Korea, and the radicals a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Or, maybe we should just give the people of those places jobs (as an Obama administration spokesman said a few years ago) and they would be happy and leave the rest of the world alone. I wonder if such folks enjoy those so-called "reality television" shows? Maybe that's what "reality" is to them.
Mitch Albom had a great column on the airlines gouging us. He made some wonderful points and asked some very poignant questions. But, I'll save comments on that for later in the week.
And speaking of government in our lives: The latest uproar has to do with legislation that intends to make it so transgenders are no longer "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed" or even "feeling unsafe" when using public restrooms. But what about others, the 99% (or what ever the number) who identify themselves as traditional (or whatever the new term is; surely it will soon become a loaded word that will imply bigotry)? What about them? What if seeing a man in a women's bathroom makes any of them "uncomfortable" or "embarrassed?" What if they "feel unsafe?" Is it just "Too bad for you?" I understand the concept of tyranny by the majority, but I don't at all think this issue fits into that category. I don't care what restroom an adult man or woman uses, if nobody else is in there. If my granddaughter or wife are using a public restroom, I'm not going to allow a man to walk in there, law or no law. If mine aren't in there, I couldn't care who uses it.
I've had occasion several times this spring to be reminded of one of the things that made A. Lincoln so great. He, throughout his life, grew as a person. He, in the words of W.E.B. Dubois, "became Abraham Lincoln." (Those words still stir me, no matter how many times I read or cite them!) This was esp true when Lincoln was President. Yet, how many times this spring have I found people locked into/onto ideas, views, actions that, despite evidence to the contrary, are never changed? Often, such advantages to changing are very obvious, yet...... I am reminded of what some of the construction workers on my job of nearly 50 years ago used to say, of the bosses (and not in a complimentary manner), "This is the way we've always done it and, right or wrong, we're going to keep doing it." Or something like that......
Several administrators of higher education, maybe they were the presidents or deans, had an op-ed about "Recommitting to higher education." I think that's well and good. I firmly believe in education and "higher education." I think its very important to a democratic society, not necessarily to prepare people for jobs. So, what can the schools themselves do to "recommit?" Maybe they can lower costs, instead of continuing on the upward rise of tuition year after year. Perhaps they can cut down on the number of administrators, require the full-time instructors to actually teach full-time. I don't see any of the common sense approaches happening. Too many people have too much invested in themselves to be really concerned with "recommitting to higher education." Of these university administrators, what are their salaries? Surely well over half a million bucks, easily. (That some football and basketball coaches make more is also deplorable, but a different matter.) If these college administrators are so concerned, why don't they, at least symbolically, take less money? Don't wait fo that to happen. It's easier to make speeches and write columns in newspapers. This op-ed was, I think, another example of lip-service.
The Michigan state treasury announced that projected revenues have fallen below predictions. It appear that the sales tax and corporate tax are generating far less income than forecast. And those numbers, less revenue than projected, are predicted for the next three years. (Of course, we just saw what happens with gov't predictions, didn't we?) So, if as we keep hearing, Michigan has rebounded from the economic recession, with all these jobs, why aren't people spending more? Why aren't companies producing more to handle the increased demand? I think as I have suspected. There is a recovery, but only for some folks. Many of us are still stuck. Oh, some may have jobs now, but they are making less, far less, or are working fewer hours. I know this has hit our household, for more than 10 years. Remember Mark Twain--"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." And who can manipulate statistics more dishonestly than government?
There was another "feel-good" letter-to-the-editor, too. The writer was calling on the US gov't to cut back on nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what world this guy lives in--probably some college campus! Maybe he doesn't realize that rogue nations and extremist groups are developing nukes. With that happening, are we supposed to cut back? Maybe we should just give Iran, North Korea, and the radicals a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Or, maybe we should just give the people of those places jobs (as an Obama administration spokesman said a few years ago) and they would be happy and leave the rest of the world alone. I wonder if such folks enjoy those so-called "reality television" shows? Maybe that's what "reality" is to them.
Mitch Albom had a great column on the airlines gouging us. He made some wonderful points and asked some very poignant questions. But, I'll save comments on that for later in the week.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Mon Thoughts......
But it's Tue, isn't it? Heh Heh......
In his Iron Curtain Speech, Winston Churchill said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." I was reminded of this twice in the past couple of days. "Closing our eyes" to our problems always has seemed to be like the little kid who puts his hands over his eyes and then exclaims, "You can't see me!"
Do a Google search for "attacks on Jews," say only "in France." You will come up with hundreds of articles detailing assaults, arsons, rapes, and murders of Jews. One tells of an adolescent Jewish boy returning from worship who was set upon, beaten, with his hair set on fire and a swastika carved into his forehead. Yet, a French government minister claimed, "We have no anti-Semitism in France."
ISIS has been perpetrating a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. Thousands have been murdered. And, for centuries, these Christians had lived peacefully along side their Muslim neighbors. Not now...... The killings have also been matched with rapes and beatings. Some Christians have been taken from their homes and bused hundreds of miles into the desert, where they are released without food and water. Women have been coerced into sex slavery. Others have been forced to recant their religious beliefs and convert to Islam. And what do we hear of this? Not much, not from the governments of the nations in which this great tragedy is occurring. Where has been an official condemnation, an often-repeated one, from the US government? To his credit, the Pope has criticized the murder of Christians in the Middle East, but has he been loud enough?
One of the reasons, we are told, that we teach The Holocaust is so that it will never happen again. Yet it is happening again. What is worse than the refusals to confront or even deny these genocides and other violent discrimination, is that some blame the Jews and Christians themselves! I'd really be curious to see an expose of top politicians and business leaders who have ties to the perpetrators of these tragedies. But I'm betting we never will.
On a lighter topic, I was a bit disappointed in the release of the Detroit Free Press greatest songs from Michigan/Detroit. Numbers 100 to 50 were given on Sun, with, I think, another 10 to be revealed on each of the next Sundays. I figured I'd be disappointed, even considering differences in tastes, age, etc. But some of the greatest Temptations, Miracles, Four Tops, Aretha, and Bob Seger hits were ranked lower than some, well, let's just say I disagree. Even the one Kid Rock song I will listen to rated no higher than 71. (Now, I wouldn't have ranked it that high, but surely many others would.) I showed the list to a couple of folks and they, like me, never heard of some of those ranked higher than others. Again, a chacun son gout, but still...... Regardless, I am curious to see the next weeks' rankings and what are the Top Ten. It's not serious, but a fun thing to do and watch.
In his Iron Curtain Speech, Winston Churchill said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." I was reminded of this twice in the past couple of days. "Closing our eyes" to our problems always has seemed to be like the little kid who puts his hands over his eyes and then exclaims, "You can't see me!"
Do a Google search for "attacks on Jews," say only "in France." You will come up with hundreds of articles detailing assaults, arsons, rapes, and murders of Jews. One tells of an adolescent Jewish boy returning from worship who was set upon, beaten, with his hair set on fire and a swastika carved into his forehead. Yet, a French government minister claimed, "We have no anti-Semitism in France."
ISIS has been perpetrating a genocide against Christians in the Middle East. Thousands have been murdered. And, for centuries, these Christians had lived peacefully along side their Muslim neighbors. Not now...... The killings have also been matched with rapes and beatings. Some Christians have been taken from their homes and bused hundreds of miles into the desert, where they are released without food and water. Women have been coerced into sex slavery. Others have been forced to recant their religious beliefs and convert to Islam. And what do we hear of this? Not much, not from the governments of the nations in which this great tragedy is occurring. Where has been an official condemnation, an often-repeated one, from the US government? To his credit, the Pope has criticized the murder of Christians in the Middle East, but has he been loud enough?
One of the reasons, we are told, that we teach The Holocaust is so that it will never happen again. Yet it is happening again. What is worse than the refusals to confront or even deny these genocides and other violent discrimination, is that some blame the Jews and Christians themselves! I'd really be curious to see an expose of top politicians and business leaders who have ties to the perpetrators of these tragedies. But I'm betting we never will.
On a lighter topic, I was a bit disappointed in the release of the Detroit Free Press greatest songs from Michigan/Detroit. Numbers 100 to 50 were given on Sun, with, I think, another 10 to be revealed on each of the next Sundays. I figured I'd be disappointed, even considering differences in tastes, age, etc. But some of the greatest Temptations, Miracles, Four Tops, Aretha, and Bob Seger hits were ranked lower than some, well, let's just say I disagree. Even the one Kid Rock song I will listen to rated no higher than 71. (Now, I wouldn't have ranked it that high, but surely many others would.) I showed the list to a couple of folks and they, like me, never heard of some of those ranked higher than others. Again, a chacun son gout, but still...... Regardless, I am curious to see the next weeks' rankings and what are the Top Ten. It's not serious, but a fun thing to do and watch.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Analogy?
I wrote down some ideas today and planned to write about them early this week. But, to keep myself from falling asleep at 7:00 PM, I decided to play on the computer. It was a tough and long week, compounded by a nice long run this AM, a pretty good bike ride, and then Michael's summer-league team practice. I'm bushed and don't want Michael to make fun of me for going to bed so early, "like an old man."
I wonder if this is an apt analogy. A good number of Western states are experiencing drought conditions, severe drought conditions. California is one of them, as Karen and I saw first-hand last summer. But there are others. How would our two US Senators, Stabenow and Peters, respond to a request to take our Great Lakes water and send it to those people in the Western states, to ease their difficulties? I'll bet we all know the answer to that one. Of course they wouldn't. So, then, why are they so willing and quick to take certain people's money (you know, the "greedy" rich) and give it to other people, who they themselves deem in need? Surely the Westerners are hurting and need water, of which we have a lot. Aren't we being "greedy" in not sending it to them?
No doubt, the 2016 Presidential election will go down in history, as the election with the absolutely worst candidate offered to voters. I know there have been some dogs in the past, but c'mon--Clinton and Trump?????? But there's more. Both candidates will now find themselves in an odd position--telling the truth! As each begins to attack the other, they will actually be speaking truthfully. BTW, I saw a couple more articles describing Clinton and Trump as "pathological liars."
Here's a good op-ed from Nolan Finley in the Detroit News this AM. I have, in recent months, found myself opposing more of his stances than usual. But not this one; he's right on the money.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/05/07/will-worst-choice-ever-president/84096098/
Imagine, 300 million people in the US and these are our choices? Trump? Clinton (who Finley identifies as a "habitual prevaricator")? As he notes, both of them have majority negative images among US voters. Here's an idea: let's have an election that offers a third choice, not a minor party candidate, but "None of the Above." I think I know who would win. Why should this country be saddled with one of two evils. Who was it who has said, "When given a choice of two evils, choose neither?" (Later this week, I'll bring William Lloyd Garrison into the picture.)
In the end, it's our own fault, "The fault. dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." We have allowed the system to become more and more rigged and corrupt. We have, willfully I think, allowed ourselves to be duped again and again by lying politicians. We have deluded ourselves into thinking, time after time, that our only choices came from the Democrats or Republicans--and look where they have taken us! Look at how the wagons have been circled, among the Establishment politicians and the LameStream media, even the supposed conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's support the party or be labeled negatively, marginalized, or even ostracized. The Dems have made no secret of their spending, spending, spending--other people's money. But note how the Establishment Reps went along with this, agreeing to W's spending spree, continually approving increased budgets, raising and raising again the debt ceiling. And what happened to those candidate who were elected on the basis of stopping that insane, unsustainable, and irresponsible spending? Yep, they were tarred and punished by the Establishment, kept from any positions of influence among the Establishment Congress. Now, the Establishment--politicians and LameStream media--is starting the same thing with those Republicans who have already said they won't support Trump (for good reason!) or are withholding, at least for the present, support.
There is a solution, one I've employed, but virtually nobody else has. Don't vote for any Establishment candidate, from either of the parties. I know about "wasting my vote." And I reject that view. I've written about it before and hold to that. By not "holding my nose" and voting for "the lesser of two evils," I am making a political and personal statement. By voting for either Trump or Clinton I would be wasting my vote. I hold my vote too precious to waste it on either of these two. I am not sure if I will vote for a third party candidate or write-in someone. As long as we "hold our noses," nothing will ever change. Did you ever read Animal Farm? Do you remember the ending, looking in the farm house window, at the poker game? Here we are, sports fans......here we are.
I wonder if this is an apt analogy. A good number of Western states are experiencing drought conditions, severe drought conditions. California is one of them, as Karen and I saw first-hand last summer. But there are others. How would our two US Senators, Stabenow and Peters, respond to a request to take our Great Lakes water and send it to those people in the Western states, to ease their difficulties? I'll bet we all know the answer to that one. Of course they wouldn't. So, then, why are they so willing and quick to take certain people's money (you know, the "greedy" rich) and give it to other people, who they themselves deem in need? Surely the Westerners are hurting and need water, of which we have a lot. Aren't we being "greedy" in not sending it to them?
No doubt, the 2016 Presidential election will go down in history, as the election with the absolutely worst candidate offered to voters. I know there have been some dogs in the past, but c'mon--Clinton and Trump?????? But there's more. Both candidates will now find themselves in an odd position--telling the truth! As each begins to attack the other, they will actually be speaking truthfully. BTW, I saw a couple more articles describing Clinton and Trump as "pathological liars."
Here's a good op-ed from Nolan Finley in the Detroit News this AM. I have, in recent months, found myself opposing more of his stances than usual. But not this one; he's right on the money.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/05/07/will-worst-choice-ever-president/84096098/
Imagine, 300 million people in the US and these are our choices? Trump? Clinton (who Finley identifies as a "habitual prevaricator")? As he notes, both of them have majority negative images among US voters. Here's an idea: let's have an election that offers a third choice, not a minor party candidate, but "None of the Above." I think I know who would win. Why should this country be saddled with one of two evils. Who was it who has said, "When given a choice of two evils, choose neither?" (Later this week, I'll bring William Lloyd Garrison into the picture.)
In the end, it's our own fault, "The fault. dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." We have allowed the system to become more and more rigged and corrupt. We have, willfully I think, allowed ourselves to be duped again and again by lying politicians. We have deluded ourselves into thinking, time after time, that our only choices came from the Democrats or Republicans--and look where they have taken us! Look at how the wagons have been circled, among the Establishment politicians and the LameStream media, even the supposed conservatives like Limbaugh and Hannity. It's support the party or be labeled negatively, marginalized, or even ostracized. The Dems have made no secret of their spending, spending, spending--other people's money. But note how the Establishment Reps went along with this, agreeing to W's spending spree, continually approving increased budgets, raising and raising again the debt ceiling. And what happened to those candidate who were elected on the basis of stopping that insane, unsustainable, and irresponsible spending? Yep, they were tarred and punished by the Establishment, kept from any positions of influence among the Establishment Congress. Now, the Establishment--politicians and LameStream media--is starting the same thing with those Republicans who have already said they won't support Trump (for good reason!) or are withholding, at least for the present, support.
There is a solution, one I've employed, but virtually nobody else has. Don't vote for any Establishment candidate, from either of the parties. I know about "wasting my vote." And I reject that view. I've written about it before and hold to that. By not "holding my nose" and voting for "the lesser of two evils," I am making a political and personal statement. By voting for either Trump or Clinton I would be wasting my vote. I hold my vote too precious to waste it on either of these two. I am not sure if I will vote for a third party candidate or write-in someone. As long as we "hold our noses," nothing will ever change. Did you ever read Animal Farm? Do you remember the ending, looking in the farm house window, at the poker game? Here we are, sports fans......here we are.
Friday, May 6, 2016
The Establishment
I'm sure I've written about this more than once over the course of the past few months. But, boy, it's sure watching the Republican Establishment scramble. Yes, the issue is Don Trump and his lock on the Republican nomination. The Establishment never figured that would happen, did it? And now look at them!
Talk about hypocrites!!!!!! (OK, they are joining the all-hypocrite team with the Democrats on this one.) They impeached Bill Clinton 20 years ago for being a liar and a philanderer, perhaps even an abuser of women. Oh, they got on their high horses, didn't they? What are those Establishment-types now doing with their own lying, philandering candidate? Ha Ha Ha...... One pundit said that the Republicans owe Clinton an apology. That would really be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth!
And, let's not let the Democrats off the hook on this Clinton deal. All those women's groups who supported Clinton surely looked the other way when it came to his philandering use of women, use them and toss them away. Hey, isn't that what women's lib was all about--using women and then just tossing them away? Heh Heh......
I sure hope this campaign brings out the truth about Hillary Clinton. I would think the Republicans have to trot out how Clinton worked to destroy the reputation of those women who accused her husband of abuse, yet now says that if a woman states she was raped, regardless of the evidence, she should be believed. Let me repeat, any woman who still supports Hillary Clinton needs a check-up from the neck up.
So, where does that leave us? I know two things. If I'm still around kicking and breathing in November, I won't be voting for Clinton. I'd never vote for her. And I won't be voting for Trump. I forgot who it was who once said, "With a choice between two evils, choose neither." That's how I'm voting in November.
I've done some reading about William Lloyd Garrison over the past week or so. We discuss him quite a bit in class, a heroic figure of the abolitionist movement. I think his stance on morality, against evil, is relevant today. Within the next few days, I'll see if I can piece something together about him and how we can learn a little bit about morality from him.
Talk about hypocrites!!!!!! (OK, they are joining the all-hypocrite team with the Democrats on this one.) They impeached Bill Clinton 20 years ago for being a liar and a philanderer, perhaps even an abuser of women. Oh, they got on their high horses, didn't they? What are those Establishment-types now doing with their own lying, philandering candidate? Ha Ha Ha...... One pundit said that the Republicans owe Clinton an apology. That would really be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth!
And, let's not let the Democrats off the hook on this Clinton deal. All those women's groups who supported Clinton surely looked the other way when it came to his philandering use of women, use them and toss them away. Hey, isn't that what women's lib was all about--using women and then just tossing them away? Heh Heh......
I sure hope this campaign brings out the truth about Hillary Clinton. I would think the Republicans have to trot out how Clinton worked to destroy the reputation of those women who accused her husband of abuse, yet now says that if a woman states she was raped, regardless of the evidence, she should be believed. Let me repeat, any woman who still supports Hillary Clinton needs a check-up from the neck up.
So, where does that leave us? I know two things. If I'm still around kicking and breathing in November, I won't be voting for Clinton. I'd never vote for her. And I won't be voting for Trump. I forgot who it was who once said, "With a choice between two evils, choose neither." That's how I'm voting in November.
I've done some reading about William Lloyd Garrison over the past week or so. We discuss him quite a bit in class, a heroic figure of the abolitionist movement. I think his stance on morality, against evil, is relevant today. Within the next few days, I'll see if I can piece something together about him and how we can learn a little bit about morality from him.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Cruz
I cannot at all get my head around "Trump v Clinton" in November. Here in American, with a population of well over 300 million, these are the best we have? Of course they aren't and we rarely pick the best we have to run for President. C'mon: W. Bush? Obama? But I think Trump v Clinton has reached a new low. In this troubled time, we are flirted with severe peril with either of these two.
I read a blog this AM, urging us "to get over" the problems that Trump poses. "Get over" them? We are talking about the office of the Presidency. (OK, you win. Obama is President and W. was before him. But......) I can't just "get over" Trump or Clinton!
I think either one would be a disaster. It's not even that neither of them deserve to be President. The US is, I think, nearing a perilous time. Past policies and decisions are now "coming home to roost." (I couldn't help myself there!) We are at the precipice, thanks to a corrupt political system in DC and, well, all over.
I think that what today I find most distressing is that Cruz has dropped out. OK, people can have their political disagreements with him. That's fine. This is America. But as one blogger noted today, Cruz tried to fix the corruption in DC, tried to make things better, but became "the most hated man there [the US Senate] in decades." Wow! What an indictment of the corrupt Establishment!
I repeat myself I know. I understand some of the allure of Trump. It's not really him, but the anger and frustration with that corrupt political system. The Establishment is the target and Trump just happened to be the missile. But he's not. He is the Establishment!!!!!! How does anyone think he got to where he is? He used the Establishment and its rules. (Of course, if the rules didn't go his way, he went away bawling about "the corrupt system." Remember, the system is "corrupt" only if Trump can't benefit himself with it.) That Trump, the pathological liar that others say he is, can get away with labeling Cruz, "Lyin' Ted" tells us a lot--about his followers. What does that say about us? With Trump being so dishonest, how and why would anyone think he's going to fix the system??????
When confronted with a tough question on an issue, Trump lies or obfuscates, blusters, or just blurts out some inanities like, "We're going to build a wall?" adding "And Mexico will pay for it!"
Have we become Minnesota? Voters there elected Jesse "the Body" Ventura and Al Franken! Of course, look at the clowns who have been elected in other states, including Michigan!
At the same time, while I understand why Trump gets votes, I can't at all understand how and why Clinton gets any. I've tried to figure it out and can't really--except for one very unflattering reason. I'll let you guess what that is.
Then, to top it off, I read an article today about ObamaCare, back at work messing up things. The FDA issued its ObamaCare mandate for restaurants in labeling calories on menu items. Get this one: the definition of "menu" is 171 words!!!!!! It takes 163 words to define "restaurant-type food" and 96 for "combination meal." More and more it's apparent ObamaCare is failing--as many/most predicted it would--but the clowns keep adding to the circus, don't they?
I read a blog this AM, urging us "to get over" the problems that Trump poses. "Get over" them? We are talking about the office of the Presidency. (OK, you win. Obama is President and W. was before him. But......) I can't just "get over" Trump or Clinton!
I think either one would be a disaster. It's not even that neither of them deserve to be President. The US is, I think, nearing a perilous time. Past policies and decisions are now "coming home to roost." (I couldn't help myself there!) We are at the precipice, thanks to a corrupt political system in DC and, well, all over.
I think that what today I find most distressing is that Cruz has dropped out. OK, people can have their political disagreements with him. That's fine. This is America. But as one blogger noted today, Cruz tried to fix the corruption in DC, tried to make things better, but became "the most hated man there [the US Senate] in decades." Wow! What an indictment of the corrupt Establishment!
I repeat myself I know. I understand some of the allure of Trump. It's not really him, but the anger and frustration with that corrupt political system. The Establishment is the target and Trump just happened to be the missile. But he's not. He is the Establishment!!!!!! How does anyone think he got to where he is? He used the Establishment and its rules. (Of course, if the rules didn't go his way, he went away bawling about "the corrupt system." Remember, the system is "corrupt" only if Trump can't benefit himself with it.) That Trump, the pathological liar that others say he is, can get away with labeling Cruz, "Lyin' Ted" tells us a lot--about his followers. What does that say about us? With Trump being so dishonest, how and why would anyone think he's going to fix the system??????
When confronted with a tough question on an issue, Trump lies or obfuscates, blusters, or just blurts out some inanities like, "We're going to build a wall?" adding "And Mexico will pay for it!"
This blogger is often off the wall and his allusion to the KKK and other white supremacists is yet another example of that, but the rest of the article makes a lot of sense.
I'm not giving the Republican Party (the Establishment) a free pass here. Frankenstein has created its own monster, The Modern Prometheus.
When and where is there going to be a party to represent me and my values?
Have we become Minnesota? Voters there elected Jesse "the Body" Ventura and Al Franken! Of course, look at the clowns who have been elected in other states, including Michigan!
At the same time, while I understand why Trump gets votes, I can't at all understand how and why Clinton gets any. I've tried to figure it out and can't really--except for one very unflattering reason. I'll let you guess what that is.
Then, to top it off, I read an article today about ObamaCare, back at work messing up things. The FDA issued its ObamaCare mandate for restaurants in labeling calories on menu items. Get this one: the definition of "menu" is 171 words!!!!!! It takes 163 words to define "restaurant-type food" and 96 for "combination meal." More and more it's apparent ObamaCare is failing--as many/most predicted it would--but the clowns keep adding to the circus, don't they?
Monday, May 2, 2016
Are You Listening?
I was thinking of this the other day, last week. The Establishment folks are once again asking for voters' support. "Trust us," they say one more time. Why in the world would we trust them? They haven't listened to us in, what?, more than two decades, likely longer. "Trust us. We'll listen this time." Yeah, right......
An interesting piece opposing Trump called into question the wisdom of allowing him access to the nuclear arsenal/codes. Isn't that frightening? It recalls the late US Senator from Michigan Phil Hart. Sen. Hart (Note I use his title!) was known as "the conscience of the Senate" because of his unquestioned integrity. (As an aside, that some later referred to Carl Levin with the same sobriquet always unnerved me. A "conscience" would have spoken out against Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, not voted to keep him in office. "Conscience" involves morals and stretches far beyond partisanship.) In the '60s, a Mississippi Senator was in line to become the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the Presidency. This Senator was a personal friend of Sen. Hart's; they and their wives socialized. Yet, the Michigan Senator took to the floor of the US Senate to oppose his friend's candidacy, citing the segregationist philosophy and policies of the Mississippian. This was the right thing to do. This was Sen. Philip A. Hart.
What does this, that history stuff, have to do with anything? Two things, I think. One, it's time for the Establishment to do the right thing. To go along to get along isn't working, except to perpetuate the power of the Establishment. Does the Establishment really think things are better than they were in the past? (Of course some things are, but c'mon......) And it's time for it to start looking in the mirror for reasons. Two, no doubt the Trumpsters are going to blame the rest of us for a Trump defeat or, if by some miracle he does win, for opposing him in the first place. As I've said in the past, with Trump or with any Establishment candidate (and, in reality, as much as the Establishment wants to deny it, Trump is the Establishment), it's not my fault for voting against him/her. No, it's not my fault if that leads to a Clinton win (as repulsive as that is). Is that what my entire voting life (or at least much of it) has come down to--holding my nose and voting for the least terrible of the terrible? No more!!!!!! (Actually, I have stopped "holding my nose" for more than 20 years. And, I have been accused of helping to elect, Obama, among others. No! Give me an opposing candidate worth voting for, not one who is "less rotten" than the other. It's not my fault. It's the Establishment's fault!)
Enough for one dismal (rainy) Monday AM.
An interesting piece opposing Trump called into question the wisdom of allowing him access to the nuclear arsenal/codes. Isn't that frightening? It recalls the late US Senator from Michigan Phil Hart. Sen. Hart (Note I use his title!) was known as "the conscience of the Senate" because of his unquestioned integrity. (As an aside, that some later referred to Carl Levin with the same sobriquet always unnerved me. A "conscience" would have spoken out against Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, not voted to keep him in office. "Conscience" involves morals and stretches far beyond partisanship.) In the '60s, a Mississippi Senator was in line to become the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, third in the line of succession to the Presidency. This Senator was a personal friend of Sen. Hart's; they and their wives socialized. Yet, the Michigan Senator took to the floor of the US Senate to oppose his friend's candidacy, citing the segregationist philosophy and policies of the Mississippian. This was the right thing to do. This was Sen. Philip A. Hart.
What does this, that history stuff, have to do with anything? Two things, I think. One, it's time for the Establishment to do the right thing. To go along to get along isn't working, except to perpetuate the power of the Establishment. Does the Establishment really think things are better than they were in the past? (Of course some things are, but c'mon......) And it's time for it to start looking in the mirror for reasons. Two, no doubt the Trumpsters are going to blame the rest of us for a Trump defeat or, if by some miracle he does win, for opposing him in the first place. As I've said in the past, with Trump or with any Establishment candidate (and, in reality, as much as the Establishment wants to deny it, Trump is the Establishment), it's not my fault for voting against him/her. No, it's not my fault if that leads to a Clinton win (as repulsive as that is). Is that what my entire voting life (or at least much of it) has come down to--holding my nose and voting for the least terrible of the terrible? No more!!!!!! (Actually, I have stopped "holding my nose" for more than 20 years. And, I have been accused of helping to elect, Obama, among others. No! Give me an opposing candidate worth voting for, not one who is "less rotten" than the other. It's not my fault. It's the Establishment's fault!)
Enough for one dismal (rainy) Monday AM.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Somebody's Watching You?
Like the old Motown hit by Rockwell (who I believe is Berry Gordy's son) "Somebody's Watchin' You," sometimes I think somebody's watching me or at least this blog.
Weeks or even days after I've written something, it shows up in the newspaper or magazine. That's OK; I want to attribution. It's just something to make me wonder.
For instance, in an editorial in this AM's Detroit News, there was reference to Warren Buffet's lament about his poor executive secretary who is in a higher income tax bracket than he is. Months, if not years ago, I noted that surely Buffet takes advantage of tax loopholes by hiring tax lawyers and/or accountants to find those loopholes for him. Why doesn't he merely take the standard deduction that the rest of us, those unable to take advantage of the myriad loopholes, take? Why use the lawyers and accountants? Then his secretary wouldn't be in a higher tax bracket. And that same sentiment was expressed in the editorial this AM. I usually get a few dozen readers of my blog, but only send out about 5 or 6 links to my recent posts.
I don't have a problem with Buffet taking advantage of what the law will give him. After all, he didn't write the law. The problem I have is that he's taking advantage of the same system he is gaming. What exactly is he lamenting? Is he really upset at loopholes? Is it that his secretary has to pay more taxes, "more taxes" than who? Maybe we should know what salary he pays her. I'm guessing (heh heh) that she makes a whole lot more than I ever did. Can't his attorneys and accountants find her some loopholes? Or is it that he's lamenting that he doesn't have to pay as much, that is, at the same rate? Nah, that can't be it. Maybe it's the ridiculously complex federal income tax system, one composed of more than 10 million words.
Now, true, as defenders of the federal income tax morass cite, the actual IRS tax code isn't that long, only about 2.5 million words. But federal tax regulations (I guess "regulations" mean we have to abide by them??????) add three times that amount. And this doesn't include federal tax case law, either, often vital to understanding the code and regulations. Of course most of us don't use all those pages, but that's not the point.
The editorial had a larger and more important point. Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. But we already knew that, didn't we? She and groups touting her candidacy have raised more than $250 billion (that's billion, as in b b b billion). About a third of that has come from the super PACS, you know, the ones who the Supremes ruled in favor in the Citizens United case. Oh, Clinton has railed and railed against that decision, hasn't she? But she keeps taking the money. From the editorial, just the money Clinton has received from the PACs is about the same as Trump, Cruz, and Kasich--combined. So, I ask, which candidate is "greedy?" Who exactly is it taking money from the Fat Cats? That Soros guy has given $7 million to Clinton and her supporting PACs. Some of those Hollywood-types have kicked in $1 million or more, each. From merely 7 of these Fat Cats, Clinton has raised almost $30 million. Why do we keep hearing about the Koch brothers and how they are trying to buy elections, but not about these other guys? Well we don't hear about them nearly as often and never in as disparaging terms.
I guess I am not opposed to the Citizens United ruling. If people want to spend their money to influence elections, legally not through bribes, that seems OK. I still think the way to end the influence of money is to force candidates to reveal who gave how much and the print that on the front pages for all to see. Voters then, to stop this, should just vote for the lesser amount, regardless of party. I'm guessing that would take one election cycle to get rid of much of the money.
But, as in so much else, I might well be wrong. Out to run in the rain......
Weeks or even days after I've written something, it shows up in the newspaper or magazine. That's OK; I want to attribution. It's just something to make me wonder.
For instance, in an editorial in this AM's Detroit News, there was reference to Warren Buffet's lament about his poor executive secretary who is in a higher income tax bracket than he is. Months, if not years ago, I noted that surely Buffet takes advantage of tax loopholes by hiring tax lawyers and/or accountants to find those loopholes for him. Why doesn't he merely take the standard deduction that the rest of us, those unable to take advantage of the myriad loopholes, take? Why use the lawyers and accountants? Then his secretary wouldn't be in a higher tax bracket. And that same sentiment was expressed in the editorial this AM. I usually get a few dozen readers of my blog, but only send out about 5 or 6 links to my recent posts.
I don't have a problem with Buffet taking advantage of what the law will give him. After all, he didn't write the law. The problem I have is that he's taking advantage of the same system he is gaming. What exactly is he lamenting? Is he really upset at loopholes? Is it that his secretary has to pay more taxes, "more taxes" than who? Maybe we should know what salary he pays her. I'm guessing (heh heh) that she makes a whole lot more than I ever did. Can't his attorneys and accountants find her some loopholes? Or is it that he's lamenting that he doesn't have to pay as much, that is, at the same rate? Nah, that can't be it. Maybe it's the ridiculously complex federal income tax system, one composed of more than 10 million words.
Now, true, as defenders of the federal income tax morass cite, the actual IRS tax code isn't that long, only about 2.5 million words. But federal tax regulations (I guess "regulations" mean we have to abide by them??????) add three times that amount. And this doesn't include federal tax case law, either, often vital to understanding the code and regulations. Of course most of us don't use all those pages, but that's not the point.
The editorial had a larger and more important point. Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. But we already knew that, didn't we? She and groups touting her candidacy have raised more than $250 billion (that's billion, as in b b b billion). About a third of that has come from the super PACS, you know, the ones who the Supremes ruled in favor in the Citizens United case. Oh, Clinton has railed and railed against that decision, hasn't she? But she keeps taking the money. From the editorial, just the money Clinton has received from the PACs is about the same as Trump, Cruz, and Kasich--combined. So, I ask, which candidate is "greedy?" Who exactly is it taking money from the Fat Cats? That Soros guy has given $7 million to Clinton and her supporting PACs. Some of those Hollywood-types have kicked in $1 million or more, each. From merely 7 of these Fat Cats, Clinton has raised almost $30 million. Why do we keep hearing about the Koch brothers and how they are trying to buy elections, but not about these other guys? Well we don't hear about them nearly as often and never in as disparaging terms.
I guess I am not opposed to the Citizens United ruling. If people want to spend their money to influence elections, legally not through bribes, that seems OK. I still think the way to end the influence of money is to force candidates to reveal who gave how much and the print that on the front pages for all to see. Voters then, to stop this, should just vote for the lesser amount, regardless of party. I'm guessing that would take one election cycle to get rid of much of the money.
But, as in so much else, I might well be wrong. Out to run in the rain......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
