It was a beautiful day today. The skies were sunny and the temps might have reached 80 degrees. There was a pleasant breeze. I managed to get in a nice long run this AM and followed it with a ride on the bike. Then it was work in the yard, Michael and I carrying and spreading about four yards of shredded bark (about half the pile of eight yards) and then doing some trim work on the blue spruces.
I know we need rain, a lot of it, but it's tough to grouse about a day like today.
Aren't the polls all over the place? Didn't one of them have Clinton ahead of Trump by about 11 or 12 points just a week or so ago? Then today a Rasmussen poll has Trump leading by 5 points. November is still a long way off; lots could happen. I suppose it wouldn't be too strange a scenario to have different candidates than we have now. Clinton has legal and, supposedly, health problems. I imagine if things are carried through with some honesty (you know, with the thoroughness and scrutiny that you and I would face!), who knows--she might be indicted? I doubt that, but...... And the Republicans keep tossing out the idea of changing their rules for the convention in Cleveland to prevent a Trump nomination. I doubt that, too, but...... Until I see any changes, major ones, I'm sticking to my election mantra, "When given a choice between two evils, choose neither."
BTW, I read an article lambasting Richard Nixon the other day. I'm no fan of his and think he received what he deserved. I know I've written about this before, here and in some publications, but I don't quite understand how and why Nixon was properly treated, but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have not. What, exactly, is it Nixon did that Clinton and Obama didn't? All lied and covered up their activities. All had enemies' lists for their political opponents. All used the federal government for their own advantages and to the detriment/punishment of their opposition. The LameStream media have, for decades now, crowed about their role in bringing down Nixon. Yet, they sit silently and have allowed Clinton and Obama to skate. (No, Clinton's impeachment was a joke, a blip. All it did was to make him a martyr in the eyes of the Democrats.) Can we use this as explicit evidence of the bias in the LameStream media?
I saw several articles this week about the Democrats' sit-in in the US Senate last week. And, perhaps shame on me, I laughed at it. The Democrats tried to equate this with the sit-ins of the civil rights era, the '60. They even trotted out Rep John Lewis, a civil rights icon. Of course there were many things wrong with this, despite the spirited defense of it in this week's newspaper by Congressman Sandy Levin, who, to me, is overrated and hypocritical. The protest was, in part, over the failure of Republicans to cave in to Democrats' insistence that people put on "no-fly" lists be prevented from purchasing guns. This came after the tragic murders in Orlando by the ISIS-inspired terrorist. (Yep, we know that, despite the Justice Dept's attempts to redact the official report, including the 911 call the terrorist made to the police during the attack.) Even the ACLU, yes, the ACLU!--you know, that ultra-right wing group--opposed this. I would like to know who gets to put one, anyone, on such a "no-fly" list. Would this power be given to bureaucrats? Great, just great. Worse, would it be given to politicians? Right, we can trust them, can't we? Hey, wasn't Lewis once put on a "no-fly" list? (I'm not sure, but I think he was.) The participants in the sit-in were very disingenuous, if not dishonest or even stupid. There was nothing in their protest law that would have prevented the Orlando tragedy. As Casey Stengel often said, "You could look it up." There may be sound reasons to look more closely at gun legislation, but the misinformation, deception, and lies coming out do nothing to persuade.
Here's one for all of you U of M, esp Harbaugh, fans. It's a sign that the Apocalypse is nearly upon us. An 8th grade QB was offered a football scholarship to U of M, by Harbaugh. You read that right, 8th grade." Long ago I started chuckling at the insistence of many U of M supporters that it is "the Harvard of the West." Ha Ha Ha......
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
"Let's Move On......"
Whenever I hear this, "Let's move on," I am alerted to one thing. Somebody doesn't want to be held accountable/responsible.
Hillary Clinton, in the wake of the reports concerning her conduct during the Benghazi debacle, uttered this. "Let's move on." Of course she wants to "move on."
I haven't read either of the reports yet, but have seen the Democrats' version. It casts no blame, certainly none on Clinton. Gee, isn't that surprising?????? Who didn't see that one coming? I'm curious to read how Clinton's numerous blunders and cover-up are handled. Among many, two things stand out in my mind. First, it was the blatant dishonesty in claiming the murders in Benghazi were caused by some anti-Muslim You Tube presentation. (To make it look really good, wasn't the You Tube guy charged with some crime, maybe a violation of parole? I don't recall the specifics.) Second was Clinton's response before the Senate Oversight Committee, "What difference does it make?" (I know there have been attempts to put her callous comment into perspective, but I've read the exchange and "perspective" doesn't change anything.)
But I'm straying. "Let's move on." How many times have I heard that over the years? From politicians and bureaucrats? From school administrators? Almost immediately I think that someone somewhere is trying to escape blame, responsibility/accountability.
What's done is done. Let's not dwell on the past. Let's not point fingers. And all the rest. We need to point fingers. We need to dwell on the past. What's done is not necessarily done. If someone messed up, why in the world wouldn't we want to dwell on it? If someone made egregious mistakes, why in the world would we want to "move on?"
Letting people, in this manner, escape blame only can lead to more mistakes in the future, either from the same people who've never been held accountable or from others who know that they won't be held accountable. Would you want to use a surgeon who has more than once left a sponge in a patient? Would you want to hire an accountant who has repeatedly messed up tax filings? Would you want to eat at a restaurant that always messes up your bill?
People need to be held accountable and responsible. No more of this "Let's move on." We deserve to know who has made mistakes and how and why those mistakes were made. If that includes Clinton, well, so be it.
BTW, I saw a yard sign in the subdivision across the street. Next to the "TRUMP. Make America Great Again" sign was this "CLINTON: Prison 2016."
I wonder if Clinton will choose Senator Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? Elizabeth Warren, "Fauxcahontas" herself. Yep, to get her job at Harvard, she lied about being part American Indian. I guess being a woman wasn't enough; she had to claim further minority status. But isn't that a great nickname, "Fauxcahontas?"
I really don't think Clinton will nab her. Despite the claims of the most recent polls, I think the Clintons are not convinced this won't be a close election. Two women on the ticket? I know it's 2016, but I'm guessing there are many men out there who will be turned off at that prospect. (I, for one, would never note for this ticket, if it were to happen. But it has nothing to do with two women; it has everything to do with the types of women.) So that leaves.....?
Remember my mantra for the '16 Election, "When given the choice between two evils, choose neither."
Friday, June 24, 2016
Brexit Leads to "Shock!"
To hear the newscast today--radio and television and wait until the newspapers tomorrow--incredible amounts of "shock" are resounding throughout the world today. The source of the "shock" is Britain leaving the European Union. The US markets have fallen sharply, the President is upset, etc.
I think what has happened is that the arrogant elitists have been "shocked." In their infinite wisdom (at least in their own minds), this is a tragedy. What about globalism? What about cooperation? What about their, forget the common Britisher's, goals?
Once again I find these arrogant elitists to be complete out of touch with reality, at least the reality of the common folks. The politicians, the academics, the media, the experts...are all shocked. Obama, revealing his globalist hand as if he hadn't already, warned the Brits if they left the EU, they'd have to "go to the end of the queue." But who, really, couldn't see this coming, esp if the British pols listened to their constituents?
Who could possibly think the Brits are happy with what has happened and is happening to their nation and to them? They, like many European countries, have been flooded with immigrants from a very, very different culture and tradition. These immigrants have demanded and have received permission to follow their religious and traditional/cultural mandates. That is, they refuse to assimilate. For instance, large parts of whole cities are ruled by Sharia, the Islamic law. British law, centuries old, be damned. Brits themselves, like others in their own European countries, are victimized by immigrants who impose their own religious and social beliefs on them. (Note the attacks on Western women who, oddly enough, dress like Western women! Note, too, how silent the feminists in the West are......) And, remember, the Brits are in the process of becoming a minority in their own country, like many Europeans, due to the birthrates of those immigrants.
(If you want to gain keen insights into the minds of the Islamists, pick up a couple of novels by Daniel Silva. He is very enlightening. And, a bonus, his protagonist, Gabriel Allon, is terrific. (I almost used the word "awesome." It would have been the perfect word, had it not been co-opted and turned into a word of immense triteness.)
Yet those arrogant elitists, who know far more than we do, who know what's better for our countries and ourselves than we do, express "shock" at the Brexit.
Go ahead, vote for the Democratic or Republican nominees in November......
I think what has happened is that the arrogant elitists have been "shocked." In their infinite wisdom (at least in their own minds), this is a tragedy. What about globalism? What about cooperation? What about their, forget the common Britisher's, goals?
Once again I find these arrogant elitists to be complete out of touch with reality, at least the reality of the common folks. The politicians, the academics, the media, the experts...are all shocked. Obama, revealing his globalist hand as if he hadn't already, warned the Brits if they left the EU, they'd have to "go to the end of the queue." But who, really, couldn't see this coming, esp if the British pols listened to their constituents?
Who could possibly think the Brits are happy with what has happened and is happening to their nation and to them? They, like many European countries, have been flooded with immigrants from a very, very different culture and tradition. These immigrants have demanded and have received permission to follow their religious and traditional/cultural mandates. That is, they refuse to assimilate. For instance, large parts of whole cities are ruled by Sharia, the Islamic law. British law, centuries old, be damned. Brits themselves, like others in their own European countries, are victimized by immigrants who impose their own religious and social beliefs on them. (Note the attacks on Western women who, oddly enough, dress like Western women! Note, too, how silent the feminists in the West are......) And, remember, the Brits are in the process of becoming a minority in their own country, like many Europeans, due to the birthrates of those immigrants.
(If you want to gain keen insights into the minds of the Islamists, pick up a couple of novels by Daniel Silva. He is very enlightening. And, a bonus, his protagonist, Gabriel Allon, is terrific. (I almost used the word "awesome." It would have been the perfect word, had it not been co-opted and turned into a word of immense triteness.)
Yet those arrogant elitists, who know far more than we do, who know what's better for our countries and ourselves than we do, express "shock" at the Brexit.
Go ahead, vote for the Democratic or Republican nominees in November......
Ringo
Ringo was the least known/popular of the Beatles, right? I think that's safe to say. It wasn't that he was unpopular, but just that the others were more so. I think, later, I read that Ringo was really a very accomplished drummer, not just some throw in, but technically and artistically quite good. Last night we went to see Ringo Starr and His All-Starr Band. It was an enjoyable evening.
The All-Starrs are/were famous in the rock world themselves. The only name I heard of was Todd Rundgren, although there were members of Santana, Toto, and Mr. Mr. (?). They performed, along with Ringo's own and his Beatle songs, hits of their own.
It sure looked like the crowd, as one might expect, was an older one, at least most of it. And it seemed people were having a good time. People were really getting into the show.
The show itself, I thought, was OK, not great. That's not a slam. It's just that the music isn't my kind of music, either the old Beatle stuff or that of the All-Starrs. I recognized most of the songs, but not all of them, not even all of Ringo's. And the guitar solos, too many of them I thought, all seemed to morph into the same one, over and over. Again, the crowd really enjoyed hit after hit, but the songs were not my favorites; if they came on the radio (then and now) I'd likely change the station and I'd never purchase an album of them.
I did really enjoy the Santana selections. There were three of them and were quite good. They were, to me, the highlight of the show.
Mostly though, it was Ringo. I'm not one to idolize folks, not athletes, not hippy-rock stars, not Hollywood-types, not even leaders. For instance, I had a conversation last week with a guy who knows someone who met "every President since Nixon." I remarked that I am not sure if any of the Presidents since Nixon had invited me to the White House, I'd have accepted. Maybe I would have, if only to view the White House. But I did have a chance for passes to see/hear President Obama and I opted not to go. It wasn't a hard choice. I didn't want to go. I vaguely recall a similar instance with President Ford. But I found myself last night watching Ringo and marveling, "He was one of the Beatles." I was a bit surprised at myself. "He was one of the Beatles." And, I was never a Beatles fan. I think I only owned two of their albums, maybe one. Still......
But it was a good, clean show. Maybe it's my age, but I was extremely put off by the recent celebration in Cleveland over the Cavaliers' NBA win. Michael was watching it on the boob tube. Was there a reason so many of the players took off their clothes? At least, their shirts? Why did they have to be bare-chested? It's bad enough with the smut on prime-time television. That "Dancing" show's guys frequently remove their shirts. Why? We know why? And consider many of the so-called "reality shows," which of course bear little resemblance to reality. If not their dress, at least their premises are smutty. But why undress in a parade and celebration for an NBA title? Maybe it's just me and my age showing. Maybe it's something else, a sign of the times, a change that's not for the better.
The All-Starrs are/were famous in the rock world themselves. The only name I heard of was Todd Rundgren, although there were members of Santana, Toto, and Mr. Mr. (?). They performed, along with Ringo's own and his Beatle songs, hits of their own.
It sure looked like the crowd, as one might expect, was an older one, at least most of it. And it seemed people were having a good time. People were really getting into the show.
The show itself, I thought, was OK, not great. That's not a slam. It's just that the music isn't my kind of music, either the old Beatle stuff or that of the All-Starrs. I recognized most of the songs, but not all of them, not even all of Ringo's. And the guitar solos, too many of them I thought, all seemed to morph into the same one, over and over. Again, the crowd really enjoyed hit after hit, but the songs were not my favorites; if they came on the radio (then and now) I'd likely change the station and I'd never purchase an album of them.
I did really enjoy the Santana selections. There were three of them and were quite good. They were, to me, the highlight of the show.
Mostly though, it was Ringo. I'm not one to idolize folks, not athletes, not hippy-rock stars, not Hollywood-types, not even leaders. For instance, I had a conversation last week with a guy who knows someone who met "every President since Nixon." I remarked that I am not sure if any of the Presidents since Nixon had invited me to the White House, I'd have accepted. Maybe I would have, if only to view the White House. But I did have a chance for passes to see/hear President Obama and I opted not to go. It wasn't a hard choice. I didn't want to go. I vaguely recall a similar instance with President Ford. But I found myself last night watching Ringo and marveling, "He was one of the Beatles." I was a bit surprised at myself. "He was one of the Beatles." And, I was never a Beatles fan. I think I only owned two of their albums, maybe one. Still......
But it was a good, clean show. Maybe it's my age, but I was extremely put off by the recent celebration in Cleveland over the Cavaliers' NBA win. Michael was watching it on the boob tube. Was there a reason so many of the players took off their clothes? At least, their shirts? Why did they have to be bare-chested? It's bad enough with the smut on prime-time television. That "Dancing" show's guys frequently remove their shirts. Why? We know why? And consider many of the so-called "reality shows," which of course bear little resemblance to reality. If not their dress, at least their premises are smutty. But why undress in a parade and celebration for an NBA title? Maybe it's just me and my age showing. Maybe it's something else, a sign of the times, a change that's not for the better.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Hypocrisy?
Does the hypocrisy never end? Or am I just too hard on people?
I saw the other day where the head of Apple is refusing to give any assistance to the GOP Convention in Cleveland. His rationale is that Don Trump is a bad man, that he shouldn't be President, let alone the Republican nominee. And, of that I agree.
The head of Apple, whose name I forget, cited Trump's own words, his plans, etc., which he called discriminatory toward Muslims, women, other minorities, etc. So, let me get this straight. Trump is vilified for his anti-Muslim stance(s), esp regarding immigrants from the Middle East to the US; yet Apple continues to do business with these same Middle Eastern countries, the very bad men who run them. (If you haven't noticed, there are no democracies in the Middle East.) It's not OK to say bad things about Muslims, but it is OK to be business partners with people who persecute, torture, and murder their own people, who keep women in a state of near slavery, etc.
I was sent an article about this today, but I know I've written about this hypocrisy before, in the Middle East, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, etc. I am aware of the argument, that trade will benefit the people, allow for general prosperity in these countries, benefiting the lot of many people. (Hey, isn't this the "trickle-down" theory, so lambasted by the progressives when it is applied to the US? But never fear. Even if it won't work here, it surely will work in these oppressed countries, right?)
So, what good has come of all this trade from Apple, the auto companies, banks, etc.? Lots, right? I haven't double checked these statistics, but have no reason to disbelieve them. They sound about right and match what I do know. Despite all the oil wealth received by the Arab world (and trade with Western companies?), about 20% of the people there live on less than $2 a day, yes, a day. More than 60 million of those people are illiterate and, no doubt, due to their rotten status, most of them are women. This one is hard to believe, yet fits in what I've written about before. In the last 1000 years, the Arabs have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year! Apparently the only book that counts in the Quran. And suppose these "facts" are off and only 10% or 20% are true? Right......
This holds with what I believe. The Arab world has never experienced an Enlightenment, nothing like the 18th Century movement that spawned the rights enjoyed by Americans and many in the West. Those rights, esp for certain groups, didn't appear overnight, but evolved, too slowly, but at least they did evolve. Remember, 400 years ago, Christians were also murdering Christians (Catholics v Protestants) over faith (like Sunnis v Shiites). Women were also treated as distinct inferiors. We can make a number of analogies. But then came the Enlightenment, the offspring of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Age of Exploration.
Where the Arab world was once very advanced in the science and technology of the Middle Ages, now it is backward. The pioneers in geometry and other math, astronomy, medicine (surgery, hospitals, pharmacies), and even literature and art have become backward, clinging to the past that permits public hangings, beheadings, etc. There will be no peace with Islam, or at least much of it, until there is some sort of Arabic/Islamic Enlightenment.
I got a real laugh out of a Clinton attack on Trump today. She said something about all of Trump's business ventures seem to "end up in Chapter 11." That's a good one and it calls for a response from Trump. He might make a similar claim, about how Clinton's political and legal ventures end up in indictments, investigations, even "Vince Foster" endings. Clinton v Trump! If there's any time where divine intervention is needed, it's right now!
I saw some report from the Atty-Gen where all references to "Islamic terrorism [or] extremism" are to be redacted from the official FBI reports on Orlando. Hmmm....... Does this surprise anyone? Look at how Obama so quickly jumped on the AR-15 (which I'm not even sure was the weapon used there). It is revealing to hear Obama and other anti-gun folks pontificate on this. They don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. They have led most Americans to believe, for instance, that the "AR" in the AR-15 stands for "automatic rifle." It does not! It comes from the name of the manufacturer back 50 or 60 years ago. Even one of the list serves to which I belong focused, not on the animal who pulled the trigger(s), but on the guns. Maybe I am missing the boat here, but that seems very misguided, at best. If a guy goes out and gets loaded and crashes his car, for example, into a crowd of people, killing many, do we focus on the car? "Let's ban cars!" or the alcohol? "Let's return to Prohibition!" (Where maybe the federal gov't can deliberately poison US citizens again?) No, the cause is the drunk, not the car, not the booze. So why is it different with shooters? Again, I'm willing to listen to disagreement here, but I can't follow the logic/illogic.
BTW, Karen was watching the boob tube the other day (last week?) when Obama gave his speech in Orlando. Who in his right mind still thinks the man is the most eloquent Presidential speaker "since Jefferson?" He bumbled his way through his talk. And no, I don't believe he was overcome with emotion, not at all. I still chuckle at the folks, back when, who said that, Obama the "most eloquent" President since Jefferson. Apparently they forgot about at least one other guy who deserves at least a little consideration--Abraham Lincoln. Maybe they haven't read any of his speeches, which, BTW, he wrote himself.
I saw the other day where the head of Apple is refusing to give any assistance to the GOP Convention in Cleveland. His rationale is that Don Trump is a bad man, that he shouldn't be President, let alone the Republican nominee. And, of that I agree.
The head of Apple, whose name I forget, cited Trump's own words, his plans, etc., which he called discriminatory toward Muslims, women, other minorities, etc. So, let me get this straight. Trump is vilified for his anti-Muslim stance(s), esp regarding immigrants from the Middle East to the US; yet Apple continues to do business with these same Middle Eastern countries, the very bad men who run them. (If you haven't noticed, there are no democracies in the Middle East.) It's not OK to say bad things about Muslims, but it is OK to be business partners with people who persecute, torture, and murder their own people, who keep women in a state of near slavery, etc.
I was sent an article about this today, but I know I've written about this hypocrisy before, in the Middle East, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, etc. I am aware of the argument, that trade will benefit the people, allow for general prosperity in these countries, benefiting the lot of many people. (Hey, isn't this the "trickle-down" theory, so lambasted by the progressives when it is applied to the US? But never fear. Even if it won't work here, it surely will work in these oppressed countries, right?)
So, what good has come of all this trade from Apple, the auto companies, banks, etc.? Lots, right? I haven't double checked these statistics, but have no reason to disbelieve them. They sound about right and match what I do know. Despite all the oil wealth received by the Arab world (and trade with Western companies?), about 20% of the people there live on less than $2 a day, yes, a day. More than 60 million of those people are illiterate and, no doubt, due to their rotten status, most of them are women. This one is hard to believe, yet fits in what I've written about before. In the last 1000 years, the Arabs have translated fewer books than Spain translates in a year! Apparently the only book that counts in the Quran. And suppose these "facts" are off and only 10% or 20% are true? Right......
This holds with what I believe. The Arab world has never experienced an Enlightenment, nothing like the 18th Century movement that spawned the rights enjoyed by Americans and many in the West. Those rights, esp for certain groups, didn't appear overnight, but evolved, too slowly, but at least they did evolve. Remember, 400 years ago, Christians were also murdering Christians (Catholics v Protestants) over faith (like Sunnis v Shiites). Women were also treated as distinct inferiors. We can make a number of analogies. But then came the Enlightenment, the offspring of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Age of Exploration.
Where the Arab world was once very advanced in the science and technology of the Middle Ages, now it is backward. The pioneers in geometry and other math, astronomy, medicine (surgery, hospitals, pharmacies), and even literature and art have become backward, clinging to the past that permits public hangings, beheadings, etc. There will be no peace with Islam, or at least much of it, until there is some sort of Arabic/Islamic Enlightenment.
I got a real laugh out of a Clinton attack on Trump today. She said something about all of Trump's business ventures seem to "end up in Chapter 11." That's a good one and it calls for a response from Trump. He might make a similar claim, about how Clinton's political and legal ventures end up in indictments, investigations, even "Vince Foster" endings. Clinton v Trump! If there's any time where divine intervention is needed, it's right now!
I saw some report from the Atty-Gen where all references to "Islamic terrorism [or] extremism" are to be redacted from the official FBI reports on Orlando. Hmmm....... Does this surprise anyone? Look at how Obama so quickly jumped on the AR-15 (which I'm not even sure was the weapon used there). It is revealing to hear Obama and other anti-gun folks pontificate on this. They don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. They have led most Americans to believe, for instance, that the "AR" in the AR-15 stands for "automatic rifle." It does not! It comes from the name of the manufacturer back 50 or 60 years ago. Even one of the list serves to which I belong focused, not on the animal who pulled the trigger(s), but on the guns. Maybe I am missing the boat here, but that seems very misguided, at best. If a guy goes out and gets loaded and crashes his car, for example, into a crowd of people, killing many, do we focus on the car? "Let's ban cars!" or the alcohol? "Let's return to Prohibition!" (Where maybe the federal gov't can deliberately poison US citizens again?) No, the cause is the drunk, not the car, not the booze. So why is it different with shooters? Again, I'm willing to listen to disagreement here, but I can't follow the logic/illogic.
BTW, Karen was watching the boob tube the other day (last week?) when Obama gave his speech in Orlando. Who in his right mind still thinks the man is the most eloquent Presidential speaker "since Jefferson?" He bumbled his way through his talk. And no, I don't believe he was overcome with emotion, not at all. I still chuckle at the folks, back when, who said that, Obama the "most eloquent" President since Jefferson. Apparently they forgot about at least one other guy who deserves at least a little consideration--Abraham Lincoln. Maybe they haven't read any of his speeches, which, BTW, he wrote himself.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Sunday/Sunday
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there. I heard a fascinating history of Father's Day on the radio yesterday, learning a lot. Although Mother's Day has been around for seemingly forever, Father's Day is much newer.
It was quite a jolt this AM to open the newspaper and find not the normal/usual 3 1/2 to 4 pages of obituaries, but almost five full pages! Whoa! As I used to say, but don't quite enjoy it as much as I age, "They're dropping like flies." OK, so it's a little weird to turn first thing to the death notices. I guess it's an age thing? But I didn't recognize any names, although I often do--esp from the old neighborhood.
I also scanned the next three on the greatest Detroit songs of all time. I've not agreed with many I've seen in the past month or so, at least the order, but I've really enjoyed reading the paragraph or two that accompanies each entry. It's been a fun thing to follow.
Of course, with the tragedy of the terrorist shooting in Orlando, much of today's Detroit Free Press editorial section focuses on it. And, considering it's the Free Press, it wasn't hard to predict what would appear. Two of the lead op-eds are aiming at the number of guns in US society, discounting or minimizing any Constitutional rights. The authors seeks to revisit or "rethink" our rights in light of the glut (Is that the right word?) of recent shootings, esp of children, not to mention the mass shootings. Again, the views were not hard to predict.
I don't own any guns and haven't shot a gun in, what 50 years, or almost that. I don't love guns and I don't hate them. But I cringe when I hear or read of people who want to revisit or "rethink" our rights. If one right can be revisited or rethought, can't another one?
But these op-ed authors would be more credible if they got their facts straight, esp about guns and their capabilities. And, often their logic is strained, at best. I wonder, too, why they don't rail about the people who use guns to murder others. Where, in either of these op-eds, is anything about the Muslim extremist who shot all these people in Orlando? There wasn't a single sentence condemning the man himself or even ISIS, to whom he pledged allegiance. No, it was the gun. Do these writers ever rant about the punks who shoot Detroiters, spraying/riddling houses of those who "dissed" them or whatever idiotic reason used for shooting? Do they question the humanity of those who risk and often succeed in shooting kids? If they do, I don't see those columns. Why are they afraid to condemn the shooters, but only the guns? (No doubt they would argue they do, but I don't see those op-ed pieces.) So, if a guy goes out and gets loaded at a bar and runs some people over on his drive home, should we ban alcohol? (After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than shooters with rifles or shotguns, far far more!) It's not the beer's fault; it's the drinker's/drunk's, isn't it? I suppose some would say that's a faulty analogy, that alcohol isn't manufactured to kill people. But most guns aren't either, not even the often misrepresented AR-15s! Again, why are they so afraid or at least unwilling to call out people--shooters!?!?!?
Another op-ed attempted to deal with the fractured society we have, how uncivil we've become in discussing our differences, esp our political ones. The writer makes some good points and I agree with him. (That would surprise him, in light of his first paragraph. And it surprises me because I often find his arguments shallow, "sloppy thinking< to those of you who are regular readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions.") But agree though I did, I chuckled as I read. One of his points is that we often "delegitimize" our opponents' arguments, dismissing them out of hand without reason or real scrutiny. (Again, regular readers will recognize this, what I often call "name-calling"instead of debate or discussion or dialogue.) Yet, in reading several of his colleague's own op-ed pieces, they do exactly what his point emphasizes; they "delegitimize" the other side. Yep, I still am chuckling.
OK, here's a little more personal and rewarding/worthwhile end to today's post. Michael pitched for his baseball team on Fri, his first pitching in two years. (Don't ask why it was his first. I'm trying to keep this positive.) He was slated to pitch the 3rd and 4th innings, but the kid who was supposed to start didn't show up. So Michael started the game and pitched the 1st and 2nd innings--and the 3rd and 4th, too. Oh, and the 5th as well. He gave up two runs, one earned, and two or three hits. He had 7 or 8 strikeouts, too. He had one walk and hit one batsman. All in all, Grandpa (his coach!) was very happy--and so was he. To top it all off, he drilled a long double, pulling it down the right field line well over the RF's head. It was a good night to be a coach--and a Grandpa!
It was quite a jolt this AM to open the newspaper and find not the normal/usual 3 1/2 to 4 pages of obituaries, but almost five full pages! Whoa! As I used to say, but don't quite enjoy it as much as I age, "They're dropping like flies." OK, so it's a little weird to turn first thing to the death notices. I guess it's an age thing? But I didn't recognize any names, although I often do--esp from the old neighborhood.
I also scanned the next three on the greatest Detroit songs of all time. I've not agreed with many I've seen in the past month or so, at least the order, but I've really enjoyed reading the paragraph or two that accompanies each entry. It's been a fun thing to follow.
Of course, with the tragedy of the terrorist shooting in Orlando, much of today's Detroit Free Press editorial section focuses on it. And, considering it's the Free Press, it wasn't hard to predict what would appear. Two of the lead op-eds are aiming at the number of guns in US society, discounting or minimizing any Constitutional rights. The authors seeks to revisit or "rethink" our rights in light of the glut (Is that the right word?) of recent shootings, esp of children, not to mention the mass shootings. Again, the views were not hard to predict.
I don't own any guns and haven't shot a gun in, what 50 years, or almost that. I don't love guns and I don't hate them. But I cringe when I hear or read of people who want to revisit or "rethink" our rights. If one right can be revisited or rethought, can't another one?
But these op-ed authors would be more credible if they got their facts straight, esp about guns and their capabilities. And, often their logic is strained, at best. I wonder, too, why they don't rail about the people who use guns to murder others. Where, in either of these op-eds, is anything about the Muslim extremist who shot all these people in Orlando? There wasn't a single sentence condemning the man himself or even ISIS, to whom he pledged allegiance. No, it was the gun. Do these writers ever rant about the punks who shoot Detroiters, spraying/riddling houses of those who "dissed" them or whatever idiotic reason used for shooting? Do they question the humanity of those who risk and often succeed in shooting kids? If they do, I don't see those columns. Why are they afraid to condemn the shooters, but only the guns? (No doubt they would argue they do, but I don't see those op-ed pieces.) So, if a guy goes out and gets loaded at a bar and runs some people over on his drive home, should we ban alcohol? (After all, drunk drivers kill far more people than shooters with rifles or shotguns, far far more!) It's not the beer's fault; it's the drinker's/drunk's, isn't it? I suppose some would say that's a faulty analogy, that alcohol isn't manufactured to kill people. But most guns aren't either, not even the often misrepresented AR-15s! Again, why are they so afraid or at least unwilling to call out people--shooters!?!?!?
Another op-ed attempted to deal with the fractured society we have, how uncivil we've become in discussing our differences, esp our political ones. The writer makes some good points and I agree with him. (That would surprise him, in light of his first paragraph. And it surprises me because I often find his arguments shallow, "sloppy thinking< to those of you who are regular readers of "One Man's Lonely Opinions.") But agree though I did, I chuckled as I read. One of his points is that we often "delegitimize" our opponents' arguments, dismissing them out of hand without reason or real scrutiny. (Again, regular readers will recognize this, what I often call "name-calling"instead of debate or discussion or dialogue.) Yet, in reading several of his colleague's own op-ed pieces, they do exactly what his point emphasizes; they "delegitimize" the other side. Yep, I still am chuckling.
OK, here's a little more personal and rewarding/worthwhile end to today's post. Michael pitched for his baseball team on Fri, his first pitching in two years. (Don't ask why it was his first. I'm trying to keep this positive.) He was slated to pitch the 3rd and 4th innings, but the kid who was supposed to start didn't show up. So Michael started the game and pitched the 1st and 2nd innings--and the 3rd and 4th, too. Oh, and the 5th as well. He gave up two runs, one earned, and two or three hits. He had 7 or 8 strikeouts, too. He had one walk and hit one batsman. All in all, Grandpa (his coach!) was very happy--and so was he. To top it all off, he drilled a long double, pulling it down the right field line well over the RF's head. It was a good night to be a coach--and a Grandpa!
Friday, June 17, 2016
Fri Thoughts
Despite what many folks may think, I'm not a Republican. But I will admit that some of them have impressed me recently. I am speaking of those Republicans who will not support Don Trump. I was reminded of that in the newspaper this AM. Four, at least, Rep Congressmen from Michigan have said they will not back Trump. Good for them, but that's not my point. Why aren't more Democrats doing the same? That is, where are the Democrats who won't support Clinton? Are there none? You must be kidding me. Trump is a terrible candidate for President; but so is Clinton. Are all those Democrats lockstep in their support for her? If so, it speaks volumes of the Democrats--none of which are at all complimentary, at least not to me.
I've been wonder for a couple weeks about the local high school football coach who is apparently in hot water for out-of-season practices and recruiting. Wait a minute! Why is this guy being singled out? Don't try to tell me other coaches don't also hold illegal practices, in football or even other sports. Are the practice rules for football different from those for other sports? If so, why? Why, for instance, can high school basketball teams hold basketball practices, clinics, and even scrimmages in the summer? Or is summer really winter, you know, when the basketball season is? Why, if legal, are basketball coaches/teams permitted to do this, but not football coaches/teams? And, how about high school baseball coaches who coach the local summer league teams? Hmmm...... Maybe they bring in a couple of kids who aren't on their school teams? Still, the inconsistency of the rules and/or their enforcement/application is not good.
For that matter, a local high school won its first district baseball championship, its first ever! Hooray for it. But its regional semifinal game was scheduled for the same time as the school's graduation ceremony, a Sat AM. No problem, right? Just reschedule the ball game for Fri afternoon or later Sat afternoon or even Sun or Mon. The state semis weren't until Thur or Fri of the next week. There was plenty of time, right? Wrong! Common sense is thrown out the window by the state hs athletic association. The team was told to forfeit its game, its first ever regional ball game. No change could be made to the schedule. Remember that the next time you hear such associations talk about "student-athletes," how they are "here for the kids," etc. More telling to me was the silence about this. Where were the school's administrators? They should have been jumping up and down all over the place, newspapers, television, radio? What about the players' parents? Where were they? Or, how's this? Why didn't the other schools in the regional refuse to play in protest--or all of the schools in the state tournament refuse to play? Well, I know why and so do you. Just remember, "We're here for the kids, until something else comes up." I recall, 45 or more years ago, at Amherst we (the baseball team) was invited to the Div 3 playoffs, somewhere in VA or WV. Our faculty voted not to let us go, since the games came during our final exam period. Were we disappointed? I don't remember being so; we knew, as good as our team was, why we were at Amherst. "Student-athletes" my eye......
BTW, a teammate sent me a well-researched article detailing the lack of evidence that Lord Jeffery Amherst was one to give smallpox-infected blankest to the Indians. There is no direct evidence to
"convict" him. Yet, let's not let facts get in the way of how we are supposed to feel. It, the article, is a further indictment of the lack of rigor/quality of the education at Amherst today, relative to what it once was. And, although the authors think the mascot, "Lord Jeff," was rightly eliminated because it was divisive, I disagree. Students and faculty put heavy pressure on the college trustees to get right of "Lord Jeff." And the trustees caved in. I'm not losing sleep over the issue, but I remember when my professors wrote "no sloppy thinking allowed" or things to that effect on my papers. Not only have students there now (not to mention their professors!) been able to get away with "sloppy thinking," they have been rewarded for it. Boy, don't I sound like, as Karen occasionally calls me, "an old coot?"
I've been wonder for a couple weeks about the local high school football coach who is apparently in hot water for out-of-season practices and recruiting. Wait a minute! Why is this guy being singled out? Don't try to tell me other coaches don't also hold illegal practices, in football or even other sports. Are the practice rules for football different from those for other sports? If so, why? Why, for instance, can high school basketball teams hold basketball practices, clinics, and even scrimmages in the summer? Or is summer really winter, you know, when the basketball season is? Why, if legal, are basketball coaches/teams permitted to do this, but not football coaches/teams? And, how about high school baseball coaches who coach the local summer league teams? Hmmm...... Maybe they bring in a couple of kids who aren't on their school teams? Still, the inconsistency of the rules and/or their enforcement/application is not good.
For that matter, a local high school won its first district baseball championship, its first ever! Hooray for it. But its regional semifinal game was scheduled for the same time as the school's graduation ceremony, a Sat AM. No problem, right? Just reschedule the ball game for Fri afternoon or later Sat afternoon or even Sun or Mon. The state semis weren't until Thur or Fri of the next week. There was plenty of time, right? Wrong! Common sense is thrown out the window by the state hs athletic association. The team was told to forfeit its game, its first ever regional ball game. No change could be made to the schedule. Remember that the next time you hear such associations talk about "student-athletes," how they are "here for the kids," etc. More telling to me was the silence about this. Where were the school's administrators? They should have been jumping up and down all over the place, newspapers, television, radio? What about the players' parents? Where were they? Or, how's this? Why didn't the other schools in the regional refuse to play in protest--or all of the schools in the state tournament refuse to play? Well, I know why and so do you. Just remember, "We're here for the kids, until something else comes up." I recall, 45 or more years ago, at Amherst we (the baseball team) was invited to the Div 3 playoffs, somewhere in VA or WV. Our faculty voted not to let us go, since the games came during our final exam period. Were we disappointed? I don't remember being so; we knew, as good as our team was, why we were at Amherst. "Student-athletes" my eye......
BTW, a teammate sent me a well-researched article detailing the lack of evidence that Lord Jeffery Amherst was one to give smallpox-infected blankest to the Indians. There is no direct evidence to
"convict" him. Yet, let's not let facts get in the way of how we are supposed to feel. It, the article, is a further indictment of the lack of rigor/quality of the education at Amherst today, relative to what it once was. And, although the authors think the mascot, "Lord Jeff," was rightly eliminated because it was divisive, I disagree. Students and faculty put heavy pressure on the college trustees to get right of "Lord Jeff." And the trustees caved in. I'm not losing sleep over the issue, but I remember when my professors wrote "no sloppy thinking allowed" or things to that effect on my papers. Not only have students there now (not to mention their professors!) been able to get away with "sloppy thinking," they have been rewarded for it. Boy, don't I sound like, as Karen occasionally calls me, "an old coot?"
Monday, June 13, 2016
"False Narrative?"
Is that what it's called, a "false narrative?" It seems like that's what the LameStream media are spinning about the mass murder in Orlando.
Almost immediately, I read somewhere that the murderer had been on some FBI watch list, that not once, but twice his name came up for scrutiny. But, nothing was done. I guess it's more important not to offend one person than it is to save 50 or more people from dying.
The LameStreams are pointing fingers everywhere, at mental illness, at homophobia, at the availability of guns, even at the Christian Right, everywhere but at where the evidence seems to be pointing us. Sometimes, isn't the simplest apparent answer the correct one?
This guy's father was from Afghanistan, having made a number of trips back there. He has expressed praise for the Taliban while criticizing the US (Of course, if by "US" we mean the government, he might have some grounds to do that!). What is it that the Qu'ran teaches about homosexuality? How do many Muslims look upon their wives, as mere property, with discipline being meted out in the form of beatings? Did he really yell, "Allahu Akbar" upon his raid? Even more important, he admittedly professed in a call to the police support for ISIS.
So, the LameStreams choose to ignore all this, even the guy's own words. The obvious is summarily dismissed. It's much better to further their correct agenda to spin this "false narrative," I guess.
Our government, the LameStream Media, the so-called "experts," all of them...... What was it, in another context, that Lenin would have called them, "useful idiots?"
Almost immediately, I read somewhere that the murderer had been on some FBI watch list, that not once, but twice his name came up for scrutiny. But, nothing was done. I guess it's more important not to offend one person than it is to save 50 or more people from dying.
The LameStreams are pointing fingers everywhere, at mental illness, at homophobia, at the availability of guns, even at the Christian Right, everywhere but at where the evidence seems to be pointing us. Sometimes, isn't the simplest apparent answer the correct one?
This guy's father was from Afghanistan, having made a number of trips back there. He has expressed praise for the Taliban while criticizing the US (Of course, if by "US" we mean the government, he might have some grounds to do that!). What is it that the Qu'ran teaches about homosexuality? How do many Muslims look upon their wives, as mere property, with discipline being meted out in the form of beatings? Did he really yell, "Allahu Akbar" upon his raid? Even more important, he admittedly professed in a call to the police support for ISIS.
So, the LameStreams choose to ignore all this, even the guy's own words. The obvious is summarily dismissed. It's much better to further their correct agenda to spin this "false narrative," I guess.
Our government, the LameStream Media, the so-called "experts," all of them...... What was it, in another context, that Lenin would have called them, "useful idiots?"
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Sun Thoughts
Ha Ha. I had to laugh at myself a bit as I read the first line of my last blog post. Here I am, ripping on technology when I play on the computer two or three hours a day--researching, reading, and writing. I fell victim to one of my own pet peeves. I didn't completely explain myself. Yes, I was sloppy in my thinking and writing.
I love my computer. To find out new things all of the time fascinates me. I really enjoy being on several of my college list serves. It's good to keep up to date with people, to share ideas, and to engage in meaningful dialogue. (More about that one later.) I am still amazed that I can write a letter and almost instantaneously it can be sent and received in Massachusetts and Connecticut, in Florida and California, and in points in between. I can even send e-mails to a college friend who lives some of the time in Sydney, Australia! Maybe it's my age that leads me to such wonder.
Still, I think what I really meant ("Say what you mean, Ron!!!!!!") could be inferred, I think.
At my reunion a couple of weeks ago (I wrote some of my reunion buddies yesterday, starting with "I can't believe it's been a whole week since we all had breakfast together." Then I realized that the breakfast with my teammates was two weeks ago!) I spoke with a classmate about the controversy surrounding the college's nickname/mascot, Lord Jeff, after, of course, Lord Jeffery Amherst. The college, with the overwhelming support of the student body and faculty, has distanced itself from "Lord Jeff" and it is no longer used. My classmate is a lawyer and he insisted that none of the "evidence" used to "indict" Lord Jeffery Amherst of selling/giving smallpox-infested blankets during the French and Indian War would hold up in court. (I've noted, in past blogs, that the historical evidence is also sketchy and that in war, killing is killing, regardless of smallpox, cannons, scalping, etc. And some of the so-called "targets" of the smallpox were themselves murderers, rapists, and slave traders. But my arguments, of course, are of no avail. I'm on the wrong side of political correctness. Facts be damned.) And that's what my lawyer classmate insisted, "Facts be damned." In a court, Amherst would not at all be convicted. There isn't any direct evidence. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "a preponderance of evidence."
So, that has led me to wonder if the place has changed, at least academically. Back when, we'd have never been able to get away with such sloppy thinking. We were always challenged (even with poor grades!) to think clearly, to use facts to support our arguments and theses. It seems that Amherst has strayed from so challenging students. Has critical thinking (Oh, how I hesitate to use that co-opted and corrupted phrase!) has been replaced by jumping on the latest diversity bandwagon? It was always stunning to me that, at least according to official college sources, a huge majority of students supported getting rid of Lord Jeff because of the smallpox-infested blankets. But there isn't any concrete evidence to indict, let alone, convict Amherst. So then, why such a huge majority? Where are the naysayers, those who might at least raise a voice against the railroad job? Are they intimidated into silence? Or, are there few if any naysayers? Has everyone bought into the "dump Lord Jeff" bandwagon? This is more than just a mascot, as much as I prefer to keep it. It's the thought that the college has become a different place, one no longer devoted to rigorous thinking. I really hope I am wrong, but my classmate lawyer presented a pretty good argument that I'm not.
I've seen the ads and newspaper articles. Hillary Clinton's nomination is historic. OK, I'll get this off my mind right away. Is she really the first major party nominee to be the subject of an ongoing Justice Department criminal probe? Oops! Nah, that's not what I'm focused on here. How pathetic it is that the first woman Presidential nominee of a major party is someone like Hillary Clinton! I would think decent women, well men too, would be appalled at this. (I am often reminded of the depression to which George Bush Daddy succumbed after losing in '92. It wasn't that he lost the election, but that he lost it to a person like Bill Clinton. Indeed......) Is there any way to save ourselves from Clinton? No, Don Trump won't save us, but I've made my point very clearly on his nomination/candidacy, too. When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. When will American voters stand up and finally say, to both political parties, "NO! We refuse to accept the garbage you keep giving us!" I fear never.
I love my computer. To find out new things all of the time fascinates me. I really enjoy being on several of my college list serves. It's good to keep up to date with people, to share ideas, and to engage in meaningful dialogue. (More about that one later.) I am still amazed that I can write a letter and almost instantaneously it can be sent and received in Massachusetts and Connecticut, in Florida and California, and in points in between. I can even send e-mails to a college friend who lives some of the time in Sydney, Australia! Maybe it's my age that leads me to such wonder.
Still, I think what I really meant ("Say what you mean, Ron!!!!!!") could be inferred, I think.
At my reunion a couple of weeks ago (I wrote some of my reunion buddies yesterday, starting with "I can't believe it's been a whole week since we all had breakfast together." Then I realized that the breakfast with my teammates was two weeks ago!) I spoke with a classmate about the controversy surrounding the college's nickname/mascot, Lord Jeff, after, of course, Lord Jeffery Amherst. The college, with the overwhelming support of the student body and faculty, has distanced itself from "Lord Jeff" and it is no longer used. My classmate is a lawyer and he insisted that none of the "evidence" used to "indict" Lord Jeffery Amherst of selling/giving smallpox-infested blankets during the French and Indian War would hold up in court. (I've noted, in past blogs, that the historical evidence is also sketchy and that in war, killing is killing, regardless of smallpox, cannons, scalping, etc. And some of the so-called "targets" of the smallpox were themselves murderers, rapists, and slave traders. But my arguments, of course, are of no avail. I'm on the wrong side of political correctness. Facts be damned.) And that's what my lawyer classmate insisted, "Facts be damned." In a court, Amherst would not at all be convicted. There isn't any direct evidence. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "a preponderance of evidence."
So, that has led me to wonder if the place has changed, at least academically. Back when, we'd have never been able to get away with such sloppy thinking. We were always challenged (even with poor grades!) to think clearly, to use facts to support our arguments and theses. It seems that Amherst has strayed from so challenging students. Has critical thinking (Oh, how I hesitate to use that co-opted and corrupted phrase!) has been replaced by jumping on the latest diversity bandwagon? It was always stunning to me that, at least according to official college sources, a huge majority of students supported getting rid of Lord Jeff because of the smallpox-infested blankets. But there isn't any concrete evidence to indict, let alone, convict Amherst. So then, why such a huge majority? Where are the naysayers, those who might at least raise a voice against the railroad job? Are they intimidated into silence? Or, are there few if any naysayers? Has everyone bought into the "dump Lord Jeff" bandwagon? This is more than just a mascot, as much as I prefer to keep it. It's the thought that the college has become a different place, one no longer devoted to rigorous thinking. I really hope I am wrong, but my classmate lawyer presented a pretty good argument that I'm not.
I've seen the ads and newspaper articles. Hillary Clinton's nomination is historic. OK, I'll get this off my mind right away. Is she really the first major party nominee to be the subject of an ongoing Justice Department criminal probe? Oops! Nah, that's not what I'm focused on here. How pathetic it is that the first woman Presidential nominee of a major party is someone like Hillary Clinton! I would think decent women, well men too, would be appalled at this. (I am often reminded of the depression to which George Bush Daddy succumbed after losing in '92. It wasn't that he lost the election, but that he lost it to a person like Bill Clinton. Indeed......) Is there any way to save ourselves from Clinton? No, Don Trump won't save us, but I've made my point very clearly on his nomination/candidacy, too. When given a choice between two evils, choose neither. When will American voters stand up and finally say, to both political parties, "NO! We refuse to accept the garbage you keep giving us!" I fear never.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Technology
Far be it from me to blaspheme against the god of technology, but......
It is interesting to note how the new technology of the past couple of decades has influenced people's lives, most specifically, their daily lives. Think of the technological advances, in communications, of the past. There was, of course, Gutenberg's printing press back in the 15th Century. Books were now easier to print/publish, easier to read, and cheaper. With all of that, people were encouraged to read. Ideas could now be spread to more people in more places. And, with reading, people had their horizons expanded. Following two and a half and three centuries later came the Enlightenment. A coincidence? I think not. And remember I've written before that I think the difference between Christianity and Islam (esp radical Islam) is that the West has had an Enlightenment, but there has been none in the Muslim world.
Continuing with books/reading, paperback books about 60 years ago also had an important impact, esp in the cost of reading.
We must toss in telegraphy, telephones, radio and, esp, television. (I hope I'm not unintentionally omitting any others.) Can the influences of those inventions be overemphasized? I don't think so.
Then in the last decades of the 20th Century came the computer. The computer spawned all the latest technology that surrounds us, ubiquitously!
Before I go into my blasphemy of the god of technology, each of the other major advances brought some negative (Boy, I still dislike using that word. It conjures up bad memories of people unable to debate, defend their ideas. Rather, they just tossed out epithets, "negative" one of the most common.) For instance, television has provided some wonderful things. But, at least from my view, it has also become an incredible waste land. I think it has dumbed down people, increased immorality, and more.
So, we're left with cell phones, tweets and twits and texts, and the like. In a way, all that is quite fitting with our cultural changes, that everyone gets a trophy, everyone is special and a winner, etc. Nobody is a loser or, if there is one, it's not his/her fault. Talking on a cell phone or texting, I think, makes one feel important. Hey, why would being able to talk on a cell phone incessantly, text all day long, etc. make one "important?" (That I don't have a cell phone doesn't mean I couldn't use one. I choose not to use one, finding them very rude or, at least, the people who seem to be on them all of the time rude. Need I remind that not once, but twice I was rear-ending by dingbats on their cell phones. One time, my car was totaled and the officer told me I was lucky to get out without any injuries or even worse. I replied if I was "lucky," I wouldn't have been rear-ended. But think of the nice, quiet dinner at a restaurant interrupted by people at surrounding tables on their phones. How about parents at their kids' ball games or dance recitals or anything, not paying attention to what their kids are doing, but working that cell phone to death--I wish! Isn't it just great, too, to be grocery shopping and listening to the angry rants, complete with expletive deleteds, from some inconsiderate, but self-important, of course, ding-a-ling?)
Hey, in those parentheses, I think I just made my point! I'm not going back to change or edit; I have to leave for a running date in about ten minutes. I have two other things, the "historic" nomination of Clinton for President and the changes at Amherst College, at least from 45-50 years ago. But they'll wait until tomorrow or the weekend.
It is interesting to note how the new technology of the past couple of decades has influenced people's lives, most specifically, their daily lives. Think of the technological advances, in communications, of the past. There was, of course, Gutenberg's printing press back in the 15th Century. Books were now easier to print/publish, easier to read, and cheaper. With all of that, people were encouraged to read. Ideas could now be spread to more people in more places. And, with reading, people had their horizons expanded. Following two and a half and three centuries later came the Enlightenment. A coincidence? I think not. And remember I've written before that I think the difference between Christianity and Islam (esp radical Islam) is that the West has had an Enlightenment, but there has been none in the Muslim world.
Continuing with books/reading, paperback books about 60 years ago also had an important impact, esp in the cost of reading.
We must toss in telegraphy, telephones, radio and, esp, television. (I hope I'm not unintentionally omitting any others.) Can the influences of those inventions be overemphasized? I don't think so.
Then in the last decades of the 20th Century came the computer. The computer spawned all the latest technology that surrounds us, ubiquitously!
Before I go into my blasphemy of the god of technology, each of the other major advances brought some negative (Boy, I still dislike using that word. It conjures up bad memories of people unable to debate, defend their ideas. Rather, they just tossed out epithets, "negative" one of the most common.) For instance, television has provided some wonderful things. But, at least from my view, it has also become an incredible waste land. I think it has dumbed down people, increased immorality, and more.
So, we're left with cell phones, tweets and twits and texts, and the like. In a way, all that is quite fitting with our cultural changes, that everyone gets a trophy, everyone is special and a winner, etc. Nobody is a loser or, if there is one, it's not his/her fault. Talking on a cell phone or texting, I think, makes one feel important. Hey, why would being able to talk on a cell phone incessantly, text all day long, etc. make one "important?" (That I don't have a cell phone doesn't mean I couldn't use one. I choose not to use one, finding them very rude or, at least, the people who seem to be on them all of the time rude. Need I remind that not once, but twice I was rear-ending by dingbats on their cell phones. One time, my car was totaled and the officer told me I was lucky to get out without any injuries or even worse. I replied if I was "lucky," I wouldn't have been rear-ended. But think of the nice, quiet dinner at a restaurant interrupted by people at surrounding tables on their phones. How about parents at their kids' ball games or dance recitals or anything, not paying attention to what their kids are doing, but working that cell phone to death--I wish! Isn't it just great, too, to be grocery shopping and listening to the angry rants, complete with expletive deleteds, from some inconsiderate, but self-important, of course, ding-a-ling?)
Hey, in those parentheses, I think I just made my point! I'm not going back to change or edit; I have to leave for a running date in about ten minutes. I have two other things, the "historic" nomination of Clinton for President and the changes at Amherst College, at least from 45-50 years ago. But they'll wait until tomorrow or the weekend.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Richard Nixon, Redux
Forty-some years ago, Richard Nixon was unceremoniously ushered out of the Presidency. His resignation, the only American President to resign, saved him from an impeachment trial and, no doubt, a conviction and removal.
But, what were his sins? Why did he become so reviled (if he hadn't been by a large segment of Americans going back to the '40s and '50s) that he had no choice but to resign?
Contrast that with today. Lies, deliberate lies, to enhance or protect one's political position. Use of agencies of the federal gov't to attack political opponents ("enemies lists"). Blatant disregard of the Constitution and federal laws. Why is there no serious opposition to what is happening now? It seems to me that today's scofflaws are every bit as deserving as Nixon to trials and punishment. What's the difference?
Could it be the hatred many elitists had for Nixon? Could it be that, simply, if my guy breaks the law, that's OK; if your guy does, it's Katie bar the door? Could it be a rotten LameStream media, biased and arrogant in its own self-righteousness?
Maybe people have finally become fed up, hence, the support for Trump (and, to an extent Sanders). Trump supporters have had it and see no other solution to the problems of crooked, lying politicians, arrogantly biased media, and a gov't that takes sides, seemingly intent on serving some people at the expense of others.
Anyway, I found it quite distressing to read a reasonably intelligent person's rationale for defeating Sanders in Calif, if only to bolster the chances of nomination for Clinton. As I have written many times, asking "How can any person support Clinton for the Presidency?" It beats me and I can't figure it out.
Gus asked the other day if I noticed how a Metro newspaper seemed to have the same writers of letters-to-the-editor again and again. Yep, I've noticed and it's more than just that one newspaper. All of the Detroit dailies seem to have that situation. I know they don't publish three or four a week, but if you watch, the same names pop up very frequently.
I guess I don't have a problem with that. Many of the writers express intelligent ideas, some with which I agree and some I don't. But the ideas are often sound.
But it reminded me of my own situation. For a while, I was one of those, getting half a dozen or more letters published each year. Then, a couple of years ago, I wrote asking why one of the Metro newspapers was so critical of people/groups who tried to use the machinery of gov't to their advantage, pointing out that's exactly what the two Detroit newspapers did about 20-some years ago to prevent their own demise/deaths. If the newspapers' survival came about by utilizing special gov't influence (or whatever term it might be; I can't think of it right now), why can't others also seek to advance their interests? I guess it's whose ox is being gored, huh?
The murders in Detroit, esp of kids, continues. Is there a day that goes by without a story of someone being shot and killed or wounded down in the city? (The latest was on a street maybe a couple of miles from my boyhood home, actually in the same block.) If there is, there aren't many of them. So, I guess a legitimate question is, where are the Black Lives Matter folks? Why aren't they protesting, to the utmost, the shootings of 3- and 4- and 5-year olds? Where are they? Their credibility is at stake.
But, what were his sins? Why did he become so reviled (if he hadn't been by a large segment of Americans going back to the '40s and '50s) that he had no choice but to resign?
Contrast that with today. Lies, deliberate lies, to enhance or protect one's political position. Use of agencies of the federal gov't to attack political opponents ("enemies lists"). Blatant disregard of the Constitution and federal laws. Why is there no serious opposition to what is happening now? It seems to me that today's scofflaws are every bit as deserving as Nixon to trials and punishment. What's the difference?
Could it be the hatred many elitists had for Nixon? Could it be that, simply, if my guy breaks the law, that's OK; if your guy does, it's Katie bar the door? Could it be a rotten LameStream media, biased and arrogant in its own self-righteousness?
Maybe people have finally become fed up, hence, the support for Trump (and, to an extent Sanders). Trump supporters have had it and see no other solution to the problems of crooked, lying politicians, arrogantly biased media, and a gov't that takes sides, seemingly intent on serving some people at the expense of others.
Anyway, I found it quite distressing to read a reasonably intelligent person's rationale for defeating Sanders in Calif, if only to bolster the chances of nomination for Clinton. As I have written many times, asking "How can any person support Clinton for the Presidency?" It beats me and I can't figure it out.
Gus asked the other day if I noticed how a Metro newspaper seemed to have the same writers of letters-to-the-editor again and again. Yep, I've noticed and it's more than just that one newspaper. All of the Detroit dailies seem to have that situation. I know they don't publish three or four a week, but if you watch, the same names pop up very frequently.
I guess I don't have a problem with that. Many of the writers express intelligent ideas, some with which I agree and some I don't. But the ideas are often sound.
But it reminded me of my own situation. For a while, I was one of those, getting half a dozen or more letters published each year. Then, a couple of years ago, I wrote asking why one of the Metro newspapers was so critical of people/groups who tried to use the machinery of gov't to their advantage, pointing out that's exactly what the two Detroit newspapers did about 20-some years ago to prevent their own demise/deaths. If the newspapers' survival came about by utilizing special gov't influence (or whatever term it might be; I can't think of it right now), why can't others also seek to advance their interests? I guess it's whose ox is being gored, huh?
The murders in Detroit, esp of kids, continues. Is there a day that goes by without a story of someone being shot and killed or wounded down in the city? (The latest was on a street maybe a couple of miles from my boyhood home, actually in the same block.) If there is, there aren't many of them. So, I guess a legitimate question is, where are the Black Lives Matter folks? Why aren't they protesting, to the utmost, the shootings of 3- and 4- and 5-year olds? Where are they? Their credibility is at stake.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Still the Same...
I think that was the title of a Bob Seger song, but I have a different thought in mind.
After running a few miles on the trails this AM, we joined some others and walked a few laps around the nearby ball fields. I was comforted that things seem to be "still the same." Of four fields, eight teams, one routinely ran on and off the field. Routinely? No, I should correct that. Only one team ever ran on and off the field.
Are kids tired, too tired to play? Where are the coaches? I suppose my thought is, even if you can't play, at least look like you want to play. Back when I was a head coach, at the high school and even with my sons, teams ran on and off the field. Even the pitchers usually did, although I didn't require that. Or did I? Individuals who didn't, well they didn't play. After all, if they are too tired, maybe they should rest--over by mommy and daddy. I've tried that since I've been a coach's helper with my grandson's teams. It doesn't work if the head guys don't buy into it. And they don't. Walk in and walk out. It looks pathetic.
Even my grandson's freshman team games saw most teams walk in and walk out. In one game, I was initially concerned that Michael wasn't in the game, at third base. I blurted out, "Where's Michael?" My buddy just said, "He's at third. He ran out there, the only one who did." And coaches, even at the freshman level at the high schools, mostly let their kids walk in and out.
Besides kids being unenthusiastic, that they don't care about playing, and just plain looking bad, there is another reason for running in and out, for having pitchers and, esp, catchers with their gear ready to play--it saves time that could be used for playing. Regularly, in the little league games, between five and ten minutes are taken between innings or, rather, half innings. Kids walk in and out. Catchers don't have on their equipment. Games are scheduled for six innings. Over the course of now nine or ten of Michael's seasons, I'll bet the number of games that went six innings can be counted on one hand. Let's put it this way. The number of games that lasted three innings (time limits) was far greater than those that went the full six. Do the math. For two half innings/one full inning, with all of the dawdling, about ten to fifteen minutes are consumed. Multiply that out for just three innings. Now we're talking half an hour to 45 minutes. How many innings, more innings, can be played in half an hour or 45 minutes? At least one, maybe two. I've tried to explain this to the head coaches, but they don't listen. They played little league and watch games on television (with the interminable television commercials between half innings!), so they know everything.
Why don't umpires make the kids speed up? They could you know. All it would take is after three minutes is a loud "Play Ball!" But why would umpires want more innings? OK, they are still out there for the two-hour time limit. But they only have to actually umpire three or four innings, not five or six. Uh huh......
I see Muhammad Ali died. He was an enigma to me. While I don't usually like the antics like he constantly pulled, his didn't really bother me. His brashness didn't upset me. I guess I realized they were all for show, a game to get interest (money?) in his bouts. His skills were just breath-taking, a heavyweight doing things middle- and welterweights couldn't do.
Now I pulled for him to win, like most people. I remember listening to one of his bouts on the radio (There wasn't the incessant TV coverage of all things sports back then.) in the basement of our fraternity (TD) at Amherst, in '70 or '71 (?). A keg had been tapped and the place was packed, but everyone was quiet enough so we could hear the broadcast.
Maybe it was because he stood up to authority that was attractive. It and he came at just about the right time for that.
I wasn't too fond of his membership in the Black Muslims and I found his claim of "conscientious objector" (I ain't got nothin' against no Viet Congs.") as a draft status during the Vietnam War to be disingenuous. Of course, the courts disagreed with me. But, I wondered and still do, how can one be such a pacifist, yet get in the ring and pummel opponents? Maybe it's not the same thing, killing in war and boxing in a ring, but I still found (and find) it puzzling.
I still remember two stories/quotations and cite them on occasion. "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'." And, once on an airplane, the stewardess (Can I still use that term? Or is that a microaggression?) walked past and asked him to buckle his seat belt. He didn't. She walked passed again, reminding him to buckle up. He didn't. The third time, somewhat exasperated, she more forcefully told him to fasten his seat belt. He just smiled and said, "Superman don't need no seat belt." The stewardess, not missing a beat, came back with, "Superman don't need no airplane." He buckled up.
Great headline on an op-ed in today's newspaper: "November comes down to liar vs liar." Yep, that's nothing new. I keep telling myself, "We can't let Clinton win." Then I realize what I've said and tell myself, "We can't let Trump win." What a dilemma. My mantra remains, "If given a choice between two evils, choose neither."
I see more and more Establishment Republicans are folding their cards and supporting, however tenuously, Trump. Paul Ryan is the latest. Of course, he sold us out on the budget bill/debt ceiling immediately upon being selected Speaker of the House. So, his endorsement isn't really a surprise.
But I notice the protesters are lining up for permits to demonstrate at the Republican Convention in Cleveland. Some are suggesting that the number of protesters might be two or three times the number of delegates inside the convention hall. However, I wonder if the Democrat Convention in Philadelphia will have an equal number (or any?) protest groups. Clinton and the Democrats who are nominating her certainly deserve to be protested every bit as much as Trump and the Republican Establishment.
I wonder if Trump's recent diatribe against the Hispanic judge (second generation?) has finally hit home with Trump supporters. (Actually, the judge has a record of anti-illegal immigration that is stronger than Trumps. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Trump is a loon. And maybe Americans deserve to know the truth behind Trump University, just as we deserve to know the truth behind Clinton as Secretary of State--e-mails, Benghazi, etc.
But, I suspect we won't get either. Oh, the media might jump all over Trump and his record, but the LameStreams treat Clinton, like her husband, as an untouchable. "She who shall not be smeared!"
BTW, a recent Congressional hearing demonstrated that there are not dozens, but hundreds (or was it thousands?) of illegal immigrants in the US who have committed felonies who have been released from custody and who have committed other felonies, including hundreds (or was it thousands?) of murders. And, our Senators and Congressmen talked a big game, pointing fingers at the Justice Dept, the courts, ICE and other federal agencies. But, I'm sure that's all it's going to come to--talk. "We have important things to do here." (Isn't that what Alcee Hastings said of criticism that members of Congress were voting to pass ObamaCare without reading it? "Read the bill? We don't have time to read the bill. W'ere trying to do important things here!" Or something like that.) So, they don't have the time (or interest or guts or......) to deal with illegal immigrants who have committed felonies who have been released from custody and commit more felonies (like homocides!), but they have plenty of time to force us to buy health insurance, certain flush toilets, light bulbs, television sets, shower heads, and the list goes on. Show me, again, where in the Constitution the federal government specifically has the power to do all this stuff. I can show you where the Constitution requires the federal gov't to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic]......"
After running a few miles on the trails this AM, we joined some others and walked a few laps around the nearby ball fields. I was comforted that things seem to be "still the same." Of four fields, eight teams, one routinely ran on and off the field. Routinely? No, I should correct that. Only one team ever ran on and off the field.
Are kids tired, too tired to play? Where are the coaches? I suppose my thought is, even if you can't play, at least look like you want to play. Back when I was a head coach, at the high school and even with my sons, teams ran on and off the field. Even the pitchers usually did, although I didn't require that. Or did I? Individuals who didn't, well they didn't play. After all, if they are too tired, maybe they should rest--over by mommy and daddy. I've tried that since I've been a coach's helper with my grandson's teams. It doesn't work if the head guys don't buy into it. And they don't. Walk in and walk out. It looks pathetic.
Even my grandson's freshman team games saw most teams walk in and walk out. In one game, I was initially concerned that Michael wasn't in the game, at third base. I blurted out, "Where's Michael?" My buddy just said, "He's at third. He ran out there, the only one who did." And coaches, even at the freshman level at the high schools, mostly let their kids walk in and out.
Besides kids being unenthusiastic, that they don't care about playing, and just plain looking bad, there is another reason for running in and out, for having pitchers and, esp, catchers with their gear ready to play--it saves time that could be used for playing. Regularly, in the little league games, between five and ten minutes are taken between innings or, rather, half innings. Kids walk in and out. Catchers don't have on their equipment. Games are scheduled for six innings. Over the course of now nine or ten of Michael's seasons, I'll bet the number of games that went six innings can be counted on one hand. Let's put it this way. The number of games that lasted three innings (time limits) was far greater than those that went the full six. Do the math. For two half innings/one full inning, with all of the dawdling, about ten to fifteen minutes are consumed. Multiply that out for just three innings. Now we're talking half an hour to 45 minutes. How many innings, more innings, can be played in half an hour or 45 minutes? At least one, maybe two. I've tried to explain this to the head coaches, but they don't listen. They played little league and watch games on television (with the interminable television commercials between half innings!), so they know everything.
Why don't umpires make the kids speed up? They could you know. All it would take is after three minutes is a loud "Play Ball!" But why would umpires want more innings? OK, they are still out there for the two-hour time limit. But they only have to actually umpire three or four innings, not five or six. Uh huh......
I see Muhammad Ali died. He was an enigma to me. While I don't usually like the antics like he constantly pulled, his didn't really bother me. His brashness didn't upset me. I guess I realized they were all for show, a game to get interest (money?) in his bouts. His skills were just breath-taking, a heavyweight doing things middle- and welterweights couldn't do.
Now I pulled for him to win, like most people. I remember listening to one of his bouts on the radio (There wasn't the incessant TV coverage of all things sports back then.) in the basement of our fraternity (TD) at Amherst, in '70 or '71 (?). A keg had been tapped and the place was packed, but everyone was quiet enough so we could hear the broadcast.
Maybe it was because he stood up to authority that was attractive. It and he came at just about the right time for that.
I wasn't too fond of his membership in the Black Muslims and I found his claim of "conscientious objector" (I ain't got nothin' against no Viet Congs.") as a draft status during the Vietnam War to be disingenuous. Of course, the courts disagreed with me. But, I wondered and still do, how can one be such a pacifist, yet get in the ring and pummel opponents? Maybe it's not the same thing, killing in war and boxing in a ring, but I still found (and find) it puzzling.
I still remember two stories/quotations and cite them on occasion. "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'." And, once on an airplane, the stewardess (Can I still use that term? Or is that a microaggression?) walked past and asked him to buckle his seat belt. He didn't. She walked passed again, reminding him to buckle up. He didn't. The third time, somewhat exasperated, she more forcefully told him to fasten his seat belt. He just smiled and said, "Superman don't need no seat belt." The stewardess, not missing a beat, came back with, "Superman don't need no airplane." He buckled up.
Great headline on an op-ed in today's newspaper: "November comes down to liar vs liar." Yep, that's nothing new. I keep telling myself, "We can't let Clinton win." Then I realize what I've said and tell myself, "We can't let Trump win." What a dilemma. My mantra remains, "If given a choice between two evils, choose neither."
I see more and more Establishment Republicans are folding their cards and supporting, however tenuously, Trump. Paul Ryan is the latest. Of course, he sold us out on the budget bill/debt ceiling immediately upon being selected Speaker of the House. So, his endorsement isn't really a surprise.
But I notice the protesters are lining up for permits to demonstrate at the Republican Convention in Cleveland. Some are suggesting that the number of protesters might be two or three times the number of delegates inside the convention hall. However, I wonder if the Democrat Convention in Philadelphia will have an equal number (or any?) protest groups. Clinton and the Democrats who are nominating her certainly deserve to be protested every bit as much as Trump and the Republican Establishment.
I wonder if Trump's recent diatribe against the Hispanic judge (second generation?) has finally hit home with Trump supporters. (Actually, the judge has a record of anti-illegal immigration that is stronger than Trumps. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up.") Trump is a loon. And maybe Americans deserve to know the truth behind Trump University, just as we deserve to know the truth behind Clinton as Secretary of State--e-mails, Benghazi, etc.
But, I suspect we won't get either. Oh, the media might jump all over Trump and his record, but the LameStreams treat Clinton, like her husband, as an untouchable. "She who shall not be smeared!"
BTW, a recent Congressional hearing demonstrated that there are not dozens, but hundreds (or was it thousands?) of illegal immigrants in the US who have committed felonies who have been released from custody and who have committed other felonies, including hundreds (or was it thousands?) of murders. And, our Senators and Congressmen talked a big game, pointing fingers at the Justice Dept, the courts, ICE and other federal agencies. But, I'm sure that's all it's going to come to--talk. "We have important things to do here." (Isn't that what Alcee Hastings said of criticism that members of Congress were voting to pass ObamaCare without reading it? "Read the bill? We don't have time to read the bill. W'ere trying to do important things here!" Or something like that.) So, they don't have the time (or interest or guts or......) to deal with illegal immigrants who have committed felonies who have been released from custody and commit more felonies (like homocides!), but they have plenty of time to force us to buy health insurance, certain flush toilets, light bulbs, television sets, shower heads, and the list goes on. Show me, again, where in the Constitution the federal government specifically has the power to do all this stuff. I can show you where the Constitution requires the federal gov't to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic]......"
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Real History?
As I'm reading the bio of the Wright Brothers by David McCullough, I am reminded of several conversations I had with a colleague at one of the colleges.
I've always been fond of McCullough's works, beginning with his massive bio of Harry Truman. I believe the HBO series on John Adams was based on McCullough's fine bio. And I have a signed copy of his 1776, given to me by a former student. ("To Mr. Marinucci," he wrote on the title page, "Greetings from one historian to another." I hope he isn't putting me in his league! And my former student? Perhaps my former students exaggerate like my college teammates??????) He's written books on the Johnstown Flood, the Panama Canal, Teddy Roosevelt, American expatriate artists and authors in Paris in the '20s, and more. I think McCullough is a fine historian, one of my two or three favorites to read.
And that brings me to my point. My college colleague, since deceased, always was critical of McCullough and his works. "He's not a trained history," was his repeated denunciation. I would argue, "But are his works accurate? Are they readable?" My colleague couldn't deny that they were both, very readable and accurate. But he stuck to his guns, again with, "He's not a trained historian."
If I recall, McCullough's degree is in English and his early jobs included work at newspapers, writing and editing. He learned well, I think. Some might quibble with his conclusions/assessments. For instance, he holds Truman to be "a great President." I am not quite as effusive, but almost, in my praise for Truman; I think he belongs in the top ten of rankings, ahead of others whose popularity rates more than their effectiveness. But that's fine--"great" or near great? That's the stuff of history, the interpretation.
McCullough is also a good speaker and has delivered sound speeches on the importance of history and, esp, how to teach it. He's big on bringing in the human aspect of history, that history is made by people, people of all stripes.
I'd really like to see McCullough write a bio of Franklin Roosevelt. I'm curious as to his assessment. I realize that FDR is a "great" President in so far as his influence is concerned. I don't think that "greatness" is reflected in the good of his influence; that is, I think what he did, short-term as well as esp long-term, was detrimental to the US and the American way of life. I know that's contrary to what we see in most US History textbooks or hear from most historians, but like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the Coolidge Presidency, and other episodes of history, I think mainstream historians have got it wrong. Still, I'd relish to see McCullough's evaluation of FDR.
In a similar vein, perhaps, a few days ago I sent around the Word of the Day entry. The word was "mugwump." It's general definition is "a person who is unable to make up his or her mind on an issue, esp. in politics; a person who is neutral on a controversial issue." There are more specific references, too, with etymology stemming, it is claimed, from the Algonquin language. In the e-mail I forwarded, I included this, "Some of you who had Professor Rozwenc might recall his definition of 'mugwump.' It was one "who sat on a fence, his mug hanging over one side and his wump over the other." Professor Starr (Math), from Amherst, replied to me, "Thanks, Ron. I always wondereed what 'mugwump' meant. Takes a history like you to inform me." Praise from the gods is always cool!
I mentioned my thesis for my third, ugh!, masters degree. It was 268 pages. The title? French Foreign Policy of the Interwar Years. Mostly, with some background of the '20s, it focuses on French actions, reactions, and inactions of the '30s, up to and including the Munich Agreement. It ,sprang from a couple of papers I had done earlier, both at Amherst and in grad school, on the British actions, reactions, and inactions of the '30s. I suppose, in a sense, my thesis was a look at the French the way John Kennedy (at Harvard) looked at the British in his thesis (later becoming a book, Why England Slept.) I chuckle at the thought...... Instructions for the thesis included a suggested length of about 75 pages. Oops! I just kept going and going and going. The toughest part was typing; this was before computers and word-processing! After my oral comprehensive exams at Amherst (which were very difficult), I was really sweating my thesis defense, in front of three professors. I was almost shocked when my adviser opened with something like this, "It's apparent you know far more about this than we do. What do you want to talk about?" I didn't have to defend my thesis; apparently it defended itself. I asked if I could just go home. My son Matt had been born just a few weeks earlier and I wanted to spend time with my family after weeks of hectic preparation for the defense, a new-born, etc.
I've always been fond of McCullough's works, beginning with his massive bio of Harry Truman. I believe the HBO series on John Adams was based on McCullough's fine bio. And I have a signed copy of his 1776, given to me by a former student. ("To Mr. Marinucci," he wrote on the title page, "Greetings from one historian to another." I hope he isn't putting me in his league! And my former student? Perhaps my former students exaggerate like my college teammates??????) He's written books on the Johnstown Flood, the Panama Canal, Teddy Roosevelt, American expatriate artists and authors in Paris in the '20s, and more. I think McCullough is a fine historian, one of my two or three favorites to read.
And that brings me to my point. My college colleague, since deceased, always was critical of McCullough and his works. "He's not a trained history," was his repeated denunciation. I would argue, "But are his works accurate? Are they readable?" My colleague couldn't deny that they were both, very readable and accurate. But he stuck to his guns, again with, "He's not a trained historian."
If I recall, McCullough's degree is in English and his early jobs included work at newspapers, writing and editing. He learned well, I think. Some might quibble with his conclusions/assessments. For instance, he holds Truman to be "a great President." I am not quite as effusive, but almost, in my praise for Truman; I think he belongs in the top ten of rankings, ahead of others whose popularity rates more than their effectiveness. But that's fine--"great" or near great? That's the stuff of history, the interpretation.
McCullough is also a good speaker and has delivered sound speeches on the importance of history and, esp, how to teach it. He's big on bringing in the human aspect of history, that history is made by people, people of all stripes.
I'd really like to see McCullough write a bio of Franklin Roosevelt. I'm curious as to his assessment. I realize that FDR is a "great" President in so far as his influence is concerned. I don't think that "greatness" is reflected in the good of his influence; that is, I think what he did, short-term as well as esp long-term, was detrimental to the US and the American way of life. I know that's contrary to what we see in most US History textbooks or hear from most historians, but like Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the Coolidge Presidency, and other episodes of history, I think mainstream historians have got it wrong. Still, I'd relish to see McCullough's evaluation of FDR.
In a similar vein, perhaps, a few days ago I sent around the Word of the Day entry. The word was "mugwump." It's general definition is "a person who is unable to make up his or her mind on an issue, esp. in politics; a person who is neutral on a controversial issue." There are more specific references, too, with etymology stemming, it is claimed, from the Algonquin language. In the e-mail I forwarded, I included this, "Some of you who had Professor Rozwenc might recall his definition of 'mugwump.' It was one "who sat on a fence, his mug hanging over one side and his wump over the other." Professor Starr (Math), from Amherst, replied to me, "Thanks, Ron. I always wondereed what 'mugwump' meant. Takes a history like you to inform me." Praise from the gods is always cool!
I mentioned my thesis for my third, ugh!, masters degree. It was 268 pages. The title? French Foreign Policy of the Interwar Years. Mostly, with some background of the '20s, it focuses on French actions, reactions, and inactions of the '30s, up to and including the Munich Agreement. It ,sprang from a couple of papers I had done earlier, both at Amherst and in grad school, on the British actions, reactions, and inactions of the '30s. I suppose, in a sense, my thesis was a look at the French the way John Kennedy (at Harvard) looked at the British in his thesis (later becoming a book, Why England Slept.) I chuckle at the thought...... Instructions for the thesis included a suggested length of about 75 pages. Oops! I just kept going and going and going. The toughest part was typing; this was before computers and word-processing! After my oral comprehensive exams at Amherst (which were very difficult), I was really sweating my thesis defense, in front of three professors. I was almost shocked when my adviser opened with something like this, "It's apparent you know far more about this than we do. What do you want to talk about?" I didn't have to defend my thesis; apparently it defended itself. I asked if I could just go home. My son Matt had been born just a few weeks earlier and I wanted to spend time with my family after weeks of hectic preparation for the defense, a new-born, etc.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Calvin Coolidge
Amity Shlaes has written a fine biography of our 30th President, Calvin Coolidge. I have always been skeptical of the image of Coolidge portrayed in our textbooks. Shlaes' book provides a good lesson, as well as a good look at "Silent Cal."
It's intellectually healthy to question the generalizations found in our history textbooks. For whatever reasons--limited space, differences of political views, long-time (even wrong) conclusions--the pictures painted of Coolidge are not accurate. His efforts, achievements, and legacy have been misinterpreted and misrepresented, perhaps even willfully.
I've had a fond place in my studies for Coolidge since we are college mates, although he attended Amherst about 70 years before I did. No, we didn't have any of the same professors. If I recall correctly, he took the same lessons about life from some of his professors that I did. We both found many of our professors to be inspirational.
Some historians (and their textbooks) seem to lay blame or at least some of it for the Depression at the feet of Coolidge. Actually, he foresaw the Depression, months if not a year or more in advance. It wasn't his policies that worried him, but the efforts of a Congress that strayed from what Coolidge urged.
One of his worries stemmed from the Depression or, rather, the federal gov't's response to it. In dire times, people often are easily led, succumbing to the exhortations of power-driven politicians that more gov't can solve the problems or at least palliate them. (OK, some politicians mean well and likely even believe that the gov't can alleviate problems.) In that event, people will expect too much from the gov't, will give it too much power. When the difficulty passes, will gov't readily forfeit the emergency/expedient power it had been given? Coolidge worried that it wouldn't, that the taste of power was too alluring.
Coolidge was also concerned about the growing idea in the early years of the 20th Century that gov't could steal, er, take one group of people's money (that is tax the wealthy!) to give programs to other groups. Let people spend their money, charitably or otherwise, the ways they want. After all, the money is theirs.
Although he wasn't as "silent" as usually portrayed, Coolidge did have some personal foibles. He could be pouty, fly off the handle pretty easily, and sometimes show petty selfishness. But that's far from the entire picture. Often, he led his life as an example or at least he tried to do that. Here's one story. He was contractually commissioned by a magazine to write ten columns/articles at the then healthy fee of $2000 a pop. The mag ran only six of his writings. Coolidge went to the publisher and asked why all ten weren't printed. After all, he had the contract--ten articles for $20,000. The publisher (and his lawyers) were prepared, reminding him he had been paid for all ten. Coolidge, though, reminded them only six found their way into the magazine. "But you have been paid......" That was of no matter to Coolidge. When the publisher added that the other four weren't good enough to make the cut, Coolidge pulled out his check book and wrote a check for $8000. He insisted the contract was for articles that were published; since four of them weren't, he didn't earn or deserve the money. He paid back the publisher. How's that for leading by example?
I am starting David McCullough's bio of the Wright Brothers. I have read a couple of excerpts and am eagerly looking forward to it. And, this will seem odd, sometime soon I want to read my own thesis, all 268 pages of it. I wrote it, but other than proofreading it, have never sat down and read it. I hope I won't be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
