Someone asked me last night what I thought of the Republican and Democratic conventions the past two weeks. She was somewhat disappointed that I watched neither. I watched not a minute.
I don't believe much of what either party says. And I continue to use the old Judy Collins song title, "Send in the Clowns." And, apparently, the Dems did just that.
Some comedienne (Can I still use the feminine version or am I creating a microaggression?) who I never heard of called Bernie Sanders supporters "ridiculous." The "Bernie or Bust" folks were booing throughout the first few days of the convention. And this comedienne, in her speech, said, "To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous." Hmmm...... So that's what the Dems now think? People who are expressing their opinions, right or wrong (and you know where I stand on Sanders), are "ridiculous?" I guess that isn't a surprise, is it?
My son has offered a unique opinion. He thinks Trump might well be running as a joke of sorts, that soon he'll just say about his campaign, "I was just kidding." I don't think so, but the newspaper the other day suggested something similar. "Is Trump trying to get Clinton elected?" the editorial headline read. That's food for thought. After all, has Trump over the years been a booster of the Clintons? I really don't know, not having been a follower of Trump or, for that matter, a fan of either of the Clintons. But there have been clips of Don saying good things about them.
There are many reasons not to vote for Trump. There are also many reasons not to vote for Clinton. I have cited them previously. But to follow one theme of last week, that Clinton would continue the legacy of Obama, is yet another to shun the Democrat. Do we really need another four or eight years of the divisiveness of Obama, of the lies of Obama (I know, I know, "But Bush lied."), of the gov't intrusion of Obama, of the putrid economic growth of Obama, of the disastrous foreign policy of Obama, and the list is practically infinite.
OK, I know it's probably not PC to used "comedienne" for a female comedian. After all we can't use "actress" any longer. It's "actor," whether male or female. We can't use "stewardess" any longer, In fact, it's attendant. We can't use "chairwoman" any longer. It's "chairperson." (I remember long ago, when "chairman" and "chairwoman" first were frowned upon, I referred to an education-type as the "chairwoman." She was indignant, insisting on being called "chairperson." I asked why and she referred to the apparent insult of "-woman," demanding the neutral "person." I considered her wishes and conceded, henceforth referring to her as the "chairone." Isn't "one" a neutral pronoun?) But isn't there some boob tube show called "The Bachelorette?" (spelling?) If so, why isn't that a similar microaggression? Or is Hollywood enough of a safe place to get away with it?
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Tue Thoughts
On our run today, I was asked, "Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?" Thinking back to some of my comments, maybe I did. But maybe what's going on is a better explanation.
As a columnist in the newspaper today asked, why do some folks/groups get the book (legal book) thrown at them while others continue to skate away Scot-free? The auto companies, he pointed out, have rightly been nailed with tens of billions of dollars in fines for their dishonesty involving a smattering of issues, from recall cover-ups to mileage fraud to false sales figures. But how many bankers and Wall Street-types were similarly punished? The dishonesty, fraud, lying, etc. by these people caused the loss of jobs, savings, homes, and more. Yet where were the "high-profile prosecutions," let alone prison sentences?
Think the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us??????
For that matter, where is the prosecution for the bald-faced lying by politicians? They lie and they know they lie and we know they lie--deliberately. Of course we immediately think of Clinton (both of them), Obama, W Bush, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest. (Note I included both parties.) Think of the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us?????? Where is some watchdog to hold them accountable? Obviously, much of the electorate is too apathetic, trusting, preoccupied, or stupid to care. Those who do care and point out the lies, etc., are marginalized or ignored by and Establishment more concerned with itself than with constituents or the nation. And the Establishment is buttressed by a compliant LameStream media. BTW, where has been the prosecution and punishment of the LameStreams who have lied and distorted? Of course, they hide behind the shield of the First Amendment. But does the First Amendment protect against deliberate dishonesty? Not all Bill of Rights guarantees are absolute. Your right, it is said, to swing your fist wherever you desire stops at my nose.
And all the government bureaucrats who are about as duplicitous as those corporate types, where is the watchdog holding them accountable/responsible?
As the columnist pointed out, there is a "rigged system [with] two sets of rules." It's like the Clinton e-mail felony. You and I would have been prosecuted and likely with zeal long ago had we done what she did. That, as one of my classmates said in defending Clinton wrote, "We all mix our personal and business e-mails. It saves time.....," is not at all the same. Isn't there quite a bit of difference in work/personal e-mails and classified and top-secret information?????? If some can't see the difference, well, they just can't see the difference--if you know what I mean.
That's why so many folks are upset. There is a set of rules for "them" and another for "us."
And the Democratic Convention????? How can anyone belong to a group that, well, works to undermine its own people, works to negate the wishes of a large segment of its party? Note the DNC leaks about the Sanders campaign. Does anyone think the Clintons and their supporters weren't behind that? Well, anyone except the willfully blind?
And how can a party ask someone like Elizabeth Warren to speak? "Fauxchahontas?" What does that say about the morals/ethics/principles of the Democrats?
I am still astonished to see any "Clinton" tee-shirts, banners, etc. I don't understand. Regular (both of you) readers of One Man's Lonely Opinions know I won't be voting for the charlatan (or worse) Don Trump. But I can't at all imagine anyone voting for Clinton, either. A few weeks back, another columnist suggested we "deserve" better than Trump or Clinton. He did not at all explain exactly why we "deserve" better than than these two "pathological liars" (and, remember, those aren't my words, but those of national pundits!), but maybe those two completely rotten candidates are just what we "deserve." What is it that we have become?
More in a few days, if not sooner.
As a columnist in the newspaper today asked, why do some folks/groups get the book (legal book) thrown at them while others continue to skate away Scot-free? The auto companies, he pointed out, have rightly been nailed with tens of billions of dollars in fines for their dishonesty involving a smattering of issues, from recall cover-ups to mileage fraud to false sales figures. But how many bankers and Wall Street-types were similarly punished? The dishonesty, fraud, lying, etc. by these people caused the loss of jobs, savings, homes, and more. Yet where were the "high-profile prosecutions," let alone prison sentences?
Think the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us??????
For that matter, where is the prosecution for the bald-faced lying by politicians? They lie and they know they lie and we know they lie--deliberately. Of course we immediately think of Clinton (both of them), Obama, W Bush, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest. (Note I included both parties.) Think of the state government and Flint...... We're still waiting, aren't we? Don't forget to take a look closer to home, in local and school politics. Certainly you don't believe our local elected officials or their appointees are forthwith with us?????? Where is some watchdog to hold them accountable? Obviously, much of the electorate is too apathetic, trusting, preoccupied, or stupid to care. Those who do care and point out the lies, etc., are marginalized or ignored by and Establishment more concerned with itself than with constituents or the nation. And the Establishment is buttressed by a compliant LameStream media. BTW, where has been the prosecution and punishment of the LameStreams who have lied and distorted? Of course, they hide behind the shield of the First Amendment. But does the First Amendment protect against deliberate dishonesty? Not all Bill of Rights guarantees are absolute. Your right, it is said, to swing your fist wherever you desire stops at my nose.
And all the government bureaucrats who are about as duplicitous as those corporate types, where is the watchdog holding them accountable/responsible?
As the columnist pointed out, there is a "rigged system [with] two sets of rules." It's like the Clinton e-mail felony. You and I would have been prosecuted and likely with zeal long ago had we done what she did. That, as one of my classmates said in defending Clinton wrote, "We all mix our personal and business e-mails. It saves time.....," is not at all the same. Isn't there quite a bit of difference in work/personal e-mails and classified and top-secret information?????? If some can't see the difference, well, they just can't see the difference--if you know what I mean.
That's why so many folks are upset. There is a set of rules for "them" and another for "us."
And the Democratic Convention????? How can anyone belong to a group that, well, works to undermine its own people, works to negate the wishes of a large segment of its party? Note the DNC leaks about the Sanders campaign. Does anyone think the Clintons and their supporters weren't behind that? Well, anyone except the willfully blind?
And how can a party ask someone like Elizabeth Warren to speak? "Fauxchahontas?" What does that say about the morals/ethics/principles of the Democrats?
I am still astonished to see any "Clinton" tee-shirts, banners, etc. I don't understand. Regular (both of you) readers of One Man's Lonely Opinions know I won't be voting for the charlatan (or worse) Don Trump. But I can't at all imagine anyone voting for Clinton, either. A few weeks back, another columnist suggested we "deserve" better than Trump or Clinton. He did not at all explain exactly why we "deserve" better than than these two "pathological liars" (and, remember, those aren't my words, but those of national pundits!), but maybe those two completely rotten candidates are just what we "deserve." What is it that we have become?
More in a few days, if not sooner.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Steam Bath
The steam bath continues, with temps in the mid-90s and humididity to match. Matt, in from Las Vegas, hasn't commented yet. The sticky stuff is slated to be around for a while, so we'd better get used to it.
I've worked out early in the AM, with just a couple of hours of outside/yard work each day since about Wed. Boy, that heat and humididity just saps me. I am beaten by 9 or 10 PM.
Persnickety? That's a cool word and I wonder if it applies to me. I think similar words might well be fussy, eccentric, finicky, and even picky. I think I prefer, to all these words, at least in applying to me, the word "particular." I'm not sure if it or the others are official synonyms, but I like "particular."
I like, at least at home, to eat off of certain plates, with certain silverware. We, like most households I suppose, have several sets of plates and silverware. And I like to use just a handful of cups and glasses from which to drink. I am the same way with where I sit and, often, what I wear. I can't stand that the car automatically locks its doors. I disabled it in my car, but K's car still locks it. Someone once asked me what was wrong with that. I said, "Two things. One, if I want my car doors to be locked, I can do it, not the car. Two, I'm not lazy; I can lock my own doors." What led me to think about this a bit came the other day. Earlier in the AM, I took a tumble while running. I tripped over one of those frames used to post "Garage Sale" signs in the neighborhood. The sun hadn't risen yet and it was dusky (Can I used "dusky" for an early AM?). The frame was lying in the dust on the shoulder of the road and, obviously (at least I hope so), I didn't see it. Down I went. I was fine, with just a pretty nasty scrape on my wrist from my GPS watch. It hasn't really healed much since I rub it raw again while putting on my watch each day to run. Carrie suggested, "Why don't you wear your watch on your other wrist?" Whoa! I think my look told her why I couldn't. Yes, "particular" seems about right.
Is this one true? One of the cable news shows gave viewers a glimpse of some campaign bumper stickers. Before showing, "Hillary for Prison," the show gave a warning, "Some viewers may find the following offensive." (Surely Clinton would, but others?) Is this one true?????? If so, heaven help us all.
I know Ted Cruz has received a heap of criticism for his speech the other night in Cleveland. I didn't hear/watch it. (I was washing my hair that evening.) But it seems to me he was pretty courageous in giving it. He has watched his party sell out, the Establishment forsaking traditional Republican values. He has watched a charlatan somehow convince enough folks to get the Republican nomination. He has watched many of those same Establishment-types he ran against to gain his TX seat, first oppose Trump for being, well, not a Republican (as if the Establishment-types are!) and then endorsing/supporting him. To say what he said was not only courageous, but was the moral and ethical thing to do.
I was distressed this AM, although not particularly surprised, at the number of my college classmates who have jumped on the Clinton bandwagon. Their comments seemed to be those of enablers. A few suggested that they do the same thing Clinton did with the e-mails and servers at their places of employment. "It's just a way to save time," one wrote. Another said it was merely to keep all of her contacts in the same place. Huh?????? No, it's not the "same thing." And, if it is, maybe some folks deserve to be fired from their jobs. How many of their work e-mails contain "classified" and "top secret" documents and information? How many of them work in occupations that are essential to the security of the US and its citizens?
Did they completely ignore Comey's report? It was damning, both toward Clinton and toward Comey, although he's not running for President.
Most of them are right in their criticisms of Trump. But they seem far, far off base in supporting Clinton. As I have suggested many times, had you and I done what she did, I think not only would we be indicted, but convicted and in jail.
BTW, Trump apparently said something I agree with, but seems to have set off another firestorm among the elites. I guess he said the US shouldn't agree to come to the aid of NATO members if they don't fulfill their own obligations. One, I guess, is that they should fund NATO with at least 2% of their military budgets (or was it their entire budgets?). Regardless of the budgets, why shouldn't these nations pay their own way? Why should they get to freeload? They make stupid foreign policies and then expect the US to bail them out, but they don't fulfill their obligations?
I've worked out early in the AM, with just a couple of hours of outside/yard work each day since about Wed. Boy, that heat and humididity just saps me. I am beaten by 9 or 10 PM.
Persnickety? That's a cool word and I wonder if it applies to me. I think similar words might well be fussy, eccentric, finicky, and even picky. I think I prefer, to all these words, at least in applying to me, the word "particular." I'm not sure if it or the others are official synonyms, but I like "particular."
I like, at least at home, to eat off of certain plates, with certain silverware. We, like most households I suppose, have several sets of plates and silverware. And I like to use just a handful of cups and glasses from which to drink. I am the same way with where I sit and, often, what I wear. I can't stand that the car automatically locks its doors. I disabled it in my car, but K's car still locks it. Someone once asked me what was wrong with that. I said, "Two things. One, if I want my car doors to be locked, I can do it, not the car. Two, I'm not lazy; I can lock my own doors." What led me to think about this a bit came the other day. Earlier in the AM, I took a tumble while running. I tripped over one of those frames used to post "Garage Sale" signs in the neighborhood. The sun hadn't risen yet and it was dusky (Can I used "dusky" for an early AM?). The frame was lying in the dust on the shoulder of the road and, obviously (at least I hope so), I didn't see it. Down I went. I was fine, with just a pretty nasty scrape on my wrist from my GPS watch. It hasn't really healed much since I rub it raw again while putting on my watch each day to run. Carrie suggested, "Why don't you wear your watch on your other wrist?" Whoa! I think my look told her why I couldn't. Yes, "particular" seems about right.
Is this one true? One of the cable news shows gave viewers a glimpse of some campaign bumper stickers. Before showing, "Hillary for Prison," the show gave a warning, "Some viewers may find the following offensive." (Surely Clinton would, but others?) Is this one true?????? If so, heaven help us all.
I know Ted Cruz has received a heap of criticism for his speech the other night in Cleveland. I didn't hear/watch it. (I was washing my hair that evening.) But it seems to me he was pretty courageous in giving it. He has watched his party sell out, the Establishment forsaking traditional Republican values. He has watched a charlatan somehow convince enough folks to get the Republican nomination. He has watched many of those same Establishment-types he ran against to gain his TX seat, first oppose Trump for being, well, not a Republican (as if the Establishment-types are!) and then endorsing/supporting him. To say what he said was not only courageous, but was the moral and ethical thing to do.
I was distressed this AM, although not particularly surprised, at the number of my college classmates who have jumped on the Clinton bandwagon. Their comments seemed to be those of enablers. A few suggested that they do the same thing Clinton did with the e-mails and servers at their places of employment. "It's just a way to save time," one wrote. Another said it was merely to keep all of her contacts in the same place. Huh?????? No, it's not the "same thing." And, if it is, maybe some folks deserve to be fired from their jobs. How many of their work e-mails contain "classified" and "top secret" documents and information? How many of them work in occupations that are essential to the security of the US and its citizens?
Did they completely ignore Comey's report? It was damning, both toward Clinton and toward Comey, although he's not running for President.
Most of them are right in their criticisms of Trump. But they seem far, far off base in supporting Clinton. As I have suggested many times, had you and I done what she did, I think not only would we be indicted, but convicted and in jail.
BTW, Trump apparently said something I agree with, but seems to have set off another firestorm among the elites. I guess he said the US shouldn't agree to come to the aid of NATO members if they don't fulfill their own obligations. One, I guess, is that they should fund NATO with at least 2% of their military budgets (or was it their entire budgets?). Regardless of the budgets, why shouldn't these nations pay their own way? Why should they get to freeload? They make stupid foreign policies and then expect the US to bail them out, but they don't fulfill their obligations?
Friday, July 22, 2016
Send in the Clowns
This was a song by Judy Collins and maybe some others. I saw it somewhere in the last week describing the Republican Convention. I think it applies to more than that, the Republican Convention, the Democratic Convention, the whole sickening campaign. "The clowns......" So very fitting.
I saw in the newspaper this AM that former Michigan gov Jennifer Granholm "gets goosebumps" thinking about Hillary Clinton's nomination. Pathetic, yet not at all surprising. Granholm was a lousy governor. As one of her own Democrat colleagues, anonymously, said, Granholm "likes to play Governor. She doesn't want to be Governor." Don't forget, "Cool Cities!" and "Everybody Goes to College," as if those were going to fix everything. Democrats, Granholm and the others, have shown their true colors the past 20+ years, blatantly. There are no principles other than getting elected, having power, etc. They've sold out their constituencies, from blacks to you-name-it. Oh, they still sing the same lies, but the picture is clear. How, for instance, can women still support the Clintons, the womanizing/abusive Bill, or the enabling/vindictive Hillary? How can black voters continue to cast ballots for the likes of Obama? Their plight has not at all improved, but has declined under Obama's divisive 8 years. But, two things. It's the Democrats' meme (There, I have finally used that word, although I'm not sure what it means.) And it's Bush's fault.
Where is, as I've noted several times, the Democrats' equivalent of Never Trump? Why is there, with all of the evidence supporting one, a Never Clinton movement? Great Americans of the past, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln, have insisted on taking the high moral ground, regardless of how unpopular that might be. I guess that tells us all we need to know about Democrats and morality.
And Republicans still don't get it, at least the Establishment still doesn't. Their constant lying to voters, that is, the voters' frustration and anger at the Establishment, seems to have escaped them. Their lack of vision and conservative values (or, like Democrats, any values other than getting elected and having political power) have made them a shadow, at best, of the party of Lincoln--if it had not already abandoned what had once made the party great.
A Trumpster had an op-ed in the newspaper trying to explain why Trump "resonates with voters." I still don't think he does, not Trump. It's not about Trump. Oh, no doubt there are some who like Trump for "You're Fired!" That's the kind of unfeeling, uncaring generation that we've created. It's "in your face" and the like that attracts many people. (That's too bad.) But on the whole it's not about Trump, but voters who are dissatisfied with the Establishment, Republican and Democrat. (I could also add Bernie Sanders here, but...... C'mon, Bernie Sanders?) And neither party seems to comprehend. Well, the Dems might, but they think they have bought the election(s) by having the LameSteam media in their pockets.
Out to pitch BP, in 95 degree heat, with high humididity.
I saw in the newspaper this AM that former Michigan gov Jennifer Granholm "gets goosebumps" thinking about Hillary Clinton's nomination. Pathetic, yet not at all surprising. Granholm was a lousy governor. As one of her own Democrat colleagues, anonymously, said, Granholm "likes to play Governor. She doesn't want to be Governor." Don't forget, "Cool Cities!" and "Everybody Goes to College," as if those were going to fix everything. Democrats, Granholm and the others, have shown their true colors the past 20+ years, blatantly. There are no principles other than getting elected, having power, etc. They've sold out their constituencies, from blacks to you-name-it. Oh, they still sing the same lies, but the picture is clear. How, for instance, can women still support the Clintons, the womanizing/abusive Bill, or the enabling/vindictive Hillary? How can black voters continue to cast ballots for the likes of Obama? Their plight has not at all improved, but has declined under Obama's divisive 8 years. But, two things. It's the Democrats' meme (There, I have finally used that word, although I'm not sure what it means.) And it's Bush's fault.
Where is, as I've noted several times, the Democrats' equivalent of Never Trump? Why is there, with all of the evidence supporting one, a Never Clinton movement? Great Americans of the past, such as John Adams and Abraham Lincoln, have insisted on taking the high moral ground, regardless of how unpopular that might be. I guess that tells us all we need to know about Democrats and morality.
And Republicans still don't get it, at least the Establishment still doesn't. Their constant lying to voters, that is, the voters' frustration and anger at the Establishment, seems to have escaped them. Their lack of vision and conservative values (or, like Democrats, any values other than getting elected and having political power) have made them a shadow, at best, of the party of Lincoln--if it had not already abandoned what had once made the party great.
A Trumpster had an op-ed in the newspaper trying to explain why Trump "resonates with voters." I still don't think he does, not Trump. It's not about Trump. Oh, no doubt there are some who like Trump for "You're Fired!" That's the kind of unfeeling, uncaring generation that we've created. It's "in your face" and the like that attracts many people. (That's too bad.) But on the whole it's not about Trump, but voters who are dissatisfied with the Establishment, Republican and Democrat. (I could also add Bernie Sanders here, but...... C'mon, Bernie Sanders?) And neither party seems to comprehend. Well, the Dems might, but they think they have bought the election(s) by having the LameSteam media in their pockets.
Out to pitch BP, in 95 degree heat, with high humididity.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Baseball!
I admit that I don't follow baseball, at least Major League Baseball, the way I used to follow it. There are many reasons. That said, baseball is a great game. It really is.
I know other sports' fans can point to why other sports are their favorites. I understand, well, except for maybe soccer I understand. But I think baseball has so many unique features.
Just think about the distance between bases. Who came up with 90 feet? It was brilliant. How many bang-bang plays are there at first base? And each field, professional or sandlot, offers its own uniqueness.
A 450-foot home run is exciting. So is a 60 foot-bunt. How electric are squeeze plays? Have you ever seen a no-hitter going into the 9th inning? Isn't a hit-and-run a most beautiful play when executed well?
Last Sunday I took the boys to see the Tigers. Michael, of course, loves baseball. He understands the game pretty darn well and sees a lot, more, I think, than other 15-year olds. It was Cody's first big league game. ("This was the best day ever, Grandpa!" he told me. It was a good one for me, too.) I, unlike other, never say Major League managers are dumb or stupid. I may disagree with their strategies or tactics, but they aren't dumb or stupid. So, the Tigers take a 2-2 tie into the bottom of the 9th. (Both their runs were unusual, one on a wild pitch, the other on a walk.) Leading off is a .130 hitter and I am thinking--and saying!--"Pinch hit for this guy!" The manager doesn't. I think it's the wrong move. And the .130 hitter rips a single. OK, so I'm wrong. The next guy, a .200 hitter, has to bunt, doesn't he? At least I think and say so. Nope, he doesn't square at all. "C'mon, BUNT!" I yell. Nope. Instead, the .200 hitter drills one about 20 rows into the right field seats. So much for what I know!
And today, with two on and two out, score tied, V. Martinez drilled one to LC, only to have the LF snag it a foot or two from being a game-winning HR. It's a game of inches (or at least feet).
Mon night our 15-16 year olds had a game. We aren't so hot, but were playing a team with a record as bad as ours. The other team's kids, esp their starter, pitched very well. But our kids,including Bopper I proudly add, pitched just a little better. We fell behind and then caught them. We fell behind midway and then caught them. We fell behind in the top of the last inning, too. And won it in the bottom of the last inning.
Throughout, I'm getting all these visions in my head. Of course, our players can't do what I am envisioning as strategy and tactics. But I'm "formulating," as Karen would say. And that's what baseball allows. There were so many possibilities, at least in this game that was close. Our players aren't capable of doing some of the things I was "formulating." But Michael did one of them to tie the score and another kid did the same, scoring from 3rd with the tying run in the 7th. OK, we lucked out on the winning run, the catcher dropping the ball on an easy catch and tag.
Sometimes it gets frustrating, being unable to do much, but it's a mental game. And it's very rewarding to have "formulations" actually work.
I know other sports' fans can point to why other sports are their favorites. I understand, well, except for maybe soccer I understand. But I think baseball has so many unique features.
Just think about the distance between bases. Who came up with 90 feet? It was brilliant. How many bang-bang plays are there at first base? And each field, professional or sandlot, offers its own uniqueness.
A 450-foot home run is exciting. So is a 60 foot-bunt. How electric are squeeze plays? Have you ever seen a no-hitter going into the 9th inning? Isn't a hit-and-run a most beautiful play when executed well?
Last Sunday I took the boys to see the Tigers. Michael, of course, loves baseball. He understands the game pretty darn well and sees a lot, more, I think, than other 15-year olds. It was Cody's first big league game. ("This was the best day ever, Grandpa!" he told me. It was a good one for me, too.) I, unlike other, never say Major League managers are dumb or stupid. I may disagree with their strategies or tactics, but they aren't dumb or stupid. So, the Tigers take a 2-2 tie into the bottom of the 9th. (Both their runs were unusual, one on a wild pitch, the other on a walk.) Leading off is a .130 hitter and I am thinking--and saying!--"Pinch hit for this guy!" The manager doesn't. I think it's the wrong move. And the .130 hitter rips a single. OK, so I'm wrong. The next guy, a .200 hitter, has to bunt, doesn't he? At least I think and say so. Nope, he doesn't square at all. "C'mon, BUNT!" I yell. Nope. Instead, the .200 hitter drills one about 20 rows into the right field seats. So much for what I know!
And today, with two on and two out, score tied, V. Martinez drilled one to LC, only to have the LF snag it a foot or two from being a game-winning HR. It's a game of inches (or at least feet).
Mon night our 15-16 year olds had a game. We aren't so hot, but were playing a team with a record as bad as ours. The other team's kids, esp their starter, pitched very well. But our kids,including Bopper I proudly add, pitched just a little better. We fell behind and then caught them. We fell behind midway and then caught them. We fell behind in the top of the last inning, too. And won it in the bottom of the last inning.
Throughout, I'm getting all these visions in my head. Of course, our players can't do what I am envisioning as strategy and tactics. But I'm "formulating," as Karen would say. And that's what baseball allows. There were so many possibilities, at least in this game that was close. Our players aren't capable of doing some of the things I was "formulating." But Michael did one of them to tie the score and another kid did the same, scoring from 3rd with the tying run in the 7th. OK, we lucked out on the winning run, the catcher dropping the ball on an easy catch and tag.
Sometimes it gets frustrating, being unable to do much, but it's a mental game. And it's very rewarding to have "formulations" actually work.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Sat AM
I woke up to rain this AM. Hmmm...... Coming back from our game last night, I don't recall any mention of rain on the forecast, but raining it is. I went to the two Web sites I (foolishly?) use for my weather predictions. Both have "0% chance of precipitation right now." Maybe rain is no longer considered "precipitation."
I don't know who, if anyone, has claimed credit for the Nice bombing. But I wonder how long people will take this; that is, when will they really respond? With all of the vaunted intelligence agencies in the world, I would think someone somewhere would be able to track down the leadership of these radical groups. And I would also think that, in their communities, someone somewhere would think something weird is going on with these terrorists, immigrant or home-grown and turned.
And should we now ban trucks? Should we prohibit people who are on random "no-fly lists" from purchasing trucks? After all......
George Will and I go back a long way. No, I don't know him. But I've read him for years and years and years. Although mostly known as a political writer, I particularly liked two of his books about baseball, Men at Work and Bunts. Often I agree with his views; sometimes I don't, seeing him as a cog in the Establishment. I didn't care much for his column in this AM's newspaper, about teacher tenure. There is much in his article to commend; it's true. I've blogged about how many rotten teachers are out there, who don't deserve to be teaching. There are too many of them, no doubt. Do the tenure laws protect them? Yes and No. If administrators, or at least some of them, don't follow the laws, yes, bad teachers are protected. If administrators do follow them, it's not nearly as difficult to get rid of bad apples. Will completely misses this point, citing that false claim that it takes many years and much money to dismiss teachers who deserve to be dismissed. He ignores that many administrators fail at their jobs of evaluating teachers, either not recognizing bad ones or taking the easy ways out by approving of their performances. He also ignores the original purpose of tenure laws. They were not enacted to protect rotten teachers. They were there to protect teachers from wrongful dismissal. "Wrongful?" Of course. There might be personality conflicts. There might be some friend or relative who needs a teaching job and, if a position can be opened by dismissing an otherwise competent teacher...... (And if you don't believe that might happen, you don't know the history of pre-union labor in the US!) Even more, how easy to get rid of teachers who vocally oppose rotten administrative programs or policies. (And if you don't believe there are a lot of "rotten programs and policies," you might as well stop reading this paragraph right now.) It doesn't take much to find teachers who stood up for what was right, opposing administrators and politicians, not to mention bureaucrats and, yes, columnists like Will (who, because they went to school know all about teaching or can cite statistics without analyzing them), who were ignored, marginalized, and even punished. Is dismissal much farther removed? Without protection? Let me repeat that I acknowledge there are far too many lousy teachers out there. But getting rid of tenure laws or, as in Michigan, weakening them to effective impotence, is not the answer. How about making others, too, do their jobs?
Why did Mike Pence accept Trump's offer of the VP position on the Rep ticket? My admitted perfunctory view of Pence is that he's a good enough guy, did pretty well in Indiana. But he is a member of the Establishment, no Ted Cruz or Mike Lee. Why would anyone associate himself with the train wreck called "Trump?"
And now Clinton is talking "free college" for up to 80% of students. Will she stop at nothing to pander for votes? Tell me this one won't ring with the younger crowd, those facing a lifetime of student debt? And remember that this generation has been brought up on getting things for free or not working for them. ("Everybody gets a trophy!") Where she was critical of Sanders for this, she now embraces "free college?" See below, but does she not at all see the consequences of this, the monetary costs and beyond? I'm sure she does, but this is Clinton, remember?
BTW, I'm still waiting for a "Never Clinton" movement and all those upper level FBI agents to resign. I'll bet I wait a long time. Once again I wonder, "What is wrong with us?"
Is it human nature to want to control others' lives? I don't know. I have enough trouble controlling my own life, let alone others' lives. Why are there so many politicians and bureaucrats out there so intent on controlling us? No doubt some mean well, but are just misguided in their attempts. They don't see beyond their actions. That is, they don't realize the consequences of their actions. For instance, I see with the cities and states increasing the minimum wage this year, unemployment for youths, namely high school kids and others without training for anything other than entry level jobs, is up quite a bit. It makes for good copy, "a living wage." Who can, at face value, argue with that? Yet, I wonder if any of the proponents realize the consequences. Do they realize how many people will be laid off or not even hired, so we don't even know the real consequences of the "minimum wage?" How many are so arrogant and elitist they don't care about what we think? They know better than we do; consequences be damned. I wonder how many human lives have been saved since DDT was banned. I wonder how many mosquitoes lives have been saved and, in effect, how many human lives have been lost due to the malaria those saved mosquitoes carried? Again, we'll never really know, but......
I don't know who, if anyone, has claimed credit for the Nice bombing. But I wonder how long people will take this; that is, when will they really respond? With all of the vaunted intelligence agencies in the world, I would think someone somewhere would be able to track down the leadership of these radical groups. And I would also think that, in their communities, someone somewhere would think something weird is going on with these terrorists, immigrant or home-grown and turned.
And should we now ban trucks? Should we prohibit people who are on random "no-fly lists" from purchasing trucks? After all......
George Will and I go back a long way. No, I don't know him. But I've read him for years and years and years. Although mostly known as a political writer, I particularly liked two of his books about baseball, Men at Work and Bunts. Often I agree with his views; sometimes I don't, seeing him as a cog in the Establishment. I didn't care much for his column in this AM's newspaper, about teacher tenure. There is much in his article to commend; it's true. I've blogged about how many rotten teachers are out there, who don't deserve to be teaching. There are too many of them, no doubt. Do the tenure laws protect them? Yes and No. If administrators, or at least some of them, don't follow the laws, yes, bad teachers are protected. If administrators do follow them, it's not nearly as difficult to get rid of bad apples. Will completely misses this point, citing that false claim that it takes many years and much money to dismiss teachers who deserve to be dismissed. He ignores that many administrators fail at their jobs of evaluating teachers, either not recognizing bad ones or taking the easy ways out by approving of their performances. He also ignores the original purpose of tenure laws. They were not enacted to protect rotten teachers. They were there to protect teachers from wrongful dismissal. "Wrongful?" Of course. There might be personality conflicts. There might be some friend or relative who needs a teaching job and, if a position can be opened by dismissing an otherwise competent teacher...... (And if you don't believe that might happen, you don't know the history of pre-union labor in the US!) Even more, how easy to get rid of teachers who vocally oppose rotten administrative programs or policies. (And if you don't believe there are a lot of "rotten programs and policies," you might as well stop reading this paragraph right now.) It doesn't take much to find teachers who stood up for what was right, opposing administrators and politicians, not to mention bureaucrats and, yes, columnists like Will (who, because they went to school know all about teaching or can cite statistics without analyzing them), who were ignored, marginalized, and even punished. Is dismissal much farther removed? Without protection? Let me repeat that I acknowledge there are far too many lousy teachers out there. But getting rid of tenure laws or, as in Michigan, weakening them to effective impotence, is not the answer. How about making others, too, do their jobs?
Why did Mike Pence accept Trump's offer of the VP position on the Rep ticket? My admitted perfunctory view of Pence is that he's a good enough guy, did pretty well in Indiana. But he is a member of the Establishment, no Ted Cruz or Mike Lee. Why would anyone associate himself with the train wreck called "Trump?"
And now Clinton is talking "free college" for up to 80% of students. Will she stop at nothing to pander for votes? Tell me this one won't ring with the younger crowd, those facing a lifetime of student debt? And remember that this generation has been brought up on getting things for free or not working for them. ("Everybody gets a trophy!") Where she was critical of Sanders for this, she now embraces "free college?" See below, but does she not at all see the consequences of this, the monetary costs and beyond? I'm sure she does, but this is Clinton, remember?
BTW, I'm still waiting for a "Never Clinton" movement and all those upper level FBI agents to resign. I'll bet I wait a long time. Once again I wonder, "What is wrong with us?"
Is it human nature to want to control others' lives? I don't know. I have enough trouble controlling my own life, let alone others' lives. Why are there so many politicians and bureaucrats out there so intent on controlling us? No doubt some mean well, but are just misguided in their attempts. They don't see beyond their actions. That is, they don't realize the consequences of their actions. For instance, I see with the cities and states increasing the minimum wage this year, unemployment for youths, namely high school kids and others without training for anything other than entry level jobs, is up quite a bit. It makes for good copy, "a living wage." Who can, at face value, argue with that? Yet, I wonder if any of the proponents realize the consequences. Do they realize how many people will be laid off or not even hired, so we don't even know the real consequences of the "minimum wage?" How many are so arrogant and elitist they don't care about what we think? They know better than we do; consequences be damned. I wonder how many human lives have been saved since DDT was banned. I wonder how many mosquitoes lives have been saved and, in effect, how many human lives have been lost due to the malaria those saved mosquitoes carried? Again, we'll never really know, but......
Friday, July 15, 2016
Fri AM
It was just brought to my attention that Bernie Sanders received 12 million primary votes, Trump 13 million. Hmmm......
Hillary Clinton won about 7% more votes than Sanders. Trump won almost as many popular votes as the next three Republicans, while Clinton scored just under 4 million more than Sanders.
Trump, unless someone like Mike Lee turns the Republican convention on its head, will be that party's nominee. I repeat that I find that repulsive.
Sanders has been dismissed as not important, just some crotchety old Socialist with moonbeam ideas, if they can be called that.
Like Trump, though, Sanders isn't/wasn't about himself. Think of the results. Trump and Sanders, as terrible as they were/are as candidates, received 25 million votes. Unless I'm mistaken, that's just about half of the ballots cast in the primaries/caucuses. Think of those results.
Consider that many voters will vote for anyone or anything with the Establishment "D" or the Establishment "R" next to their names.
In a system dominated by the Establishment, whose goal is obviously the continued domination by the Establishment, people and country be damned, half the people said, "No!" Neither Sanders nor Trump are "unimportant." Many/Most(?) people have been pretty clear. They are sick and tired, frustrated, angry, fed up with the Establishment. 25 million is not an "unimportant" number. And it's not a small number.
A question might be, "What if those 25 million, after November, feel disenfranchised, marginalized or even ignored, yet again?" That is, in a system that seems rigged against most hard-working, middle or lower-middle class folks, will people just suck it up and go about with business as usual? Or, perhaps like petulant children (and I don't mean that pejoratively) seeking to get the attention of others, will they act out? After all, the "99%ers" and BLM have "acted out." But 25 million is a lot more than those groups.
I know a lot of folks and, esp, politicians, the academic elites, and even the LameStream media have touted the economic recovery. They cite, among other things, the rebound of the auto industry, new housing starts, [fudged] higher employment statistics, etc. They also ignore a lot. For instance, statistically, there is a lower percentage of Americans in the work force than there has been for decades. Anecdotally, there sure seems to be a lot of vacant houses out there, even here in Oakland County. And the next time you drive past strip malls, note how many vacant store fronts there are; just the other day I was startled by the vacancies at two of them.
Both parties talk about personal freedom. Bologna/Baloney! It's all blather! Both of them, elitist and arrogant, want to tell us how to live. One professes to take care of "the little guy," while the other looks after "the big guy." Hogwash! You can't watch the television you want. You have to use the light bulbs and toilets they want you to have. And more......
Who'd a thunk, maybe 50 years ago, all this government regulation would restrict our lives? That considered, who doesn't reasonably think that's just a start? What's next?
Perhaps worse, we can't even talk about anything. We don't have real dialogues or discussions. The Democrats won't talk. The Republicans at least might entertain discussions, but I don't think they are honest about them; that is, they lie in nodding, but have no intention of doing anything.
And what we are left with are Clinton and Trump in November. I'm sticking to my mantra......
Hillary Clinton won about 7% more votes than Sanders. Trump won almost as many popular votes as the next three Republicans, while Clinton scored just under 4 million more than Sanders.
Trump, unless someone like Mike Lee turns the Republican convention on its head, will be that party's nominee. I repeat that I find that repulsive.
Sanders has been dismissed as not important, just some crotchety old Socialist with moonbeam ideas, if they can be called that.
Like Trump, though, Sanders isn't/wasn't about himself. Think of the results. Trump and Sanders, as terrible as they were/are as candidates, received 25 million votes. Unless I'm mistaken, that's just about half of the ballots cast in the primaries/caucuses. Think of those results.
Consider that many voters will vote for anyone or anything with the Establishment "D" or the Establishment "R" next to their names.
In a system dominated by the Establishment, whose goal is obviously the continued domination by the Establishment, people and country be damned, half the people said, "No!" Neither Sanders nor Trump are "unimportant." Many/Most(?) people have been pretty clear. They are sick and tired, frustrated, angry, fed up with the Establishment. 25 million is not an "unimportant" number. And it's not a small number.
A question might be, "What if those 25 million, after November, feel disenfranchised, marginalized or even ignored, yet again?" That is, in a system that seems rigged against most hard-working, middle or lower-middle class folks, will people just suck it up and go about with business as usual? Or, perhaps like petulant children (and I don't mean that pejoratively) seeking to get the attention of others, will they act out? After all, the "99%ers" and BLM have "acted out." But 25 million is a lot more than those groups.
I know a lot of folks and, esp, politicians, the academic elites, and even the LameStream media have touted the economic recovery. They cite, among other things, the rebound of the auto industry, new housing starts, [fudged] higher employment statistics, etc. They also ignore a lot. For instance, statistically, there is a lower percentage of Americans in the work force than there has been for decades. Anecdotally, there sure seems to be a lot of vacant houses out there, even here in Oakland County. And the next time you drive past strip malls, note how many vacant store fronts there are; just the other day I was startled by the vacancies at two of them.
Both parties talk about personal freedom. Bologna/Baloney! It's all blather! Both of them, elitist and arrogant, want to tell us how to live. One professes to take care of "the little guy," while the other looks after "the big guy." Hogwash! You can't watch the television you want. You have to use the light bulbs and toilets they want you to have. And more......
Who'd a thunk, maybe 50 years ago, all this government regulation would restrict our lives? That considered, who doesn't reasonably think that's just a start? What's next?
Perhaps worse, we can't even talk about anything. We don't have real dialogues or discussions. The Democrats won't talk. The Republicans at least might entertain discussions, but I don't think they are honest about them; that is, they lie in nodding, but have no intention of doing anything.
And what we are left with are Clinton and Trump in November. I'm sticking to my mantra......
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Waiting......
Maybe it was a bogus story, one that never really was going to happen. Back when, rumors floated that a good number of FBI agents, some upper level, would resign if Hillary Clinton was not indicted.
Again, maybe it was a bogus story. But if not, I'm waiting. There has been no mass resignations, not even any leaked peeps about dissatisfaction.
I'm not blaming anyone. It would be hard to sacrifice one's source of income even if it was over a matter of principle. I don't know if I would quit. And, can they speak up? Have agents been forced to sign agreements saying they'd keep their mouths shut?
The head of the FBI is a different story. Comer sold out. He laid out a clear and concise case against Clinton, then said nothing would be done. So the Lynch/Bill Clinton airplane meeting was just a random case of serendipity?????? Sure it was......
Some Republicans are trying to torpedo the disastrous Trump campaign. (I think it's disastrous whether he wins or loses.) The latest, I guess, is an attempt to mount support for a Scott Walker/Ted Cruz ticket. Cruz OK. Walker not a chance. I understand his dislike of unions, but he took that far too far, portraying himself to me at least as an enemy of working people, the middle class.
Of course unions have done some detrimental things over the course of the past decades. But remember that they didn't do them unilaterally. That is, any work rules, any pay raises, any of that stuff was agreed upon by management. Why don't Walker and Snyder and all the other "right to work for less" proponents go after their buddies in management? We know why, don't we?
Nope, the Democrats don't represent my beliefs and neither do the Republicans. Just look at the last three decades of Republican behavior. Look how they've spent, spent, spent. Look at all the new programs and entitlements they helped to create. And, esp, look at how they've lied about all of that.
At least the Democrats are honest and open about wanting to steal your money, about wanting to control our lives because they are smarter than we are. (Well, we know they really aren't, but they still think they are. And we also know they are as crooked as anyone, from the Clintons to Algore to Reid to Pelosi to Feinstein to......) The Republicans, to get elected, tell lies about cutting taxes, smaller gov't, less spending, etc.
I just finished a book that really has me worked up and I'll write about my anger over the course of the next week or so.
BTW, on the meteorological front...... It's been hot and humid, far too much so, around her the past week. But there are some laughs to be had. First, the other day, the predicted high for the day was 87 degrees and that prediction was still shown as the actual temperature was also displayed--93 degrees! Yesterday, all day was very nice, well, at least dry although very warm (90s) and humid. Before our ball game, I checked two weather sites, One predicted "15% chance of precipitation" until well aver our game. The other called for "70% chance." Isn't that a big, big gap/difference? They can't even get their guesses close to one another. BTW, it did pour at our game, but...... The "radar" showed the storm moving in after 7 PM, maybe closer to 7:30. As we took the field to start, the lightning show started and we cleared the area. After 45 mins of thunder/dunders it was determined we wouldn't play since we'd not start until 7:45 at the earliest and with the dark skies likely would get in only a couple of innings--if the lightning stopped. It didn't. And then the skies opened, a deluge. Who's that guy recreated Noah's Ark? I thought we might need him last night. "15%" or "70%."
Again, maybe it was a bogus story. But if not, I'm waiting. There has been no mass resignations, not even any leaked peeps about dissatisfaction.
I'm not blaming anyone. It would be hard to sacrifice one's source of income even if it was over a matter of principle. I don't know if I would quit. And, can they speak up? Have agents been forced to sign agreements saying they'd keep their mouths shut?
The head of the FBI is a different story. Comer sold out. He laid out a clear and concise case against Clinton, then said nothing would be done. So the Lynch/Bill Clinton airplane meeting was just a random case of serendipity?????? Sure it was......
Some Republicans are trying to torpedo the disastrous Trump campaign. (I think it's disastrous whether he wins or loses.) The latest, I guess, is an attempt to mount support for a Scott Walker/Ted Cruz ticket. Cruz OK. Walker not a chance. I understand his dislike of unions, but he took that far too far, portraying himself to me at least as an enemy of working people, the middle class.
Of course unions have done some detrimental things over the course of the past decades. But remember that they didn't do them unilaterally. That is, any work rules, any pay raises, any of that stuff was agreed upon by management. Why don't Walker and Snyder and all the other "right to work for less" proponents go after their buddies in management? We know why, don't we?
Nope, the Democrats don't represent my beliefs and neither do the Republicans. Just look at the last three decades of Republican behavior. Look how they've spent, spent, spent. Look at all the new programs and entitlements they helped to create. And, esp, look at how they've lied about all of that.
At least the Democrats are honest and open about wanting to steal your money, about wanting to control our lives because they are smarter than we are. (Well, we know they really aren't, but they still think they are. And we also know they are as crooked as anyone, from the Clintons to Algore to Reid to Pelosi to Feinstein to......) The Republicans, to get elected, tell lies about cutting taxes, smaller gov't, less spending, etc.
I just finished a book that really has me worked up and I'll write about my anger over the course of the next week or so.
BTW, on the meteorological front...... It's been hot and humid, far too much so, around her the past week. But there are some laughs to be had. First, the other day, the predicted high for the day was 87 degrees and that prediction was still shown as the actual temperature was also displayed--93 degrees! Yesterday, all day was very nice, well, at least dry although very warm (90s) and humid. Before our ball game, I checked two weather sites, One predicted "15% chance of precipitation" until well aver our game. The other called for "70% chance." Isn't that a big, big gap/difference? They can't even get their guesses close to one another. BTW, it did pour at our game, but...... The "radar" showed the storm moving in after 7 PM, maybe closer to 7:30. As we took the field to start, the lightning show started and we cleared the area. After 45 mins of thunder/dunders it was determined we wouldn't play since we'd not start until 7:45 at the earliest and with the dark skies likely would get in only a couple of innings--if the lightning stopped. It didn't. And then the skies opened, a deluge. Who's that guy recreated Noah's Ark? I thought we might need him last night. "15%" or "70%."
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Irony?
My July running column concerned a "Blind Yoga Challenge" headed by my blind running buddy, Michael Holmes. He challenged his yoga class and instructor, to do a 90-minute session while blindfolded. Here is the story: http://www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=29877 (You might have to cut and paste the URL if you want to read it; be forewarned, it's lengthy.)
A few days after posting it, I had a bit of an accident in the garage. I was hit in the eye by a falling snow shovel, from the rafters, and suffered a "serious (or was it 'acute?') corneal contusion." Boy, it hurt like the Dickens, the worst pain I've ever experienced. Think about that "stick in the eye" alternative--that was it.
I went to an urgent care facility, which people who know me is quite out of character. But that tells how much it was bothering me. The MD there sent me to an ophthalmologist. (Is that harder to say or harder to spell?) I'll be fine and my vision is just about back to normal, well, with my glasses it is. There is no pain. But I was left with three thoughts.
One was experiencing 24 hours of blindness, like the "Blind Yoga Challenge" I guess. OK I wasn't blindfolded nor completely blind. But once the patch went on, I for the most part, closed my other eye to prevent as much as possible the blinking; that's when it hurt like that proverbial "stick in the eye." I tried to maneuver without opening the unpatched eye. It was tough, but not as tough as the pain of blinking. I was struck by not only running into things, but also keeping balance. That was tough. I thought about the "Blind Yoga Challenge" and, even more, Michael Holmes. He's an incredible man......
Another thought was late in coming and it came from Karen. She explained on the phone to Matt (in Las Vegas) that my vision was returning to normal and the ophthalmologist (I need to practice the spelling.) said things would be fine in a week or so. I realized I hadn't thought at all about my vision, hadn't worried that it would be permanently affected. Maybe I was too wrapped up in the pain. Maybe I just assumed this was a minor thing that would not result in anything major. Hmmm......
I know this last one is probably stupid, but I'm thinking it now anyway. I, as noted above, was out of character in going to the urgent care facility. I went only due to the pain, which was excruciating. (I have often undergone the DDS's drill without novocaine/numbing, if that helps explain.) But, other than a quick eye-numbing drop that wore off after half an hour or less, there was nothing for the pain, just antibiotics, etc. I was told to use "Motrin or Tylenol," neither of which worked at all. Maybe you see where this is going. Should I have bothered going to the urgent care facility and, later, the ophthalmologist? I know, I know Of course I should have. But, esp knowing that the eye has pretty much healed itself and that nothing was done to help the pain, did I waste money and time? Is that why health care costs are so expensive? I know, I know...... But I still have this thought. If you want to put that one in the "Stupid" category, go ahead.
BTW, normal run this AM, followed by a lengthy bike ride, and a couple of hours working in the back yard. I will likely, as a precaution, not wear my contract lens until after Fri's final meeting with the ophthalmologist (Lots of practice with the spelling!).
A few days after posting it, I had a bit of an accident in the garage. I was hit in the eye by a falling snow shovel, from the rafters, and suffered a "serious (or was it 'acute?') corneal contusion." Boy, it hurt like the Dickens, the worst pain I've ever experienced. Think about that "stick in the eye" alternative--that was it.
I went to an urgent care facility, which people who know me is quite out of character. But that tells how much it was bothering me. The MD there sent me to an ophthalmologist. (Is that harder to say or harder to spell?) I'll be fine and my vision is just about back to normal, well, with my glasses it is. There is no pain. But I was left with three thoughts.
One was experiencing 24 hours of blindness, like the "Blind Yoga Challenge" I guess. OK I wasn't blindfolded nor completely blind. But once the patch went on, I for the most part, closed my other eye to prevent as much as possible the blinking; that's when it hurt like that proverbial "stick in the eye." I tried to maneuver without opening the unpatched eye. It was tough, but not as tough as the pain of blinking. I was struck by not only running into things, but also keeping balance. That was tough. I thought about the "Blind Yoga Challenge" and, even more, Michael Holmes. He's an incredible man......
Another thought was late in coming and it came from Karen. She explained on the phone to Matt (in Las Vegas) that my vision was returning to normal and the ophthalmologist (I need to practice the spelling.) said things would be fine in a week or so. I realized I hadn't thought at all about my vision, hadn't worried that it would be permanently affected. Maybe I was too wrapped up in the pain. Maybe I just assumed this was a minor thing that would not result in anything major. Hmmm......
I know this last one is probably stupid, but I'm thinking it now anyway. I, as noted above, was out of character in going to the urgent care facility. I went only due to the pain, which was excruciating. (I have often undergone the DDS's drill without novocaine/numbing, if that helps explain.) But, other than a quick eye-numbing drop that wore off after half an hour or less, there was nothing for the pain, just antibiotics, etc. I was told to use "Motrin or Tylenol," neither of which worked at all. Maybe you see where this is going. Should I have bothered going to the urgent care facility and, later, the ophthalmologist? I know, I know Of course I should have. But, esp knowing that the eye has pretty much healed itself and that nothing was done to help the pain, did I waste money and time? Is that why health care costs are so expensive? I know, I know...... But I still have this thought. If you want to put that one in the "Stupid" category, go ahead.
BTW, normal run this AM, followed by a lengthy bike ride, and a couple of hours working in the back yard. I will likely, as a precaution, not wear my contract lens until after Fri's final meeting with the ophthalmologist (Lots of practice with the spelling!).
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Thur
Lots to think about the past few days. Boy, the temperatures have been in the upper 80s and lower 90s, with high humididity, too. At times, it's been brutal. But relief is on the way this weekend, at least for a little while.
It's almost a cliche that workers don't like their bosses; isn't it a part of the job? I'm kidding, of course, but I find it interesting that many workers really do resent or even hate the owners of their companies. Isn't it these owners who give the workers their money, their pay--or at least provide the means to earn the money? Yet, these same workers often seem to worship the government, esp at the federal level. Yep, this is the same government that takes up to 40% of the workers' money--and then often wastes/squanders it. That one has me thinking......
For whatever reason, I was reading a piece on the sale of body parts. People today, if not routinely, but at least it's no longer something completely out of the ordinary, have kidney, heart, and other organ transplants. Obviously we don't have to think too much about someone trying to sell his/her heart to another needing a transplant. But what about, say, kidneys? Many people can function perfectly well with one kidney, allowing the other to be removed and donated. If one voluntarily donates, for no cash, a kidney, we find that a heroic and humane gesture. A live is being saved. But why do we find it so abhorrent that a person might want to sell one of his kidneys to another (or a hospital, etc.)? Won't a life also be saved? Maybe I'm off-base here, but I've just started to think about it.
Now there are laws that prohibit the sale of body parts in the US, I think. And I guess I understand why, at least initially. But thinking about it, I wonder. Is it really so bad for a person, who only needs one of his kidneys, to sell the other to one who needs it to live? In some ways, isn't it arrogant for lawmakers (and those who support such laws) to force those with bad kidneys to undergo years of dialysis and its pain, expense, and inconvenience? They don't have to endure the agony, do they? And, in fact, how many lives might be saved if we open the organ market? I wonder how many people die while waiting for available transplants, when a sale might save their lives. Hmmm......
And I thought of this one, too. We can turn this around a bit. Those who favor abortions or, as they call themselves, "pro-choice," always tout the woman's right to do with her body as she chooses. I have written before about that, that such supporters of abortion rights must also favor the legalization of prostitution and the use of drugs. After all, it a woman has a right to do with her body as she chooses...... What about this and the sale of organs? Doesn't one who wants to sell his kidney also have a right to do with his body as he wishes?
How great that the head of the FBI fell on his sword has been attacked by Clinton! Comer pretty much gave Loretta Lynch the green light to avoid any prosecution of Shrillary. (BTW, a letter-to-the-editor in yesterday's newspaper from a former federal investigator of 22 years included this about Clinton and her e-mails, the whole episode, "Had I committed any one of these [Clinton's] acts, I would be writing this message to you from federal prison." Yep, you and me, but not the Clintons.) I know there is a growing movement in the Republican Party to dump Trump or at least derail his presumptive position as the party nominee. OK, that's fine with me. I haven't yet heard any Democrats voice the same sentiment about Clinton. Hmmm...... Where's the "Dump Hillary" crowd among the Democrats?
This tells me a lot, some about the Republicans and some about the Democrats. Let's focus on the Democrats. They are perfectly willing to accept a candidate like Clinton (like they were before!) despite her record, her personality? She's a pathological liar (as a number of pundits have noted). She has always been a borderline felon, always escaping some prosecutor's indictments. Didn't she lose her license to practice law? At best, with her conduct as Sec of State, in Comer's words, she was "extremely careless." Yet, there is not a single movement in the Dem Party to find another candidate? To the Democrats, she is fine. Yep, that tells me a lot about Democrats--most of which I already had figured out.
It's almost a cliche that workers don't like their bosses; isn't it a part of the job? I'm kidding, of course, but I find it interesting that many workers really do resent or even hate the owners of their companies. Isn't it these owners who give the workers their money, their pay--or at least provide the means to earn the money? Yet, these same workers often seem to worship the government, esp at the federal level. Yep, this is the same government that takes up to 40% of the workers' money--and then often wastes/squanders it. That one has me thinking......
For whatever reason, I was reading a piece on the sale of body parts. People today, if not routinely, but at least it's no longer something completely out of the ordinary, have kidney, heart, and other organ transplants. Obviously we don't have to think too much about someone trying to sell his/her heart to another needing a transplant. But what about, say, kidneys? Many people can function perfectly well with one kidney, allowing the other to be removed and donated. If one voluntarily donates, for no cash, a kidney, we find that a heroic and humane gesture. A live is being saved. But why do we find it so abhorrent that a person might want to sell one of his kidneys to another (or a hospital, etc.)? Won't a life also be saved? Maybe I'm off-base here, but I've just started to think about it.
Now there are laws that prohibit the sale of body parts in the US, I think. And I guess I understand why, at least initially. But thinking about it, I wonder. Is it really so bad for a person, who only needs one of his kidneys, to sell the other to one who needs it to live? In some ways, isn't it arrogant for lawmakers (and those who support such laws) to force those with bad kidneys to undergo years of dialysis and its pain, expense, and inconvenience? They don't have to endure the agony, do they? And, in fact, how many lives might be saved if we open the organ market? I wonder how many people die while waiting for available transplants, when a sale might save their lives. Hmmm......
And I thought of this one, too. We can turn this around a bit. Those who favor abortions or, as they call themselves, "pro-choice," always tout the woman's right to do with her body as she chooses. I have written before about that, that such supporters of abortion rights must also favor the legalization of prostitution and the use of drugs. After all, it a woman has a right to do with her body as she chooses...... What about this and the sale of organs? Doesn't one who wants to sell his kidney also have a right to do with his body as he wishes?
How great that the head of the FBI fell on his sword has been attacked by Clinton! Comer pretty much gave Loretta Lynch the green light to avoid any prosecution of Shrillary. (BTW, a letter-to-the-editor in yesterday's newspaper from a former federal investigator of 22 years included this about Clinton and her e-mails, the whole episode, "Had I committed any one of these [Clinton's] acts, I would be writing this message to you from federal prison." Yep, you and me, but not the Clintons.) I know there is a growing movement in the Republican Party to dump Trump or at least derail his presumptive position as the party nominee. OK, that's fine with me. I haven't yet heard any Democrats voice the same sentiment about Clinton. Hmmm...... Where's the "Dump Hillary" crowd among the Democrats?
This tells me a lot, some about the Republicans and some about the Democrats. Let's focus on the Democrats. They are perfectly willing to accept a candidate like Clinton (like they were before!) despite her record, her personality? She's a pathological liar (as a number of pundits have noted). She has always been a borderline felon, always escaping some prosecutor's indictments. Didn't she lose her license to practice law? At best, with her conduct as Sec of State, in Comer's words, she was "extremely careless." Yet, there is not a single movement in the Dem Party to find another candidate? To the Democrats, she is fine. Yep, that tells me a lot about Democrats--most of which I already had figured out.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Ha Ha Ha
Who didn't see this one coming? The head of the FBI said that Hillary Clinton will not face charges in her handling of the Benghazi (and other?) tragedy/travesty, including all those e-mail gaffes. The Justice Dept admitted she was "extremely careless," but not worthy of prosecution. Nah, foreign affairs and national security aren't at all important. We can afford to be "extremely careless." Hey, wasn't this woman, not to far in the past, called "the smartest woman in the world?" I laughed then and I laugh now.
Again, who didn't see this one coming? Wasn't it just last week that Bill Clinton had a 45-minute meeting with Loretta Lynch? But the First Abuser and Attorney General claimed they didn't say a word about the e-mails. And because Clinton has such a spotless record when it comes to telling the truth, we all believe that--right?
Furthermore, isn't there a rumor coming out of DC that, when elected (more on that in a minute), Clinton will keep Lynch on as AG. "Extremely careless," but no prosecution.....
BTW, a recent poll gave takers three choices: Clinton, Trump, or a giant meteor crashing into the earth. Clinton rec'd 43% of the vote and Trump 38%. The crashing meteor scored 13%. Hmmm......
I understand the people calling for gun control. I really do. Now I do think that they are misguided and very much misinformed. To gain much credibility with me, they have to get the facts straight, which they often don't. I think I've posted on that before. But I wonder when someone will have the guts to ask about the mindset that has permeated American society where so many people thinks it's just fine to shoot someone--for a pair of shoes or to hijack a car, because someone has been "dissed," etc. Why don't we focus on the people, dare I say scum, who drive by houses and riddle the living rooms with bullets, far too often killing innocent people, esp kids? Why do I constantly hear and read of the "need" to restrict gun ownership/possession, but never is there any consideration for the scum who hold others' lives, esp the lives of little ones, with such little regard? Instead of getting rid of guns, which don't shoot themselves, why don't we get rid of the shooters?
Speaking of that, in a local community a police officer was fired for overly aggressive actions taken against a perpetrator. Let's look at this one. The felon was caught breaking and entering and robbing people's homes. The off-duty officer who beat him had arrested the scum, not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times for, you guessed it, breaking and entering and robbing people's homes. First, why was this felon still on the streets? Second, I have no problem with the off-duty officer beating the guy. If he didn't want to get beaten, he shouldn't have been stealing from other people. Perhaps it's just me, but shame on the police chief who fired the officer. He should have been given a medal. And the Wayne County sheriff is having a hard time filling openings even though offering $29,000 salaries??????
Which reminds me...... Didn't one of the officers who was involved in the death of that drug dealer in Baltimore have his day in court--and was found not guilty? Oh the protests! But where were the protests over the burning and looting of other people's property in the wake of the drug dealer's death? Where was the concern for the people then? Where were the civil rights leaders then? Ah, but maybe those whose businesses were destroyed or whose homes were burned to the ground understood that all this was for the "greater good?" Yeah, right. Whose "greater good?" Where are the trials for the looters, the arsonists, etc.? In fact, where there even any indictments or investigations? Surely with all of the videos around, the prosecutors' offices could easily identify the looters, the arsonists, etc.? So, where are those trials?
I came across this quotation from Calvin Coolidge, who I'm coming to believe is a much maligned and underrated President. "Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." Hey, haven't I blogged about that, the government stealing our earnings? What is it called when people take something that's yours without your permission?????? Right. I know it was O.W. Holmes who penned, "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society" and Madison who wrote "The power to tax people and their property is essential to the very existence of government." OK, I understand all that. But Ronald Reagan said, "The problem isn't that we are taxed too little. The problem is that the government spends too much." Amen. And here we have Obama, the Chief Hypocrite (Is that one of the hats Presidents now wear?), still blathering about "fairness." What does a guy who's been handed everything in his life, most undeserved, know about "fairness?"
Who was it, Pogo, who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us......"
Again, who didn't see this one coming? Wasn't it just last week that Bill Clinton had a 45-minute meeting with Loretta Lynch? But the First Abuser and Attorney General claimed they didn't say a word about the e-mails. And because Clinton has such a spotless record when it comes to telling the truth, we all believe that--right?
Furthermore, isn't there a rumor coming out of DC that, when elected (more on that in a minute), Clinton will keep Lynch on as AG. "Extremely careless," but no prosecution.....
BTW, a recent poll gave takers three choices: Clinton, Trump, or a giant meteor crashing into the earth. Clinton rec'd 43% of the vote and Trump 38%. The crashing meteor scored 13%. Hmmm......
I understand the people calling for gun control. I really do. Now I do think that they are misguided and very much misinformed. To gain much credibility with me, they have to get the facts straight, which they often don't. I think I've posted on that before. But I wonder when someone will have the guts to ask about the mindset that has permeated American society where so many people thinks it's just fine to shoot someone--for a pair of shoes or to hijack a car, because someone has been "dissed," etc. Why don't we focus on the people, dare I say scum, who drive by houses and riddle the living rooms with bullets, far too often killing innocent people, esp kids? Why do I constantly hear and read of the "need" to restrict gun ownership/possession, but never is there any consideration for the scum who hold others' lives, esp the lives of little ones, with such little regard? Instead of getting rid of guns, which don't shoot themselves, why don't we get rid of the shooters?
Speaking of that, in a local community a police officer was fired for overly aggressive actions taken against a perpetrator. Let's look at this one. The felon was caught breaking and entering and robbing people's homes. The off-duty officer who beat him had arrested the scum, not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times for, you guessed it, breaking and entering and robbing people's homes. First, why was this felon still on the streets? Second, I have no problem with the off-duty officer beating the guy. If he didn't want to get beaten, he shouldn't have been stealing from other people. Perhaps it's just me, but shame on the police chief who fired the officer. He should have been given a medal. And the Wayne County sheriff is having a hard time filling openings even though offering $29,000 salaries??????
Which reminds me...... Didn't one of the officers who was involved in the death of that drug dealer in Baltimore have his day in court--and was found not guilty? Oh the protests! But where were the protests over the burning and looting of other people's property in the wake of the drug dealer's death? Where was the concern for the people then? Where were the civil rights leaders then? Ah, but maybe those whose businesses were destroyed or whose homes were burned to the ground understood that all this was for the "greater good?" Yeah, right. Whose "greater good?" Where are the trials for the looters, the arsonists, etc.? In fact, where there even any indictments or investigations? Surely with all of the videos around, the prosecutors' offices could easily identify the looters, the arsonists, etc.? So, where are those trials?
I came across this quotation from Calvin Coolidge, who I'm coming to believe is a much maligned and underrated President. "Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." Hey, haven't I blogged about that, the government stealing our earnings? What is it called when people take something that's yours without your permission?????? Right. I know it was O.W. Holmes who penned, "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society" and Madison who wrote "The power to tax people and their property is essential to the very existence of government." OK, I understand all that. But Ronald Reagan said, "The problem isn't that we are taxed too little. The problem is that the government spends too much." Amen. And here we have Obama, the Chief Hypocrite (Is that one of the hats Presidents now wear?), still blathering about "fairness." What does a guy who's been handed everything in his life, most undeserved, know about "fairness?"
Who was it, Pogo, who said, "We have met the enemy and he is us......"
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Professional Sports
There were a couple of things in today's newspaper that explained a lot why I don't really follow professional sports any more. Yeah, I know, "Then why were you reading the sports section?" I do read it, maybe two or three times a week. But that's about it. Oh, I used to be a big fan of all three Detroit teams, the Tigers, Lions, Red Wings, and Pistons. Now, of the four, only the Tigers get my passing attention. I think that's because of baseball, which I still think, if played right, is a terrific game to watch. Also, there's the Miguel Cabrera factor; I enjoy watching him hit a baseball. Going down to Tiger Stadium (or whatever it's called) is still a fun time.
One of the things was an article on the Tigers, specifically the mediocrity of their outfielders' arms. I will have to plead ignorance to that. I don't know what kind of arms they have, but if it's brought up, maybe there's something to it. In some ways, I think strong outfield arms are overrated, esp relative to other aspects of playing the outfield. Of course, that might be because I had a very average arm when I played.
But what struck me was this, the number of coaches. The article mentioned the outfielders' coach and then a defensive coach/coordinator (Yes, "coordinator" and this is the Tigers, not the Lions). I'm assuming that there is a pitching coach, a catching coach, a bullpen coach, an infielders' coach, a hitting coach, and a bench coach. Can we include the ubiquitous (with every sport now!) strength and training coach? Did I miss any?
At Michael's baseball banquet, like his basketball banquet, there were two coaches, at least, for every level--varsity, junior varsity, freshman. And this was high school ball! Back when, I was the varsity baseball coach and there was a JV coach and a freshman coach--one for every level. Coaching football, there were three varsity coaches, two JV coaches, and two freshman coaches. I'll bet if we checked high school football coaching staffs today, we would find at least 5 or 6 coaches for football, on the varsity level alone. I guess, with all of these coaches, we can assume that the players are getting better coaching/teaching?????? I think my question marks tell my thoughts on that.
The other article focused on contracts recently signed by NHL and NBA players. OK, I'm sure I know a lot of folks who disagree with me, but to give some of these guys millions, tens of millions of dollars a year to play hockey or basketball (or any professional sport) is ridiculous. I know how talented these guys are, the best in the world. I know some of them have worked very hard to achieve what they have. And I don't at all begrudge the players. Who wouldn't take the money? And if people want to continue to support the salaries by purchasing tickets, sports wear, etc, by patronizing sponsors, good for them. I harbor no gripes. It just all seems ridiculous in light of my next paragraph.
For more than a month now, the Wayne County Sheriff's Department is advertising for recruits. Like some other positions, apparently there is a shortage. And, touting the job, the starting pay is included: $29,000 a year! You read that right--$29,000 to deal with scum, to have every doo-gooder (and I mean "doo") waiting for the slightest misstep (until the "doo-gooders" need police help!), to put their lives on the line every day, to take heat from the media and politicians, etc. And compare this $29,000 to the millions, the tens of millions professional athletes are getting. Let's toss in another job and pay: teachers. The average, state by state, is pathetic. (I know what you are thinking, some of my past blog posts. Yep, bad teachers, and there are more of them than most of us would like to admit, don't even deserve this starting pay. But there are some good and great ones out there. Their pay, even with the step raises they get, is misguided and downright stupid.) Do a check of starting teacher pay by state. Most are in the low to mid $30,000 range. I think DC and NJ are close to $50K. A handful of others are in the $40,000s, but not many. But even those are offset by several still in the upper $20.000s. I was out with several teachers a short while ago, current and retired. One of those NBA guys (actually far more than one of them and just the ones who signed recently, not the entire gamut) makes more in a year than all 8 of us did throughout our decades-long careers. (The total had to be in well in excess of 250 years cumulative teaching. Eight times 30 years equal 240--I used my calculator. And I myself already have 45 years in.) I don't at all, to repeat, the athletes for taking the money. I would; who wouldn't? I think society has values that are all messed up.
One of the things was an article on the Tigers, specifically the mediocrity of their outfielders' arms. I will have to plead ignorance to that. I don't know what kind of arms they have, but if it's brought up, maybe there's something to it. In some ways, I think strong outfield arms are overrated, esp relative to other aspects of playing the outfield. Of course, that might be because I had a very average arm when I played.
But what struck me was this, the number of coaches. The article mentioned the outfielders' coach and then a defensive coach/coordinator (Yes, "coordinator" and this is the Tigers, not the Lions). I'm assuming that there is a pitching coach, a catching coach, a bullpen coach, an infielders' coach, a hitting coach, and a bench coach. Can we include the ubiquitous (with every sport now!) strength and training coach? Did I miss any?
At Michael's baseball banquet, like his basketball banquet, there were two coaches, at least, for every level--varsity, junior varsity, freshman. And this was high school ball! Back when, I was the varsity baseball coach and there was a JV coach and a freshman coach--one for every level. Coaching football, there were three varsity coaches, two JV coaches, and two freshman coaches. I'll bet if we checked high school football coaching staffs today, we would find at least 5 or 6 coaches for football, on the varsity level alone. I guess, with all of these coaches, we can assume that the players are getting better coaching/teaching?????? I think my question marks tell my thoughts on that.
The other article focused on contracts recently signed by NHL and NBA players. OK, I'm sure I know a lot of folks who disagree with me, but to give some of these guys millions, tens of millions of dollars a year to play hockey or basketball (or any professional sport) is ridiculous. I know how talented these guys are, the best in the world. I know some of them have worked very hard to achieve what they have. And I don't at all begrudge the players. Who wouldn't take the money? And if people want to continue to support the salaries by purchasing tickets, sports wear, etc, by patronizing sponsors, good for them. I harbor no gripes. It just all seems ridiculous in light of my next paragraph.
For more than a month now, the Wayne County Sheriff's Department is advertising for recruits. Like some other positions, apparently there is a shortage. And, touting the job, the starting pay is included: $29,000 a year! You read that right--$29,000 to deal with scum, to have every doo-gooder (and I mean "doo") waiting for the slightest misstep (until the "doo-gooders" need police help!), to put their lives on the line every day, to take heat from the media and politicians, etc. And compare this $29,000 to the millions, the tens of millions professional athletes are getting. Let's toss in another job and pay: teachers. The average, state by state, is pathetic. (I know what you are thinking, some of my past blog posts. Yep, bad teachers, and there are more of them than most of us would like to admit, don't even deserve this starting pay. But there are some good and great ones out there. Their pay, even with the step raises they get, is misguided and downright stupid.) Do a check of starting teacher pay by state. Most are in the low to mid $30,000 range. I think DC and NJ are close to $50K. A handful of others are in the $40,000s, but not many. But even those are offset by several still in the upper $20.000s. I was out with several teachers a short while ago, current and retired. One of those NBA guys (actually far more than one of them and just the ones who signed recently, not the entire gamut) makes more in a year than all 8 of us did throughout our decades-long careers. (The total had to be in well in excess of 250 years cumulative teaching. Eight times 30 years equal 240--I used my calculator. And I myself already have 45 years in.) I don't at all, to repeat, the athletes for taking the money. I would; who wouldn't? I think society has values that are all messed up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
